I take issue with the idea of any limitation being "artificial" vs. "natural" when it comes to digital media. If a company designs a solution to be restrictive... then it's restrictive. It doesn't matter if it's because of a huge architecture difference, or some kind of subtle DRM.
If the only difference between the PS2 and XBox format was a single bit on the DVD, do you think Either company should be forced by congress to change their bit so it can plan on someone else's machine?
All limitations are artificial, unless there is some kind of naturally occurring audio format that grows on trees. (heh... tree... Apple... heh.)
My point was that a "blog" is nothing more than a website. A good old fashioned website, same thing that's been around long before the word 'blog' existed.
This is an excellent question. I remember back in the day when there was this thing called a "home page" that you "updated." You might have had a "news" section or a "what's new" part that had pictures of your cat. Maybe even a "guestbook."
I still haven't been able to tell what makes a blog any different. I guess if it's whiney and useless enough, it qualifies as a blog.
"Maybe if he pitched it as a reality show, a la The Apprentice. That might be entertaining..."
Nowthat qualifies as a disturbing vision. What would a bunch of trekkies be fighting for the chance to be? Captain of an imaginary starship? Chance to date a woman? A shower? Associate producer of the next doomed Trek series?
I never said it (the law, or the way it was enacted) was right, but screaming about "the government" takes the focus away from the people that are actually pushing for the laws.
The DMCA was not designed to put the government's nose into every aspect of your life. I was designed by content providers/creators to help them enforce their perceived rights as copyright owners in the face of what they saw as an attack.
It's not The Big Bad Government trying to nose its way into our lives, it's one group of people (content providers/owners) trying to make sure that what they perceive as their best interests are protected through the law.
That doesn't make it right of course, but you should really direct your ire at the right people, it's much more constructive.
What kind of value is there is "studying" a law of this kind. I don't see how you can study a concept as vague as "the value of a network" expressed in some kind of abstract numbers that have no bearing on anything.
"The public has a legitimate interest in the content of Apple's marketing plan"
You're essentially saying that any public company can not have any private research & development. Anything they are developing should be public knowledge because they are publicly traded. Can't you see how ridiculous that is? A company absolutely has a reasonable expectation that its trade secrets and future plans be kept secret to the general public (and therefor, competition)
So your claim is that any product that uses any OSS project for part of its functionality should have to release the entire project, no matter what part that OSS piece played in the development? If I use Apache to do web serving on a widget I develop, and nothing more, I should release the code that has nothing to do with web serving?
I've seen a few comments like this, but the reality is that Jef and Steve weren't exactly close. Iirc Jef was fired shortly before the Mac shipped. He's always been very quick to point out his connection to the first Mac (for obvious reasons) but I've never heard of anyone at Apple talking about him as a pioneer or a VIP. If Woz died, I'm sure there would be something from Apple PR about it, but this guy was no Woz.
You're absolutely right, but my point was that any discussion of which one is faster is purely academic, they are both more than fast enough to deal with the slow iPod hard drive.
I see no real advantages to using firewire. "Firewire is faster" is a complete non-issue, since the hard drive(s) in the iPod(s) are not fast enough to keep up with either interface. Comparing the theoretical or real world speed of the two is just wasted breath.
USB ports are more ubiquitous on most machines, especially since the product is 100% cross platform now. Even on my Macs, I have quite a few more USB ports than firewire ones, which means less swapping when I want to plug my camcorder, iPod, iSight, and hard drive in at the same time. And if it can charge just as well over USB, I could care less that it's not firewire.
Maroon 5: The fact that they are successful suddenly makes them crap? I forgot, selling records make you suck They put out Songs About Jane in 2002. The fact that it is a really good album is what made it succeed, not some plot by the labels to push "crap." New bands like Maroon 5 disprove your point that the industry is running out of options.
Green Day: Retreaded? Once again, people like to slam green day as not being punk because they're popular. Nevermind that they continue to put out good songs.
Ray Charles: He died less than 9 months ago. The RIAA didn't trot out a corpse to sell records, he recorded (obviously) and released the album before he died.
Can you even fathom that these people are musicians and not just pawns of the RIAA? They work hard (none harder than Ray) and try to get as many people as they can to hear their art. And then some pissant like you dismisses them as crap because they happen to be popular.
Your opinions on music are not the only ones that matter (shocking!) The fact you feel like Maroon 5 is crap, Green Day is re-treaded, and Ray Charles' album is a publicity stunt doesn't change the fact that they are all really good artists, and really good albums. But it's your loss for not appreciating them.
Google's business model is not based around the traditional 468x60 banner ad. I don't think that they see them as something to aspire to. As a lot of companies are now seeing, the traditional approach to online ad sales is dying.
Except that the torrent tracking sites don't expressly know that the files represent a copyright infringement. In this case the person was linking to files he knew (and evidently could be proven that he knew) would be illegal to download.
The torrent sites have a very slim chance of pleading ignorance the same way that any community message board or service can plead ignorance to what's being posted. Of course, the **AA will come back and say that they need to make a reasonable effort to make sure copyrighted material isn't posted.
Slashdot Mirror
If the only difference between the PS2 and XBox format was a single bit on the DVD, do you think Either company should be forced by congress to change their bit so it can plan on someone else's machine?
All limitations are artificial, unless there is some kind of naturally occurring audio format that grows on trees. (heh... tree... Apple... heh.)
My point was that a "blog" is nothing more than a website. A good old fashioned website, same thing that's been around long before the word 'blog' existed.
I still haven't been able to tell what makes a blog any different. I guess if it's whiney and useless enough, it qualifies as a blog.
There's a huge difference between 95% of firms not delivering a project ontime, and 95% of all projects being late.
Don't be silly, we're only killing the terrerists over there.
Nowthat qualifies as a disturbing vision. What would a bunch of trekkies be fighting for the chance to be? Captain of an imaginary starship? Chance to date a woman? A shower? Associate producer of the next doomed Trek series?
I never said it (the law, or the way it was enacted) was right, but screaming about "the government" takes the focus away from the people that are actually pushing for the laws.
That should answer your question.
The DMCA was not designed to put the government's nose into every aspect of your life. I was designed by content providers/creators to help them enforce their perceived rights as copyright owners in the face of what they saw as an attack.
It's not The Big Bad Government trying to nose its way into our lives, it's one group of people (content providers/owners) trying to make sure that what they perceive as their best interests are protected through the law.
That doesn't make it right of course, but you should really direct your ire at the right people, it's much more constructive.
In case you're just joining the world of OS X, Tiger isn't the first version of it to have a unix-core.
The pun in your title alone is worth serious +Funny mod points. I would have you given some, but I'd rather comment and give you mad props directly.
What kind of value is there is "studying" a law of this kind. I don't see how you can study a concept as vague as "the value of a network" expressed in some kind of abstract numbers that have no bearing on anything.
When everyone hates you, no one bothers to create a site to mention it.
Why you gotta go and bring logic into this? You're ruining slashdot for the rest of us >:(
You're essentially saying that any public company can not have any private research & development. Anything they are developing should be public knowledge because they are publicly traded. Can't you see how ridiculous that is? A company absolutely has a reasonable expectation that its trade secrets and future plans be kept secret to the general public (and therefor, competition)
So your claim is that any product that uses any OSS project for part of its functionality should have to release the entire project, no matter what part that OSS piece played in the development? If I use Apache to do web serving on a widget I develop, and nothing more, I should release the code that has nothing to do with web serving?
Maybe that's what they're testing right now. :)
I've seen a few comments like this, but the reality is that Jef and Steve weren't exactly close. Iirc Jef was fired shortly before the Mac shipped. He's always been very quick to point out his connection to the first Mac (for obvious reasons) but I've never heard of anyone at Apple talking about him as a pioneer or a VIP. If Woz died, I'm sure there would be something from Apple PR about it, but this guy was no Woz.
You're absolutely right, but my point was that any discussion of which one is faster is purely academic, they are both more than fast enough to deal with the slow iPod hard drive.
I see no real advantages to using firewire. "Firewire is faster" is a complete non-issue, since the hard drive(s) in the iPod(s) are not fast enough to keep up with either interface. Comparing the theoretical or real world speed of the two is just wasted breath. USB ports are more ubiquitous on most machines, especially since the product is 100% cross platform now. Even on my Macs, I have quite a few more USB ports than firewire ones, which means less swapping when I want to plug my camcorder, iPod, iSight, and hard drive in at the same time. And if it can charge just as well over USB, I could care less that it's not firewire.
I'm guessing he paid less than the price of a new one. That is the (glaringly obvious) reason that people buy used things, for the most part.
Maroon 5: The fact that they are successful suddenly makes them crap? I forgot, selling records make you suck They put out Songs About Jane in 2002. The fact that it is a really good album is what made it succeed, not some plot by the labels to push "crap." New bands like Maroon 5 disprove your point that the industry is running out of options.
Green Day: Retreaded? Once again, people like to slam green day as not being punk because they're popular. Nevermind that they continue to put out good songs. Ray Charles: He died less than 9 months ago. The RIAA didn't trot out a corpse to sell records, he recorded (obviously) and released the album before he died.
Can you even fathom that these people are musicians and not just pawns of the RIAA? They work hard (none harder than Ray) and try to get as many people as they can to hear their art. And then some pissant like you dismisses them as crap because they happen to be popular.
Your opinions on music are not the only ones that matter (shocking!) The fact you feel like Maroon 5 is crap, Green Day is re-treaded, and Ray Charles' album is a publicity stunt doesn't change the fact that they are all really good artists, and really good albums. But it's your loss for not appreciating them.
Actually both sides of the powerbook are covered in ports.
Google's business model is not based around the traditional 468x60 banner ad. I don't think that they see them as something to aspire to. As a lot of companies are now seeing, the traditional approach to online ad sales is dying.
The torrent sites have a very slim chance of pleading ignorance the same way that any community message board or service can plead ignorance to what's being posted. Of course, the **AA will come back and say that they need to make a reasonable effort to make sure copyrighted material isn't posted.