Apple is free to obtain a license from MS and implement it, just like dozens of other makers of portable media devices. On the other hand, Apple refuses to license FairPlay to others (except Motorola in a very limited way), even if they are willing to pay
And Apple is free to not license their products if they don't wish to do so. What's your point?
I guess the US-based Amazon.com (and other US stores) is breaking the rules by selling the iRiver T60...
No, don't be a jackass. Amazon wouldn't be breaking the rules, but assuming the GP's facts are accurate, then the manufacturers would be (if they agreed to the PlaysForSure certification)
Getting farther and farther off-topic here, but the most simplistic reason is that charity works against factors that cause problems for every member of society, first and foremost disease and poverty (which is a large contributor to another big problem - crime). There are other, more indirect benefits as well, but it still surprises me that such a large number of the people at the top can't understand how having a country full of healthy, happy, thriving people is as beneficial to them as it is to anyone else.
I also find it strange that you see charitable atheists as a contradiction (although charitable christians I could probably grant you), unless you assume reward/punishment in the afterlife is the only motivation for good deeds?
Wouldn't that technically be interfering with the speakers, and not the radio? Unless you're transmitting on cell freqs with your instrumentation (which I hope to god isn't the case) then it's just the speakers...although I can see how that still wouldn't be a good thing on a cloudy night.
I don't even have T-Mobile (I'm with AT&T, although not getting an iPhone just yet) but I have to imagine there's some kind of "get out early" clause in that agreement - if Apple ends up able to make more money by breaking the deal and offering additional carriers than they would by sticking with AT&T I'd assume it's likely they would.
And just to throw in my $.02, I've had pretty a good experience with AT&T coverage so far, and surprisingly a very good customer service experience with them.
Isn't this kind of like calling it an "outrage" that Amazon prints out my full name and home address and slaps it on the package that I ordered from them right there in the open in plain English where anyone could just read it! Holy damnit Christmas, what if someone stole that box? They'd know my name!
Seriously, if there had been something important added, like credit card numbers, that might have been an outrage. This is a tempest in a teapot.
Since you asked for only a single instance, then yes, look at useit.com, which consists of - wait for it - plain text. I'm not going to go digging through articles to prove a point, but I'll thank you to not accuse me of blindly repeating someone else's opinion. I've been reading his articles for years, despite the fact that I disagree with him. Often. I'll grant you one point - he's sometimes pragmatic enough to admit that you often can't completely remove graphics and aesthetics, but his message seems to me to be that if you tip the scales 100% toward usability, you'll strip out the design and stick with plain text. That overcompensation for the over-the-top designers is my biggest beef with him. I'll be the first to agree, there's a lot of bad design out there, but the solution isn't to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Usability and design go hand in hand - separating them is missing the point.
Clearly you don't understand that there's more to graphic and information design than "making things pretty." Good design is about communication first and foremost, and I'd argue that Nielsen's site is a good example of taking his principles to the extremes - he abandons graphical elements in an attempt to increase "usability," but in doing so he's left with a big, nearly undifferentiated page of text.
Despite the constant references to him and his ideas, I think Nielsen is highly overrated. I agree that unnecessary graphic elements can get in the way of your message, but his solution is usually to remove *all* graphic elements and stick with plain dark text on a light background. Good design is about conveying an idea or information cleanly and clearly, and often "making it look pretty" can go a long way toward that goal. More often than not, "usability" seems to just mean "get rid of the images."
You could, but those all quickly become cumbersome, especially when writing casually. When I was going through school, writing classes taught me to use "she" when a person's gender was unknown, but I failed to see how that was any better seeing as you were still going to be wrong nearly half the time. If I'm still going to be wrong that often, I might as well just use my own gender.
I'm no Constitutional scholar, but the wording of the 5th Amendment would seem to say to me that the requirement for a Grand Jury can be exempted during time of war, but not the "due process of law" part. Have there been precedents that say otherwise?
It may also seem fair to a new user to highlight a file and type out "O-P-E-N- -T-H-I-S", but an OS can't take into account each individual's cognitive preferences and respond accordingly. That's why a UI uses compromises designed to make certain actions easy and accessible without making other (usually destructive) actions too easy and accessible. But if you're starting out and don't know anything, you still have to read some instructions.
I guess you've never used your trash can as a limited term deposit (as a just in case) and a permanent delete for files you know you don't want.
No, no I haven't. I use the trash can as a place to put files I want to get rid of, knowing that if I accidentally trash something I can still get it before I go in and empty the trash myself. A keyboard shortcut for immediate, permanent deletion sounds like a good way to lose a file you didn't really mean to.
And to reply to your previous post, personally I'd much rather hit Return to rename a file and CMD-O to open it. I'm willing to admit that one may come down more on personal preference, but I really have to argue against Windows having a quicker and cleaner system of shortcuts.
Because if you've done any research into how someone actually uses the interface instead of how they think they use it best, you'll find that a single menu bar at the top of the screen has an "infinite" height, meaning you can throw the cursor toward the top of the screen and never worry about overshooting an item in the up direction. It doesn't sound like it would make much difference, but it does.
As for the delete key, I guess you just never make mistakes?
I agree the AC reply was a bit harsh, but despite that I have to agree with the general sentiment, if not the specifics. It's become a typical/. cliche to rant against anything with the slightest hint of restriction attached. However, you don't agree to a license when you buy a book, or a CD, or a movie. You really, honest-to-god own that copy. Copyright law, which is not a license, no matter what people on/. may really want to believe, says you aren't allowed to make copies (except for some very specific instances). So yes, if you purchased a song you'd own that copy of the song. You'd be free to sell it to whomever you want at whatever price you could get, you just wouldn't be able to (legally) keep a copy for yourself once you've sold it.
Hey, I could be wrong, but I didn't think that you could "buy up" a Google ad word. I assumed that you'd buy an ad and specify keyword(s), but that doesn't mean that yours is the only result for that keyword. You're also not taking into account that the Google ads are separate from, and not displayed as prominently as, the search results. To use your analogy, it would be like the phone company allowing your competitor to buy an ad on the same page as your phone listing. You're welcome to buy an ad from them too, and their ad isn't "covering up" your listing.
I'm not a lawyer either, but the only thing you agree to when you purchase a DVD is to give the store an amount or money equal to the price of the DVD. There's no "license" as you claim, and you haven't agreed to terms that describe what you can or can't do. Copyright restrictions are a result of laws which prohibit you from making copies, but don't confuse that with some kind of a license or contract.
The first explanation that I thought of was that after a few months, they'll have very clear data showing how many people purchased DRM'ed tracks at $.99 vs. how many spent the extra $.30 for the non-DRM tracks. Assuming the results are positive, Jobs can then take that sales data to the other labels as incentive to get them to drop DRM from their libraries as well.
Not to knock anyone for encouraging the labels to drop DRM, but really? "They informed everyone"?? Go walk around on a busy street one afternoon and do a random survey - tell me how many people outside of/. know what DRM is, much less why they should avoid purchasing DRM'ed media. I think you're putting too much credit/blame the wrong places.
Except if they still require punishment for their crime, why release them from prison? Prison should be the punishment, not deprivation of basic rights.
I agree that if you have a case of someone infringing your copyrights, you still have a case whether you sue immediately or not. It was my understanding (and I've long forgot the source) that just as there's a provision for "innocent infringement", there are provisions against holding off on bringing a suit just so you can claim higher damages. I'm sure your attorney will give you much better (and accurate) advice than I could though.:)
Because it's my understanding that if Google can demonstrate that the plaintiff knew of the infringement but were just waiting around for someone with deeper pockets to buy YouTube before suing, that really hurts Viacom's case. If you're infringing on my copyrighted material, I can't sit quietly for 2 years until you hit it big and then claim 2 years worth of damages. Then again, IANAL, so take this with a grain of salt.
Slashdot Mirror
And Apple is free to not license their products if they don't wish to do so. What's your point?
No, don't be a jackass. Amazon wouldn't be breaking the rules, but assuming the GP's facts are accurate, then the manufacturers would be (if they agreed to the PlaysForSure certification)
Getting farther and farther off-topic here, but the most simplistic reason is that charity works against factors that cause problems for every member of society, first and foremost disease and poverty (which is a large contributor to another big problem - crime). There are other, more indirect benefits as well, but it still surprises me that such a large number of the people at the top can't understand how having a country full of healthy, happy, thriving people is as beneficial to them as it is to anyone else. I also find it strange that you see charitable atheists as a contradiction (although charitable christians I could probably grant you), unless you assume reward/punishment in the afterlife is the only motivation for good deeds?
Wouldn't that technically be interfering with the speakers, and not the radio? Unless you're transmitting on cell freqs with your instrumentation (which I hope to god isn't the case) then it's just the speakers...although I can see how that still wouldn't be a good thing on a cloudy night.
I don't even have T-Mobile (I'm with AT&T, although not getting an iPhone just yet) but I have to imagine there's some kind of "get out early" clause in that agreement - if Apple ends up able to make more money by breaking the deal and offering additional carriers than they would by sticking with AT&T I'd assume it's likely they would.
And just to throw in my $.02, I've had pretty a good experience with AT&T coverage so far, and surprisingly a very good customer service experience with them.
Does that mean you also wonder why McCain has yet to follow through and commit suicide, since the Dems won over 50% of the House and Senate in '06?
Isn't this kind of like calling it an "outrage" that Amazon prints out my full name and home address and slaps it on the package that I ordered from them right there in the open in plain English where anyone could just read it! Holy damnit Christmas, what if someone stole that box? They'd know my name!
Seriously, if there had been something important added, like credit card numbers, that might have been an outrage. This is a tempest in a teapot.
Unless it's dark - in that case, your book isn't going to do you a whole lot of good without a power source either :)
Since you asked for only a single instance, then yes, look at useit.com, which consists of - wait for it - plain text. I'm not going to go digging through articles to prove a point, but I'll thank you to not accuse me of blindly repeating someone else's opinion. I've been reading his articles for years, despite the fact that I disagree with him. Often. I'll grant you one point - he's sometimes pragmatic enough to admit that you often can't completely remove graphics and aesthetics, but his message seems to me to be that if you tip the scales 100% toward usability, you'll strip out the design and stick with plain text. That overcompensation for the over-the-top designers is my biggest beef with him. I'll be the first to agree, there's a lot of bad design out there, but the solution isn't to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Usability and design go hand in hand - separating them is missing the point.
Clearly you don't understand that there's more to graphic and information design than "making things pretty." Good design is about communication first and foremost, and I'd argue that Nielsen's site is a good example of taking his principles to the extremes - he abandons graphical elements in an attempt to increase "usability," but in doing so he's left with a big, nearly undifferentiated page of text.
Despite the constant references to him and his ideas, I think Nielsen is highly overrated. I agree that unnecessary graphic elements can get in the way of your message, but his solution is usually to remove *all* graphic elements and stick with plain dark text on a light background. Good design is about conveying an idea or information cleanly and clearly, and often "making it look pretty" can go a long way toward that goal. More often than not, "usability" seems to just mean "get rid of the images."
You could, but those all quickly become cumbersome, especially when writing casually. When I was going through school, writing classes taught me to use "she" when a person's gender was unknown, but I failed to see how that was any better seeing as you were still going to be wrong nearly half the time. If I'm still going to be wrong that often, I might as well just use my own gender.
I'm no Constitutional scholar, but the wording of the 5th Amendment would seem to say to me that the requirement for a Grand Jury can be exempted during time of war, but not the "due process of law" part. Have there been precedents that say otherwise?
It may also seem fair to a new user to highlight a file and type out "O-P-E-N- -T-H-I-S", but an OS can't take into account each individual's cognitive preferences and respond accordingly. That's why a UI uses compromises designed to make certain actions easy and accessible without making other (usually destructive) actions too easy and accessible. But if you're starting out and don't know anything, you still have to read some instructions.
No, no I haven't. I use the trash can as a place to put files I want to get rid of, knowing that if I accidentally trash something I can still get it before I go in and empty the trash myself. A keyboard shortcut for immediate, permanent deletion sounds like a good way to lose a file you didn't really mean to.
And to reply to your previous post, personally I'd much rather hit Return to rename a file and CMD-O to open it. I'm willing to admit that one may come down more on personal preference, but I really have to argue against Windows having a quicker and cleaner system of shortcuts.
Because if you've done any research into how someone actually uses the interface instead of how they think they use it best, you'll find that a single menu bar at the top of the screen has an "infinite" height, meaning you can throw the cursor toward the top of the screen and never worry about overshooting an item in the up direction. It doesn't sound like it would make much difference, but it does.
As for the delete key, I guess you just never make mistakes?
I agree the AC reply was a bit harsh, but despite that I have to agree with the general sentiment, if not the specifics. It's become a typical /. cliche to rant against anything with the slightest hint of restriction attached. However, you don't agree to a license when you buy a book, or a CD, or a movie. You really, honest-to-god own that copy. Copyright law, which is not a license, no matter what people on /. may really want to believe, says you aren't allowed to make copies (except for some very specific instances). So yes, if you purchased a song you'd own that copy of the song. You'd be free to sell it to whomever you want at whatever price you could get, you just wouldn't be able to (legally) keep a copy for yourself once you've sold it.
Considering his financial status, you might want to hear what Mr. Howell tells his stock broker.
Hey, I could be wrong, but I didn't think that you could "buy up" a Google ad word. I assumed that you'd buy an ad and specify keyword(s), but that doesn't mean that yours is the only result for that keyword. You're also not taking into account that the Google ads are separate from, and not displayed as prominently as, the search results. To use your analogy, it would be like the phone company allowing your competitor to buy an ad on the same page as your phone listing. You're welcome to buy an ad from them too, and their ad isn't "covering up" your listing.
I'm not a lawyer either, but the only thing you agree to when you purchase a DVD is to give the store an amount or money equal to the price of the DVD. There's no "license" as you claim, and you haven't agreed to terms that describe what you can or can't do. Copyright restrictions are a result of laws which prohibit you from making copies, but don't confuse that with some kind of a license or contract.
You might want to take a closer look at Han's pistol before you say that...
The first explanation that I thought of was that after a few months, they'll have very clear data showing how many people purchased DRM'ed tracks at $.99 vs. how many spent the extra $.30 for the non-DRM tracks. Assuming the results are positive, Jobs can then take that sales data to the other labels as incentive to get them to drop DRM from their libraries as well.
Not to knock anyone for encouraging the labels to drop DRM, but really? "They informed everyone"?? Go walk around on a busy street one afternoon and do a random survey - tell me how many people outside of /. know what DRM is, much less why they should avoid purchasing DRM'ed media. I think you're putting too much credit/blame the wrong places.
Except if they still require punishment for their crime, why release them from prison? Prison should be the punishment, not deprivation of basic rights.
I agree that if you have a case of someone infringing your copyrights, you still have a case whether you sue immediately or not. It was my understanding (and I've long forgot the source) that just as there's a provision for "innocent infringement", there are provisions against holding off on bringing a suit just so you can claim higher damages. I'm sure your attorney will give you much better (and accurate) advice than I could though. :)
Because it's my understanding that if Google can demonstrate that the plaintiff knew of the infringement but were just waiting around for someone with deeper pockets to buy YouTube before suing, that really hurts Viacom's case. If you're infringing on my copyrighted material, I can't sit quietly for 2 years until you hit it big and then claim 2 years worth of damages. Then again, IANAL, so take this with a grain of salt.