However, why should people have to change how they use the internet?
They shouldn't.
If blogs really are disrupting Google search results, then shouldn't it be the service provider (i.e. google) that adapts to how the internet is being used?
Yes. However I wasn't saying people should stop blogging, I was explaining one big reason why people I know are bloghaters right now.
I have nothing against Islam, but the reality is that (aside from your crazed lunatic every decade or so), Christians aren't strapping bombs to themselves and their children and sending them into crowds of innocent people to kill them in the name of religion.
Where is the Muslim outrage against these extremists? I don't see it, even from the so-called moderates.
If the KKK (Christian extremists) were lynching people still, you can guarantee you'd have Christians across the country outraged by this and telling everyone.
Of course the choir likes to hear the preaching, the point in using the phrase is that it is largely a waste of time... the choir is already 'converted' or they wouldn't be there. You should be preaching to the folks outside, not the ones already inside 'the church.'
I doubt it's as nice as what Apple has, but it's nowhere near as dramatic as you're making it out top be.
Actually, it's pretty damn close. The grandparent is either mistaken or outright lying. On hardware with no physical eject button, such as my CF card reader, you have to click on the mounted volume and 'eject' it, just as you do in Windows. Otherwise you get a nice error message telling you data might be corrupted on the CF card (just as it does in Windows).
On the far left-wing you've got the Communists. Then coming towards center you've got the Democrats. Then in the center you've got the Libertarians and the Totalitarians. Then into the right-wing the Republicans. Then to the far right-wing you've got the Fascism.
Who knows? Currently the driving forces behind deeming media displays as indecent are powerful government lobbies from conservative right-wingers who believe that the world should be sugar and spice.
Wrong. The driving force behind this latest craziness is Democrat Michael Copp. Do some research before spouting this bullshit.
Powell might want to fine companies, but Copp actually wants to take away FCC licenses based on "decency" standards in order to put a scare into the broadcasters.
Right-wing, indeed. "You'd like to think that, wouldn't you?!"
The difference is the Constitution charges the government with the protection of the citizens of the United States, not of their ears and what they can hear or not by pushing a button.
Without the FCC, enforcement of spectrum allocations would be left to other bodies that already don't have the resources to understand things like Internet crime.
No, they would be left to the companies being affected by whatever misuse is worth reporting to the FCC now. Those companies would have a vested interest (presumably) in protecting their 'real estate', and would sue you for trespassing on their property. The market is far better at regulating than a government body. Case in point: everything ever done in history.
And who is going to take the time to track me down?
First, ask yourself, who will track you down now? Law enforcement, because you're violating federal government laws.
And once they find me, who is going to arrest me?
In the argument put forth here, a company owns this 'real estate', and would therefore be the ones to track you down and SUE YOU in court. Not arrest you.
Who will assess all of this?
Courts of law.
First and foremost, who is going to prevent manufacture of devices like this?
Hopefully manufacturer of devices that can be used to break the law will be legal, so long as those devices have legitimate uses.
It's wireless. Most people who use a wireless network are on laptops. You don't need a remote. That's the point.
No, that's YOUR point.
THE point is this new device lets you stream iTunes music to it wirelessly. Some people want to stream it from their desktop system on another floor or room of the house. That's me. Some people want to float around their house with their laptop controlling the audio from where they are using their laptop. That's you.
People like me were looking for something with a little bit more flexibility.
You're missing the point. That means my laptop has to be the computer with everything loaded on it (all my music). I already have a server with tons of HD space with itunes on it. I don't want to load itunes on something else, I just want to control this central server from different areas.
Let's extend the idea to show why your idea doesn't work. Imagine now instead of one room I have two rooms that want to be listening to itunes music, and each room has a webpad or some other way of accessing the web. If iTunes had a web interface, both rooms could control the music in each of those rooms.
It is not clear from the information provided -- will it be able to stream to multiple locations at once? Will it be able to keep those locations in sync on the same source of music, as well as allow you to stream different playlists to different sources?
It looks like you can also use this in a wired fashion, where you connect this device to your wired network, and it will do the audio out as well. For me this would be more handy, because I already have ethernet wire to my stereo, but need a good way to get audio out of that... Is this actually how it will work?
One thing this is missing is a way to control iTunes remotely. I still think slimp3 is on the right track. A server with a web interface that lets you control what music you're playing where. I might want my PC in my office in charge of storing and dishing out the music, but have a webpad or something floating around my house to let people control what is playing where.
The picture is hilarious, but I find it funny that people think it strange that we get pictures of bush doing stupid things when he has people filming him constantly.
Slashdot Mirror
That's because the airlines only sold your social security number.
Dear God, man, we're talking about AOL screennames here!
However, why should people have to change how they use the internet?
They shouldn't.
If blogs really are disrupting Google search results, then shouldn't it be the service provider (i.e. google) that adapts to how the internet is being used?
Yes. However I wasn't saying people should stop blogging, I was explaining one big reason why people I know are bloghaters right now.
I don't understand the level of hostility against blogs. No one's putting a gun to your head and making you read them.
Apparantly you haven't tried to use Google lately.
Sorry, I forgot there was no other part of the world.
No, you just forgot where Slashdot was located.
If I'm reading a British website and they say "the nation," it doesn't take a rocket scientist to infer GB.
How dare you insert facts into this discussion?
I have nothing against Islam, but the reality is that (aside from your crazed lunatic every decade or so), Christians aren't strapping bombs to themselves and their children and sending them into crowds of innocent people to kill them in the name of religion.
Where is the Muslim outrage against these extremists? I don't see it, even from the so-called moderates.
If the KKK (Christian extremists) were lynching people still, you can guarantee you'd have Christians across the country outraged by this and telling everyone.
(P.S. I'm not religious.)
Yeah, honestly!
It's like comparing pedants with meaning-Nazi's.
Two COMPLETELY different things!
Of course the choir likes to hear the preaching, the point in using the phrase is that it is largely a waste of time... the choir is already 'converted' or they wouldn't be there. You should be preaching to the folks outside, not the ones already inside 'the church.'
I doubt it's as nice as what Apple has, but it's nowhere near as dramatic as you're making it out top be.
Actually, it's pretty damn close. The grandparent is either mistaken or outright lying. On hardware with no physical eject button, such as my CF card reader, you have to click on the mounted volume and 'eject' it, just as you do in Windows. Otherwise you get a nice error message telling you data might be corrupted on the CF card (just as it does in Windows).
Tons o' preaching to the choir in 3... 2... 1...
(This coming from a Windows/Mac user.)
.(
On the far left-wing you've got the Communists.
Then coming towards center you've got the Democrats.
Then in the center you've got the Libertarians and the Totalitarians.
Then into the right-wing the Republicans.
Then to the far right-wing you've got the Fascism.
Who knows? Currently the driving forces behind deeming media displays as indecent are powerful government lobbies from conservative right-wingers who believe that the world should be sugar and spice.
Wrong. The driving force behind this latest craziness is Democrat Michael Copp. Do some research before spouting this bullshit.
Why, here's a speech by Copp you might find enlightening. "I have been urging top-level industry attention to indecency for a long time."
Powell might want to fine companies, but Copp actually wants to take away FCC licenses based on "decency" standards in order to put a scare into the broadcasters.
Right-wing, indeed. "You'd like to think that, wouldn't you?!"
Any regulated industry that is deregulated turns into a chinese firedrill, or clusterfuck.
Any drug user made to quit using turns into a clusterfuck. Does that mean you should enable him?
Why do you think those industries were clusterfucked, because they were deregulated, or because they were regulated in the first place?
The cost of deregulating is only 'unbearable' to those that were propped up by the regulation previously. Pity.
The difference is the Constitution charges the government with the protection of the citizens of the United States, not of their ears and what they can hear or not by pushing a button.
Without the FCC, enforcement of spectrum allocations would be left to other bodies that already don't have the resources to understand things like Internet crime.
No, they would be left to the companies being affected by whatever misuse is worth reporting to the FCC now. Those companies would have a vested interest (presumably) in protecting their 'real estate', and would sue you for trespassing on their property. The market is far better at regulating than a government body. Case in point: everything ever done in history.
And who is going to take the time to track me down?
First, ask yourself, who will track you down now? Law enforcement, because you're violating federal government laws.
And once they find me, who is going to arrest me?
In the argument put forth here, a company owns this 'real estate', and would therefore be the ones to track you down and SUE YOU in court. Not arrest you.
Who will assess all of this?
Courts of law.
First and foremost, who is going to prevent manufacture of devices like this?
Hopefully manufacturer of devices that can be used to break the law will be legal, so long as those devices have legitimate uses.
Actually I was arguing it could have fit both profiles with a few changes.
It's wireless. Most people who use a wireless network are on laptops. You don't need a remote. That's the point.
No, that's YOUR point.
THE point is this new device lets you stream iTunes music to it wirelessly. Some people want to stream it from their desktop system on another floor or room of the house. That's me. Some people want to float around their house with their laptop controlling the audio from where they are using their laptop. That's you.
People like me were looking for something with a little bit more flexibility.
You're missing the point. That means my laptop has to be the computer with everything loaded on it (all my music). I already have a server with tons of HD space with itunes on it. I don't want to load itunes on something else, I just want to control this central server from different areas.
Let's extend the idea to show why your idea doesn't work. Imagine now instead of one room I have two rooms that want to be listening to itunes music, and each room has a webpad or some other way of accessing the web. If iTunes had a web interface, both rooms could control the music in each of those rooms.
dude, you're getting a squeezebox
It is not clear from the information provided -- will it be able to stream to multiple locations at once? Will it be able to keep those locations in sync on the same source of music, as well as allow you to stream different playlists to different sources?
It looks like you can also use this in a wired fashion, where you connect this device to your wired network, and it will do the audio out as well. For me this would be more handy, because I already have ethernet wire to my stereo, but need a good way to get audio out of that... Is this actually how it will work?
One thing this is missing is a way to control iTunes remotely. I still think slimp3 is on the right track. A server with a web interface that lets you control what music you're playing where. I might want my PC in my office in charge of storing and dishing out the music, but have a webpad or something floating around my house to let people control what is playing where.
The picture is hilarious, but I find it funny that people think it strange that we get pictures of bush doing stupid things when he has people filming him constantly.
But I bet you've never done anything clumsy.
His calendar only has 6.4 months on it, you insensitive clod!
Just copy the url into your browser and hit enter.