Copyright infringement is theft.
If, in this day and age, you think that only physical objects can have value, then I for one am impressed. Money itself is virtual in 2004, and in this culture, theft of ideas and other intangibles is very real.
In my second job during HS, I had to support PCs. Machines running Windows 95. Man was that unsettling.;)
At my current job, the heat is out today. It wouldn't be an issue, but this is in New Hampshire. Nothing like a bunch of techies working in their parkas-- good thing we have dozens of computers running to keep us warm.
That's all I got.
Apple does a great job about generating thumbnails in the finder. Unfortunately, due to their current fear of metadata, they don't keep them, as I understand it. This means that OS X slowly creates the thumbnails, which don't persist.
Maybe this is just because a major task of mine is sorting large groups of photos, but Mac OS X just doesn't cut the mustard, with or without iPhoto.
Look at Windows XP, for example, and you will see that the basic ability to view and organize photos is becoming more and more a basic necessary function. Thus, I equate iPhoto with features that could be in the Finder, or at least in a basic system app similar to Preview. This is especially true since the Mac OS handles thumbnail previews so badly in the finder.
I guess what it comes down to is that I hate it when there's a basic feature of the OS that I can't tell my father is better on my OS X machine than on his XP machine.
Have you ever used iPhoto with, say, 1000 photos in the library? Or 25,000? The performance isn't just bad, it's alarmingly bad. A program for viewing files, that can't view files in any reasonable time-frame, is buggy. I accept that not all performance issues are on this level, of course, but there comes a point where a product needs to be improved to live up to its basic promise.
The update costs $49.95. The $19.95 price is part of the Up-to-Date program, and only customers who bought a new Mac *after* January 6th, which did not have iLife 4 installed, qualify.
This is just to cover machines that came out after the launch. It doesn't cover the iBook I bought in December, let alone the G4 I would like to be using a functioning version of iPhoto on.
A lot of the arguments here are talking about why it is justifiable for Apple to charge for the suite in general. However, I would like to take a step back, and look at one specific application.
I do not find it acceptable that Apple is now charging for the latest version of iPhoto, even if they include it with new Macs. The reason is a very simple one that I think will make sense to anyone who has worked in software development...
iPhoto 4 is a big fix release.
I will say it again. The latest version if iPhoto, 4.0, is a bug fix release. The most appealing feature of his version is that it fixes a problem that has been present in iPhoto since version 1.0, the ridiculously slow speeds with large photo libraries.
It is common practice that major bugs should be fixed as part of free, bug-fix releases. It just isn't right to release buggy software, and then charge people when you make it work the way you promised all along.
Unless Apple makes a revised version of iPhoto 3 available, that works with reasonably-sized photo libraries, it is unethical for them to be charging for iPhoto 4.
I have to admit, I did wonder about linking to a copy of a copyrighted story.
On the other hand, Virginia Heinlein is dead, so she probably wouldn't be the best person to call.
Indeed.
From what little bit I studied the Bible, it is commonly accepted that all of the gospels were written long enough after the death of Christ that not one of them could have been a first hand account by anyone alive at the time. They have references to historical events known to have occurred as much as centuries later, for crying out loud.
I am not saying the Bible isn't true. I am not saying the Gospels don't tell a true story. I am just saying you certainly can't prove any part of the Bible to be true by broadly calling it a collection of first hand accounts.
I studied in the UK for four years, at two different universities. While I worked, virtually none of my British friends had even part-time jobs. So I tend to disagree.
I was estimating based on what I understood the loans to be, and a typically 3-year education in the UK. I stand corrected... but 16,000 is still considerably less than $120,000 or so.
Yep. A top-notch, but indeed also a second or third tier education (barring in-state attendance to some state schools) will run about $30,000-$40,000 a year. This will almost always be for four years rather than the three common in England.
There aren't a ton of tech scholarships for two basic reasons...
1.) There aren't a ton of scholaships, period. Finding free money for college is, unsurprisingly, not easy.
2.) There isn't anything like a shortage of tech workers. A huge portion of the jobs available now are "Tech", but an even bigger portion of the workforce wants to work in that sector.
You're competing with everyone, for a small amount of money.
I am an American who went to University in the UK, so I can comment...
Tuition in the UK is far, far cheaper than in the US. (For UK nationals, as well as EU citizens.) The result is that the considerable government grants and loans are enough to cover all of the tuition and room and board, and most other expenses as well.
Students in the US typically pay something like 5-10 times as much in annual tuition. There are virtually no governments grants, and all loans, even ones subsidized by the government, have some interest.
A UK citizen going to school in the UK typically borrows less than $12,000 throughout their education, which covers everything.
A US citizen going to school in the US typically borrows around $15,000 which covers only a small part of their total education, or as much as $140,000 which doesn't quite cover everything and includes a large portion of loans with notable interest.
No kidding.
That is just profoundly unethical. The phrase floating around at the back of our minds is "conflict of interests". What company would trust a "consultant" that sells a product or service directly related to their consultation?
The employer hired the consultant to determine the status of their security. The consultant recommended their own service as a cure. A job was lost in the process. That's just nasty-- the consultant was in a position where it was obviously most profitable to recommend their own product.
Slashdot Mirror
Copyright infringement is theft. If, in this day and age, you think that only physical objects can have value, then I for one am impressed. Money itself is virtual in 2004, and in this culture, theft of ideas and other intangibles is very real.
In my second job during HS, I had to support PCs. Machines running Windows 95. Man was that unsettling. ;)
At my current job, the heat is out today. It wouldn't be an issue, but this is in New Hampshire. Nothing like a bunch of techies working in their parkas-- good thing we have dozens of computers running to keep us warm.
That's all I got.
"In this house we obey the laws of therodynamics!"
Apple does a great job about generating thumbnails in the finder. Unfortunately, due to their current fear of metadata, they don't keep them, as I understand it. This means that OS X slowly creates the thumbnails, which don't persist. Maybe this is just because a major task of mine is sorting large groups of photos, but Mac OS X just doesn't cut the mustard, with or without iPhoto.
Look at Windows XP, for example, and you will see that the basic ability to view and organize photos is becoming more and more a basic necessary function. Thus, I equate iPhoto with features that could be in the Finder, or at least in a basic system app similar to Preview. This is especially true since the Mac OS handles thumbnail previews so badly in the finder. I guess what it comes down to is that I hate it when there's a basic feature of the OS that I can't tell my father is better on my OS X machine than on his XP machine.
Have you ever used iPhoto with, say, 1000 photos in the library? Or 25,000? The performance isn't just bad, it's alarmingly bad. A program for viewing files, that can't view files in any reasonable time-frame, is buggy. I accept that not all performance issues are on this level, of course, but there comes a point where a product needs to be improved to live up to its basic promise.
This is just to cover machines that came out after the launch. It doesn't cover the iBook I bought in December, let alone the G4 I would like to be using a functioning version of iPhoto on.
I do not find it acceptable that Apple is now charging for the latest version of iPhoto, even if they include it with new Macs. The reason is a very simple one that I think will make sense to anyone who has worked in software development...
iPhoto 4 is a big fix release.
I will say it again. The latest version if iPhoto, 4.0, is a bug fix release. The most appealing feature of his version is that it fixes a problem that has been present in iPhoto since version 1.0, the ridiculously slow speeds with large photo libraries.
It is common practice that major bugs should be fixed as part of free, bug-fix releases. It just isn't right to release buggy software, and then charge people when you make it work the way you promised all along.
Unless Apple makes a revised version of iPhoto 3 available, that works with reasonably-sized photo libraries, it is unethical for them to be charging for iPhoto 4.
I have to admit, I did wonder about linking to a copy of a copyrighted story. On the other hand, Virginia Heinlein is dead, so she probably wouldn't be the best person to call.
Blowups Happen.
Indeed. From what little bit I studied the Bible, it is commonly accepted that all of the gospels were written long enough after the death of Christ that not one of them could have been a first hand account by anyone alive at the time. They have references to historical events known to have occurred as much as centuries later, for crying out loud. I am not saying the Bible isn't true. I am not saying the Gospels don't tell a true story. I am just saying you certainly can't prove any part of the Bible to be true by broadly calling it a collection of first hand accounts.
I studied in the UK for four years, at two different universities. While I worked, virtually none of my British friends had even part-time jobs. So I tend to disagree.
I was estimating based on what I understood the loans to be, and a typically 3-year education in the UK. I stand corrected... but 16,000 is still considerably less than $120,000 or so.
Yep. A top-notch, but indeed also a second or third tier education (barring in-state attendance to some state schools) will run about $30,000-$40,000 a year. This will almost always be for four years rather than the three common in England.
There aren't a ton of tech scholarships for two basic reasons... 1.) There aren't a ton of scholaships, period. Finding free money for college is, unsurprisingly, not easy. 2.) There isn't anything like a shortage of tech workers. A huge portion of the jobs available now are "Tech", but an even bigger portion of the workforce wants to work in that sector. You're competing with everyone, for a small amount of money.
I am an American who went to University in the UK, so I can comment... Tuition in the UK is far, far cheaper than in the US. (For UK nationals, as well as EU citizens.) The result is that the considerable government grants and loans are enough to cover all of the tuition and room and board, and most other expenses as well. Students in the US typically pay something like 5-10 times as much in annual tuition. There are virtually no governments grants, and all loans, even ones subsidized by the government, have some interest. A UK citizen going to school in the UK typically borrows less than $12,000 throughout their education, which covers everything. A US citizen going to school in the US typically borrows around $15,000 which covers only a small part of their total education, or as much as $140,000 which doesn't quite cover everything and includes a large portion of loans with notable interest. No kidding.
That is just profoundly unethical. The phrase floating around at the back of our minds is "conflict of interests". What company would trust a "consultant" that sells a product or service directly related to their consultation? The employer hired the consultant to determine the status of their security. The consultant recommended their own service as a cure. A job was lost in the process. That's just nasty-- the consultant was in a position where it was obviously most profitable to recommend their own product.