I suppose, your comment is technically correct: a burglar can certainly sue his victim. Anyone can sue for damn near anything, but if you don't have a case under the law you're going to get your ass laughed out of court. Your implication, however, that a burglar would win such a case seems exceptionally questionable.
Check "overlawyered.com" for a sense of what does and doesn't happen regarding criminals suing their victims. It does happen quite often, and while they usually don't win it does occasionally happen. Of course, you also have to remember that prisoners have a lot of time on their hands to file nuisance suits, there's no penalty to them if they lose and whatever happens, every day in court is a day they don't have to spend in jail.
I should also note, most successful suits are against victiims or the police for using excessive force, not because the burglar tripped and fell. (As far as I can tell, and I didn't dig that deep on Google, there have been a few high-profile suits-- one in the U.K.-- where the burglar sued for injuries sustained breaking in, but I can't find a case where they actually won.) There have been cases won where a victim has shot or beaten an unarmed (or less-armed) intruder.
This whole thing reminds me of a thing Jerry Seinfeld did, making fun of chinese people eating with sticks. He said something about that he could not understand why they kept eating with sticks, since "they have seen the fork".
I wonder why Westerners insist on using both a fork and spoon to eat after they've seen the Spork.
Re:Popularity of miniATX is validation for the Cub
on
G5 in an iMac
·
· Score: 1
I don't buy it. The whole G4 series and the currently shipping monitors have these. (Well, the G4s have the same mechanical power switches the G5's have, but the monitors have touch-sensitive switches, and when the monitor's plugged it, its switch controls the sleep/wake behavior of the computer, just like the mechanical switch on the computer itself does.)
Have you actually used a Cube? The button was on top, larger and more conspicuous... Waving your hand past it would shut the machine down.
Don't buy that, either. Remember, in order to be successful, Apple has to sell hundreds of thousands of units a month of whatever products they're making. The demand for the kind of niche box you describe just isn't there.
How is an iMac or eMac without a screen a "niche box"? All I'm describing is a basic entry-level Mac box. Might even sell better than the iMac or eMac does right now-- the iMac "lamp" design is dated, the eMac of course imposes a CRT screen. Why do you have to move to the "prosumer" level of desktops before you have the option to use an unattatched monitor?
Re:Popularity of miniATX is validation for the Cub
on
G5 in an iMac
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
The Cubes failed because they were too expensive-- they weren't a "headless iMac", they were a luxury item that cost more than the stock G4 while delivering fewer features. It wasn't a bare-bones Mac box, it was a costly conversation piece,
Plus, they had a few well-publicized flaws that made them unappealing... A hair-trigger on/off switch and a lucite case prone to cracks.
Apple could do well to make a low-end "cube", a cheap and portable desktop without the screen. Include iLife and a Superdrive and it could be sold as a multi-purpose media box, a component of the home entertainment system.
Agreed. Just look at what passes for Mac journalism. Particularly, article after article about "I had to use Windows for a day and it was sheer torture" and "This PC Magazine writer is an ignorant bastard because he questioned Apple's business sense."
Yeah, I use a Mac. And I like it. But I don't argue the merits with others any more than I have to. It's a battle that can't be won, especially on the message boards.
I'm afraid you're being awfully short-sighted. All of those quotes could still turn out to be correct... Just because the iPod is doing well right now, doesn't mean it won't fail miserably at some point in the future.
On a related note, Apple is doomed. They signed their own death warrant when they decided to only have one button on the mouse. I don't see the company surviving past 2012, and I'd recommend everyone who owns Powerbooks should smash them against the wall now before they're laughably obsolete.
I'd agree, Apple's fighting the fight to protect their interests. They're in between a rock (the RIAA, from whom they have to license the music) and a hard place (the customers, who naturally want ease of use and as few restrictions as possible.)
Look at the iPod itself for another example. Apple had to go out of their way to design it so that you can't download from the disk to another computer; obviously this was to assure the labels that people won't be using iPods to swap entire music collections. Naturally there are a few applications that override this "feature", Apple hasn't put much effort into stopping them because they either fall under the RIAA radar or they don't see them as a particular threat.
"Nice and legal" is a relative term. We're talking about Russia, a unique place that's both civilized and European, and a nearly lawless third world country. They're still grappling with the concept of owning actual physical property-- it's going to be a while before the Russian government tackles the nuances of copyright law.
Of course if you meant "nice and legal for an American to import", that's another matter. In fact, whether on not downloading from a foreign site actually contsitutes "importing" is a question that I don't believe has been fully addressed. If downloading an MP3 from a Russian site is considered "importing music", for example, then is downloading a shareware program or software update from a foreign mirror importing? Or lifting jpgs from a foreign web site? Basically, if no physical product is shipped across a border (or even state line), then can it really be called "importing?"
Makes you wonder why they bought it, if they were just going to fold the channel, fire most of the employees and dump almost all of the content. I could understand if G4 and Tech were competitors-- but neither draws much of an audience and a combined channel will still be largely ignored.
I don't think people on dial up ever patch.. because downloading the 100 megs of updates that both Jaguar, Panther, and XP require has got to be hell.
But then, do they really need to download most security patches? Assuming they know to avoid spyware and not open attachments, how exposed is a dial-up user to attacks compared to someone on broadband or better?
I think your sentiment about cheaper prices is right on, but $0.75 a track might be achievable (thats still a 25% savings). $0.10 is just wishful thinking.
I'm in agreement with you (and the parent.) And I know it's wishful thinking. But ten cents a song could work. It could actually end up selling more music. At a dollar a pop, you're (relatively) cautious with your purchase, you're less likely to try a new band for the hell of it. But ten cents is a whole 'nother ball game.
An example: sell the music in blocks of ten songs for a dollar. Go to the music store, download the songs you want. You have a few selections left, so grab a few more, maybe a few that you aren't so familiar with. Turns out, you found some new bands you like, a new genre of music you like. Buy out those bands' libraries. Repeat. Delete the stuff you don't care about. Buy more. Maybe more players would be sold because you could fill the drive with realtively disposal music for cheap.
No, it'll never happen and I'm sure there are obvious flaws in my business plan, but it would be nice.
So what's your point? I mean, I hear you talking and throwing the word "monopoly" around over and over, but it's simply not the case. Are you calling them a "monopoly" because you can't run OSX on a Pentium, or because you can't run Windows on a Mac? I hope not, because neither of those is going to happen. Macs are built to run Mac OS. They appeal to a customer base who know, expect and in fact rely on this.
If you don't want the Mac experience there are plenty of other options-- the machines and OS'es used by 97% of the world, for example.
Apple is a specialty house with a small fraction of the market share-- by definition, they CANNOT be a monopoly.
How many shows do you watch, just because they're on? How many of them would you pay to see, even if it was just fifty cents? The overall quality of television could, possibly, greatly improve. When you're paying cash to rent a movie your tastes tend to be more selective than when it's late, you're tired and you'll settle for anything one of the HBOs (or even the Superstation) might be showing (and when I say "you", I don't mean "you personally", I'm speaking geneerally.)
I don't think broadcast will ever completely go away, though. People like to have the choice made for them. People like to flip channels and "discover" shows, not plan out their viewing schedule in advance. And, I believe there's some basic need to watch television communally, even if you're alone-- to know that millions of others are watching the same show you are.
Look, what you're doing here is taking something that cost money to make, and enjoying it for free. Not paying for cable TV or watching ads means you're leeching stuff for free, while the rest of us pay for it. Copyright violation isn't a something to be proud of you know - just because you don't like to pay or watch ads doesn't make what you're doing right.
"Not watching the ads" is stealing? What's the difference between downloading and watching something that aired the night before, or taping or Tivoing it and skipping the commercials?
I'd buy your case if you were against downloading movies, or even premium fare (such as The Sopranos.) But your statement is ridiculous. If this is what you really believe, then henceforth you may never get up and take a bathroom break, or switch channels to see what else is on. Furthermore you shall listen to every commerical between songs on the radio stations you frequent. And finally, you must study every printed ad in the newspapers and magazines you read, because if a paid sponsor's message fairs to bore between your ears then you, my friend, are nothing more than a common thief.
I never thought of Slashdot as a source of breaking news. On the contrary, a lag between the story becoming common knowledge and opening it up for discussion gives us more research time to one-up each other.
It's possible. But I really, really doubt anyone inside Google would be so stupid as to risk their job to make a few bucks auctioning off addresses. Especially when the company's on the verge of going public.
It's a lot more probable that the bloggers and early-sign-up-lottery winners who got beta accounts found out they could make some quick and easy cash for something they'll be able to get for free in a few months and said, why not?
This is really such low-stakes stuff, I'm surprised anyone's fretting about it.
I also happen to have a dual G5, on which Virtual PC doesn't run at all. Good show, Microsoft. My only hope right now is Bochs and I haven't had much time to play around with it.
Rather, "Good show, Connectix." For selling a product many of us rely on to Microsoft, where it shall slowly becoming useless and then obsolete.
Good question, since the user won't voluntarily put his name on the track when ripping the song. Could it be storing your machine ID? Could they pressure iTunes to incorporate the technology to do so?
Or, are they going to imbed info. on the music track itself? Or will future CD's come with mp3's on tbe disc already, so you won't have to rip them... And so they can track them when you put them on P2P?
Carbon also works completely differently under the hood. As time goes on, Apple exposes these improvements through entirely new API, for example the HIView stuff that appeared in 10.2.
Offtopic, but couldn't they have possibly come up with a better name than "HIView?"
Slashdot Mirror
Check "overlawyered.com" for a sense of what does and doesn't happen regarding criminals suing their victims. It does happen quite often, and while they usually don't win it does occasionally happen. Of course, you also have to remember that prisoners have a lot of time on their hands to file nuisance suits, there's no penalty to them if they lose and whatever happens, every day in court is a day they don't have to spend in jail.
I should also note, most successful suits are against victiims or the police for using excessive force, not because the burglar tripped and fell. (As far as I can tell, and I didn't dig that deep on Google, there have been a few high-profile suits-- one in the U.K.-- where the burglar sued for injuries sustained breaking in, but I can't find a case where they actually won.) There have been cases won where a victim has shot or beaten an unarmed (or less-armed) intruder.
I wonder why Westerners insist on using both a fork and spoon to eat after they've seen the Spork.
Have you actually used a Cube? The button was on top, larger and more conspicuous... Waving your hand past it would shut the machine down.
Don't buy that, either. Remember, in order to be successful, Apple has to sell hundreds of thousands of units a month of whatever products they're making. The demand for the kind of niche box you describe just isn't there.
How is an iMac or eMac without a screen a "niche box"? All I'm describing is a basic entry-level Mac box. Might even sell better than the iMac or eMac does right now-- the iMac "lamp" design is dated, the eMac of course imposes a CRT screen. Why do you have to move to the "prosumer" level of desktops before you have the option to use an unattatched monitor?
Plus, they had a few well-publicized flaws that made them unappealing... A hair-trigger on/off switch and a lucite case prone to cracks.
Apple could do well to make a low-end "cube", a cheap and portable desktop without the screen. Include iLife and a Superdrive and it could be sold as a multi-purpose media box, a component of the home entertainment system.
Did you miss the "funny" tag, or are you otherwise lacking in the ability to detect sarcasm?
Yeah, I use a Mac. And I like it. But I don't argue the merits with others any more than I have to. It's a battle that can't be won, especially on the message boards.
Yeah, that Revelations book ruined it for everybody.
On a related note, Apple is doomed. They signed their own death warrant when they decided to only have one button on the mouse. I don't see the company surviving past 2012, and I'd recommend everyone who owns Powerbooks should smash them against the wall now before they're laughably obsolete.
Look at the iPod itself for another example. Apple had to go out of their way to design it so that you can't download from the disk to another computer; obviously this was to assure the labels that people won't be using iPods to swap entire music collections. Naturally there are a few applications that override this "feature", Apple hasn't put much effort into stopping them because they either fall under the RIAA radar or they don't see them as a particular threat.
Of course if you meant "nice and legal for an American to import", that's another matter. In fact, whether on not downloading from a foreign site actually contsitutes "importing" is a question that I don't believe has been fully addressed. If downloading an MP3 from a Russian site is considered "importing music", for example, then is downloading a shareware program or software update from a foreign mirror importing? Or lifting jpgs from a foreign web site? Basically, if no physical product is shipped across a border (or even state line), then can it really be called "importing?"
Makes you wonder why they bought it, if they were just going to fold the channel, fire most of the employees and dump almost all of the content. I could understand if G4 and Tech were competitors-- but neither draws much of an audience and a combined channel will still be largely ignored.
That's Los Angeles, but they do stream (Realplayer, naturally.)
But then, do they really need to download most security patches? Assuming they know to avoid spyware and not open attachments, how exposed is a dial-up user to attacks compared to someone on broadband or better?
I'm in agreement with you (and the parent.) And I know it's wishful thinking. But ten cents a song could work. It could actually end up selling more music. At a dollar a pop, you're (relatively) cautious with your purchase, you're less likely to try a new band for the hell of it. But ten cents is a whole 'nother ball game.
An example: sell the music in blocks of ten songs for a dollar. Go to the music store, download the songs you want. You have a few selections left, so grab a few more, maybe a few that you aren't so familiar with. Turns out, you found some new bands you like, a new genre of music you like. Buy out those bands' libraries. Repeat. Delete the stuff you don't care about. Buy more. Maybe more players would be sold because you could fill the drive with realtively disposal music for cheap.
No, it'll never happen and I'm sure there are obvious flaws in my business plan, but it would be nice.
Apple is a specialty house with a small fraction of the market share-- by definition, they CANNOT be a monopoly.
I think you need to learn the difference between the words "monopoly" and "proprietary."
This may not be the one, but wouldn't it be nice if there was a notebook designed for Linux first, Windows second?
How many shows do you watch, just because they're on? How many of them would you pay to see, even if it was just fifty cents? The overall quality of television could, possibly, greatly improve. When you're paying cash to rent a movie your tastes tend to be more selective than when it's late, you're tired and you'll settle for anything one of the HBOs (or even the Superstation) might be showing (and when I say "you", I don't mean "you personally", I'm speaking geneerally.)
I don't think broadcast will ever completely go away, though. People like to have the choice made for them. People like to flip channels and "discover" shows, not plan out their viewing schedule in advance. And, I believe there's some basic need to watch television communally, even if you're alone-- to know that millions of others are watching the same show you are.
WARNING: Urinating in your friend's cornflakes is not actually legal. Please do not try this at home.
"Not watching the ads" is stealing? What's the difference between downloading and watching something that aired the night before, or taping or Tivoing it and skipping the commercials?
I'd buy your case if you were against downloading movies, or even premium fare (such as The Sopranos.) But your statement is ridiculous. If this is what you really believe, then henceforth you may never get up and take a bathroom break, or switch channels to see what else is on. Furthermore you shall listen to every commerical between songs on the radio stations you frequent. And finally, you must study every printed ad in the newspapers and magazines you read, because if a paid sponsor's message fairs to bore between your ears then you, my friend, are nothing more than a common thief.
I never thought of Slashdot as a source of breaking news. On the contrary, a lag between the story becoming common knowledge and opening it up for discussion gives us more research time to one-up each other.
It's a lot more probable that the bloggers and early-sign-up-lottery winners who got beta accounts found out they could make some quick and easy cash for something they'll be able to get for free in a few months and said, why not?
This is really such low-stakes stuff, I'm surprised anyone's fretting about it.
Rather, "Good show, Connectix." For selling a product many of us rely on to Microsoft, where it shall slowly becoming useless and then obsolete.
Or, are they going to imbed info. on the music track itself? Or will future CD's come with mp3's on tbe disc already, so you won't have to rip them... And so they can track them when you put them on P2P?
Offtopic, but couldn't they have possibly come up with a better name than "HIView?"