Given the history of the RIAA and the major labels, it's mind boggling to me that Napster would think there was any chance at all of striking a deal, despite the looming Gnutella threat. As far as the industry was concerned, Napster was the devil incarnate. Remember, this is an industry that thinks nothing of criminalizing its customers by adopting overly restrictive DRM. It has fought and continues to fight the customer's legitimate fair use rights. To expect them to wrap their puny brains around the notion that they could actually profit by embracing Napster is ludicrous.
The biggest tradeoff with this first-gen video ipod, imo, is the lack of firewire I/O. While it does allow the unit to be thinner and have a longer battery life, not to mention a lower production cost, it also reduces its appeal for Mac geeks by removing the ability to boot your Mac from it. The real-world file transfer rate of USB 2.0 is also about 10-15% slower than FW400. Mac-specific utility has apparently taken a back seat in iPod design priorities. Not what I would call a disaster for Mac users, but it points to an unfortunate, but also possibly an inevitable, sea change in Apple's tradition of treating Mac users as first-class citizens vis-a-vis the PC lumpen.
The dialectics behind IBM's announcment point to widespread genetic screening and discrimination by corporations in the future. Why? Because obviously someone, probably some junior bean counter trying to make an impression on her boss, suggested that one way the company could enhance productivity and efficiency would be to screen employees and job applicants for genetic markers that predict future health problems. This idea most likely horrified her boss, who is from an older generation encumbered by old school notions of the rights of individuals in an idealized pre-corporate world. This boss then passed the horror up the food chain where it eventually reached the Board of Directors who thought it would make good PR to issue a proclamation banning genetic discrimination from IBM forever. Bravo. Unfortunately, due to the nature of the corporate mindset, the idea will inevitably gain traction. And if one hapless IBM bean counter has thought of it, then certainly legions of other bean counters are thinking of it or will be soon. It's only a metter of time before genetic screening and discrimination is considered good business practice by our corporate overlords.
Jobs was right to decide against porting OS X to wintel boxes, at least in the near term. To do so Apple would have to commit to 2 fundamental shifts in their business model simultaneously--a terrible idea for any company. First, they'd no longer be a hardware company, which they are now, primarily. Then, because they would hence be more dependent on revenue from sales of their OS, they'd have to retool the licensing scheme for OS X which is currently unserialized and widely pirated. Giving up a healthy revenue stream for an uncertain one is bad business in anyone's book.
Reason #1 is there is no way to POP mail to an SMTP server on any port other than 25. Comcast blocks port 25 on their network if you're sending email through an SMTP server other than their own. So I can't use my work email account at home on Comcast unless I use port 587. Thunderbird doesn't let me do that (at least I can't see a way to do it).
Reason #2: Thunderbird's address book doesn't import V-cards, still. On the Mac there's no convenient way to export OS X's Address Book, where I keep all my contact info, other than as a V-card without using a third party utility--and none of them seem to work very well.
I must say that this is the first time I've agreed with any opinion issued by the Sith Oligarchy of Rhenquist, Scalia and Thomas. Their über-conservative bias usually has me screaming foul. It's also highly unusual that they should be joined in this by Sandra Day O'Connor. The thought of any local governement being able to take one's home to make way for private development turns my stomach. The opportunity for this ruling to be abused by private entities with deep pockets is going to far outweigh any potential benefit to the community. Just wait and see. Wal-Mart is cackling with glee over this one.
So does this mean that everything Apple's been telling us about the superiority of PPC vs. X86 is wrong? Is Intel's CISC Pentium technology really better than these G5 RISC chips we've been using? What about all those impressive benchmark numbers that Apple so loudly touted that showed PPC running circles around Intel when using Photoshop? What happened to that wonderful PPC roadmap that promised us all a better tomorrow through RISC?
I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. And it's quite a stretch to suggest that somehow what I propose is anything like what the Soviets did. They did much more than simply regulate profit. They got rid of private ownership altogether. I'm not proposing that. I'm all for companies making profit. What I'm against is profitable companies throwing people out of work on a whim. So far no one has convinced me that that's a good thing. I think people working is a good thing for the individual and the nation as a whole. We should be looking for excuses to keep people employed rather than excuses to lay them off.
C'mon guys, this information is both old and public, and it's about as useful for making bombs as Monty Python's infamous guide to flute playing (blow in one end and run your fingers up and down the holes).
Let's have more stories about nude pictures on Yahoo!
Why should a publicly traded corporation, which is profitable, even be PERMITTED to layoff anyone? Why should the desire for higher profits be allowed to trump an employee's livlihood? Why should profitable companies be allowed to inflict hardship on their employees? Even if a company is losing money, why shouldn't they have to submit to an independent audit to determine the lowest number of layoffs needed to restore profitability? Why should corporate greed take precedence over jobs? WHY???
This is the guy who also gave Anaconda (Ice Cube and John Voight hunt badly rendered CGI snakes in the Amazon jungle), The Phantom (Billy Zane running around in purple leotards) and The Phantom Menace four stars.
But I did read his review of Sith and I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt in this case, if only because there's been so much positive buzz from other quarters.
Every time Microsoft announces what they consider to be a cool new feature in Longhorn it seems like what they're really doing is one or more of the following:
A. strengthening DRM protections to woo the entertainment industry under the guise of providing better multimedia support.
B. enhancing their ability to look over your shoulder and see what you're been doing with your computer under the guise of enhancing stability.
C. make it easier for themselves and other vendors of their choosing to use your computer as a conduit for selling you things under the guise of providing better protection from spam and identity theft.
D. generally drive home the point that they consider every Microsoft customer a potential criminal that they must take proactive measures against, under the guise of providing better security.
The FTC should nip this one in the bud, pronto. This will absolutely give Adobe an unfair monopoly in professional graphics software.
Here's what the law says (from the FTC's website):
"Section 7 of the Clayton Act prohibits
mergers and acquisitions where the effect
'may be substantially to lessen competition,
or to tend to create a monopoly.' Determining
whether a merger will have that effect requires
a thorough economic evaluation or market study."
Comedy Central announced today that former Star Trek Producer Rick Berman will replace Trey Parker and Matt Stone as the creative force behind the hit series South Park. Berman said he is pleased to take the helm of such an exciting franchise. When asked what changes he plans for the pint-sized stars of the show, Berman said it's too soon to say, except that they're conducting focus group studies to assess viewer reactions to seeing Cartman as a Star Fleet captain along with Kyle as a Vulcan Science Officer. When asked if he intended to continue the hallowed tradition of killing off Kenny in every episode, Berman replied "of course! We think this could add a poignant human dimension to anti-matter overloads and warp core breaches."
So in 6 months, when the novelty wears off and it becomes painfully obvious that having your toys greet you when you walk by isn't quite the chick magnet he thought it would be, he's still gonna have this dingus living under his skin. Far better to have an RFID dongle with an OFF switch you can just carry in your pocket. Then you can simply stash it in the drawer with your Palm Pilot and laser pointers when you get bored with it.
It wasn't so long ago that all the pundits proclaimed that Apple is dead, but just doesn't know it yet. It's poetic justice that today the Mac is gaining marketshare, COMDEX is dead and MacWorld Expo SF is the Last Man Standing among the big computer shows.
Slashdot Mirror
No.
Napster was citing a threat from a third party. It would only be extortion if they themselves were the threat.
Given the history of the RIAA and the major labels, it's mind boggling to me that Napster would think there was any chance at all of striking a deal, despite the looming Gnutella threat. As far as the industry was concerned, Napster was the devil incarnate. Remember, this is an industry that thinks nothing of criminalizing its customers by adopting overly restrictive DRM. It has fought and continues to fight the customer's legitimate fair use rights. To expect them to wrap their puny brains around the notion that they could actually profit by embracing Napster is ludicrous.
That would be great feature. Too bad it can only get video through iTunes.
The biggest tradeoff with this first-gen video ipod, imo, is the lack of firewire I/O. While it does allow the unit to be thinner and have a longer battery life, not to mention a lower production cost, it also reduces its appeal for Mac geeks by removing the ability to boot your Mac from it. The real-world file transfer rate of USB 2.0 is also about 10-15% slower than FW400. Mac-specific utility has apparently taken a back seat in iPod design priorities. Not what I would call a disaster for Mac users, but it points to an unfortunate, but also possibly an inevitable, sea change in Apple's tradition of treating Mac users as first-class citizens vis-a-vis the PC lumpen.
The dialectics behind IBM's announcment point to widespread genetic screening and discrimination by corporations in the future. Why? Because obviously someone, probably some junior bean counter trying to make an impression on her boss, suggested that one way the company could enhance productivity and efficiency would be to screen employees and job applicants for genetic markers that predict future health problems. This idea most likely horrified her boss, who is from an older generation encumbered by old school notions of the rights of individuals in an idealized pre-corporate world. This boss then passed the horror up the food chain where it eventually reached the Board of Directors who thought it would make good PR to issue a proclamation banning genetic discrimination from IBM forever. Bravo. Unfortunately, due to the nature of the corporate mindset, the idea will inevitably gain traction. And if one hapless IBM bean counter has thought of it, then certainly legions of other bean counters are thinking of it or will be soon. It's only a metter of time before genetic screening and discrimination is considered good business practice by our corporate overlords.
Jobs was right to decide against porting OS X to wintel boxes, at least in the near term. To do so Apple would have to commit to 2 fundamental shifts in their business model simultaneously--a terrible idea for any company. First, they'd no longer be a hardware company, which they are now, primarily. Then, because they would hence be more dependent on revenue from sales of their OS, they'd have to retool the licensing scheme for OS X which is currently unserialized and widely pirated. Giving up a healthy revenue stream for an uncertain one is bad business in anyone's book.
Reason #1 is there is no way to POP mail to an SMTP server on any port other than 25. Comcast blocks port 25 on their network if you're sending email through an SMTP server other than their own. So I can't use my work email account at home on Comcast unless I use port 587. Thunderbird doesn't let me do that (at least I can't see a way to do it).
Reason #2: Thunderbird's address book doesn't import V-cards, still. On the Mac there's no convenient way to export OS X's Address Book, where I keep all my contact info, other than as a V-card without using a third party utility--and none of them seem to work very well.
I must say that this is the first time I've agreed with any opinion issued by the Sith Oligarchy of Rhenquist, Scalia and Thomas. Their über-conservative bias usually has me screaming foul. It's also highly unusual that they should be joined in this by Sandra Day O'Connor. The thought of any local governement being able to take one's home to make way for private development turns my stomach. The opportunity for this ruling to be abused by private entities with deep pockets is going to far outweigh any potential benefit to the community. Just wait and see. Wal-Mart is cackling with glee over this one.
So does this mean that everything Apple's been telling us about the superiority of PPC vs. X86 is wrong? Is Intel's CISC Pentium technology really better than these G5 RISC chips we've been using? What about all those impressive benchmark numbers that Apple so loudly touted that showed PPC running circles around Intel when using Photoshop? What happened to that wonderful PPC roadmap that promised us all a better tomorrow through RISC?
I hate re-learning a whole new party line.
Fred Flintstone had a car that could outrun a Porsche and all he used were his feet!
I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. And it's quite a stretch to suggest that somehow what I propose is anything like what the Soviets did. They did much more than simply regulate profit. They got rid of private ownership altogether. I'm not proposing that. I'm all for companies making profit. What I'm against is profitable companies throwing people out of work on a whim. So far no one has convinced me that that's a good thing. I think people working is a good thing for the individual and the nation as a whole. We should be looking for excuses to keep people employed rather than excuses to lay them off.
C'mon guys, this information is both old and public, and it's about as useful for making bombs as Monty Python's infamous guide to flute playing (blow in one end and run your fingers up and down the holes).
Let's have more stories about nude pictures on Yahoo!
I'll be so happy if Apple's macsot, Moof! the cow dog, finally gets a playmate. He hasn't had much to do since OS X was released.
When the rainy season happens and his solar panels become useless it's bye-bye World of Warcraft, hello Pin-the-Leech-on-the-Jaguar!
Information wants to be free.
Why should a publicly traded corporation, which is profitable, even be PERMITTED to layoff anyone? Why should the desire for higher profits be allowed to trump an employee's livlihood? Why should profitable companies be allowed to inflict hardship on their employees? Even if a company is losing money, why shouldn't they have to submit to an independent audit to determine the lowest number of layoffs needed to restore profitability? Why should corporate greed take precedence over jobs? WHY???
This is the guy who also gave Anaconda (Ice Cube and John Voight hunt badly rendered CGI snakes in the Amazon jungle), The Phantom (Billy Zane running around in purple leotards) and The Phantom Menace four stars.
But I did read his review of Sith and I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt in this case, if only because there's been so much positive buzz from other quarters.
The last remnants of the old Republic have been swept away. No one will dare oppose the Emperor now!
Every time Microsoft announces what they consider to be a cool new feature in Longhorn it seems like what they're really doing is one or more of the following:
A. strengthening DRM protections to woo the entertainment industry under the guise of providing better multimedia support.
B. enhancing their ability to look over your shoulder and see what you're been doing with your computer under the guise of enhancing stability.
C. make it easier for themselves and other vendors of their choosing to use your computer as a conduit for selling you things under the guise of providing better protection from spam and identity theft.
D. generally drive home the point that they consider every Microsoft customer a potential criminal that they must take proactive measures against, under the guise of providing better security.
The FTC should nip this one in the bud, pronto. This will absolutely give Adobe an unfair monopoly in professional graphics software. Here's what the law says (from the FTC's website): "Section 7 of the Clayton Act prohibits mergers and acquisitions where the effect 'may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly.' Determining whether a merger will have that effect requires a thorough economic evaluation or market study."
Nipples on guys. Go on, tell me there's an adaptive reason for man-tits. I dare you.
Comedy Central announced today that former Star Trek Producer Rick Berman will replace Trey Parker and Matt Stone as the creative force behind the hit series South Park. Berman said he is pleased to take the helm of such an exciting franchise. When asked what changes he plans for the pint-sized stars of the show, Berman said it's too soon to say, except that they're conducting focus group studies to assess viewer reactions to seeing Cartman as a Star Fleet captain along with Kyle as a Vulcan Science Officer. When asked if he intended to continue the hallowed tradition of killing off Kenny in every episode, Berman replied "of course! We think this could add a poignant human dimension to anti-matter overloads and warp core breaches."
So in 6 months, when the novelty wears off and it becomes painfully obvious that having your toys greet you when you walk by isn't quite the chick magnet he thought it would be, he's still gonna have this dingus living under his skin. Far better to have an RFID dongle with an OFF switch you can just carry in your pocket. Then you can simply stash it in the drawer with your Palm Pilot and laser pointers when you get bored with it.
It wasn't so long ago that all the pundits proclaimed that Apple is dead, but just doesn't know it yet. It's poetic justice that today the Mac is gaining marketshare, COMDEX is dead and MacWorld Expo SF is the Last Man Standing among the big computer shows.
Let me show you the power of Dark Energy! [unleashes Sith choke hold on fermilab scientist]