On my ideal phone it would have a phone book, ability to phone people, and the ability to function as a modem for my laptop.
And already we have feature creep, and there's your whole problem. You're saying, "Why do we have phones with all these features? Why don't we have them with only the features I want?!" Your desire for laptop/internet connectivity is another man's camera. Of course we all want the features "I want", and don't really care about anything else.
I have never figured out why owners of Apple products refuse to hold Apple to a high standard across the board.
You might think, at first, that it's because Apple users are brainwashed. However, the real problem is that they're incredibly picky. Take, for example, the Powerbook Ti, which had certain areas where the paint chipped off. When this became a known problem, owners went out and found replacement paint, being very careful to match the color exactly. A small market opened up, and people were selling paint specifically as "Powerbook Ti touch-up paint."
Now, has this happened on such a large scale with Sony, Dell, or HP laptops? No. Is it because Sony, Dell, and HP laptops don't ever have discolorations or chipped, faded, or worn away paint on their casings? No. It's because if you've owned a Sony laptop for 3 years, and a little paint gets worn away, you probably don't even notice. You just expect that something being carried around all the time like that will eventually have some wear and tear. Mac users, on the other hand, get incredibly upset that their little pride and joy has a tiny little flake come loose.
I'm sure it's the same issue here, though I haven't seen any pictures, I've just read reports that the nano scratches. Ho hum. My 4G ipod has scratches. Everyone I know who's owned an mp3 player for more than a few days, there's probably a little wear and tear somewhere. It's lost it's "new car smell". I bet the things still work and that you can still navigate the menu system. It's still a hell of a little device.
Which brings us back to why Apple owners are going to be forgiving: it's still a hell of a device. Like I said, Apple users are picky. They're annoyed by the fact that the products they buy have occasional flaws, but that's nothing compared to what they view as the mountain of flaws afflicting the products made by other manufacturers.
One might even say that I would be overly-dismissive of the WSJ to call Microsoft a "monopoly". It might give "normal people" the idea that there were no alternatives and reenforce the idea that Microsoft is the only way.
Dead on. We don't need a monoculture. We don't need a single technology or a single kernel or a single philosophy behind all of software development, and so it simply doesn't make sense to demand that all software be FOSS.
In the midst of FOSS activism (which I have no problem with being a FOSS advocate, and often consider myself one) people tend to take their eyes off the ball. The important goal is not to have all software be GPL'ed, but to have real open standards. In fact, I don't think we should even mind Microsoft maintaining a large market share so long as they start using open standards. As customers and potential customers, we should all demand (in whatever way we're capable) that Microsoft provide freely available documentation to their file formats, protocols, and APIs. Insofar as they fail to do so, we should consider that a problem with their product, and look for alternatives.
The tremendous value and power of FOSS is not in having everyone use it all the time, but in anyone and everyone having the ability to use it whenever is appropriate for them. If a Linux server can be used as an easy drop-in replacement for a Windows server and OpenOffice can open/save MS Office documents, then Microsoft will not be capable of abusing their own customers. Microsoft will be forced to compete with FOSS by offering better quality and features rather than vendor lock in, and frankly, if they would do that, I would have no problem with Microsoft whatsoever.
Also, as much of a fan of FOSS as I am, I am also a fan of Apple and Google because I do believe they're competing by offering quality and features that people want.
However, if you explain to them that since viruses and other bugs (viruses and bugs are something people understand in meatspace) usually come as EXE files, lots of people think that all EXE files that come over email will infect their computers.
I don't wait for my users to jump to that false conclusion. I just go ahead and tell them that every EXE file that comes through the e-mail is a virus. I tell them that every file they receive in the email with instructions to "install it" is a virus. Might not be true, but it's close enough.
Explaining it to them in terms that:...They understand.
Yeah, I think that's your mistake right there. If you expect people to understand, you've already lost. Now, some people might-- I'll grant you that. But not everyone. Instead, you have to know when to lie to them, when to scare them, and when to make them feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
I was suggesting there that removing all campaign finance rules amounted to legalizing bribery. I think it's a pretty fair suggestion, too, if you really mean to do away with any sort of campaign finance laws. If you say anyone can give their money to any official, or can spend their money any way they want in order to influence elections, and it's all considered "free speech", I don't see how you can then bring a charge against a Congressman for accepting a bribe.
But seriously, a good IT professional isn't one who's good at explaining the jargon, or getting laypeople to understand the technical isues...it's one that takes care of the issues for the laypeople, so they don't need to worry about them.
This is only sort of true. Sometimes users have to know some jargon. Sometimes users have to understand the technical issues well enough to avoid them. A real helpdesk pro (or anyone that deals with customers/users) will avoid jargon when possible. When technical issues need explaining, a good IT professional will distill the issues into a couple simple metaphorical ideas, making them no more complicated than they must be, and expect that the user probably won't remember the explanation for next time.
Some users even insist on knowing why. You tell them you can't send an EXE through the e-mail system, and they ask "why?". You tell them it's a security issue, and they say, "so?"
Some users won't accept any explanation they're given if it keeps them from doing what they want, and that's the real measure of your skill. How well does your helpdesk tech deal with the belligerent CEO who is completely irrational and has unrealistic expectations? If your tech can walk away, without giving in to the unrealistic demands, but also without the CEO feeling insulted or ignored, your tech has just earned his paycheck.
So what am I saying? Forget the education angle. Users can't be educated. The real key to helpdesk interaction is to keep your users happy and feeling good about their computers, so that when you tell them "You can't do that," you won't really have to explain why (with all the jargon). They'll just believe you.
I think the first argument was that removing restrictions on campaign contributions won't create a situation where politicians take bribes, because that situation already exists.
And removing laws against murder won't create a situation where people murder each other, because that situation exists.
The second argument was that local politicians should have more power, because they are more likely to get away with being bribed.
You mean less likely? Ok, either way, I think there are probably many things handled at the federal level which could be better handled at the state level. I'm not sure allowing Federal officials to take bribes will make that happen. In fact, allowing Federal officials to take bribes will make them less likely to give up power, since it also means giving up bribes.
At the heart of the problem is that Congress is the body capable of passing meaningful campaign finance reform, yet Congressmen are the people who will suffer from meaningful campaign finance reform. The only way Congress, therefore, will pass meaningful reform is if you have a congress which dominantly consists of honest people, and yet if Congress were so dominantly honest, you wouldn't really need reform. Catch-22?
Because of this catch 22, the only campaign finance reform which will pass through are those measures which can be circumvented.
You've pretty much summed up my frustration (and I'm sure a lot of others', too) with the way this stuff works. The idea of selling a medium and content as a single, linked, inextricable package made sense for a long time. The idea of buying music without buying a record would have seemed insane.
Now that times have changed, however, I think media companies must account for what they're selling us. Are they selling us a medium, or are they selling us a license? The easy answer, of course, is "both", but then what's the breakdown?
For example, let's say I spend $15 on a CD; how much of that money is for the CD, and how much for the license? If you say $5 is for the medium, and $10 for the license, then I should be able to buy the license, sans media, for $10. Also, if I lose/break the medium, or want the same content on the new medium, I should be able to request a new disc for a $5 charge.
Yes, courts decide on laws which are already in existence. Technically, they aren't supposed to rule based on what they want or what they think is right, but only the letter and intent of the law that the legislature has written. Therefore, if a case comes before them for which no law sufficiently covers the situation, they might rule a certain way, and in their decision instruct the legislature to be more specific about these situations.
It has always been that way and will always be that way and is the very reason the founders gave a limited and specific set of enumerated powers to the federal government. The state and local governments and people themselves were left with the remainder of the power. Many state govs and most local govs actually respond to the people and are much less likely to get away with nonsense.
Wait... so your argument is, it should be fine for politicians to take bribes because they shouldn't even have all the power that they do have?
it is one thing to limit money, it is another thing to limit actual speech as if it were an advertisement.
what is next? going down the street and arresting people for trying to convince others to vote for their person? fuck them all.
I don't know, I think it's a bit more complicated than people here are thinking. How do you feel about citizens going door to door, talking to their fellow citizens about why they think a particular candidate should be elected? Pretty good, right?
Do your feelings change if those citizens are on the payroll of a specific corporation or political party? What if they are being paid by that corporation to go door to door, pretending to be "concerned citizens"?
Like, let's say one presidential candidate had vowed to look into Microsoft's practices (yeah, I'm choosing MS because they're a popular villain here, and also politically neutral). Say the candidate had said, if it finds illegal/monopolistic behavior, he wants to break Microsoft up. Now, imagine an army of "concerned citizens", while being paid by Microsoft, go door to door spreading "FUD" about this candidate, pretending to do so only out of their own concern. Does it sound improper yet?
So would it be much different if, instead of going door-to-door, Microsoft paid them to set up phony political weblogs? What if they're not on the Microsoft payroll directly, but Microsoft is the major advertiser on the site? Where do you draw that line?
Now, I'm not saying it's clear-cut, that the government should regulate weblogs. I'm saying it's not clear-cut. There are lots of fine lines here, and room for impropriety. I'm not willing, yet, to dismiss the possibility that laws might be warranted. Perhaps political web sites should be forced to disclose their sponsors, just as TV ads do.
I'm not sure what's appropriate, but I'd like to hear a discussion on what laws are in discussion, and what people think the consequences would be.
Is the original Ipod really too big for you to carry around? Does that extra few ounces rip holes in your pocket and make it terrible uncomfortable to go anywhere?
For me, sorta. I'm not really complaining, though. When I got my first iPod, I thought it was terrifically small for the amount it held, and it was substantially bigger than current iPods. However, yes, the full sized iPods are a little large to be carried around in my pocket. I've typically kept mine in one of those belt holsters or a messenger bag, because, typically, the most I'm willing to carry in my pockets is my wallet and keychain. The situation only gets worse as you factor in a cell phone, camera, and PDA.
You want to say they're great, I'll agree. You want to say they're impressively small, I won't really argue. But are they big enough that they're a little uncomfortable and annoying to carry around? Yes, that too. I'm hoping they'll eventually come out with a viable convergence device, or else the devices will keep getting smaller and someone will design a super-comfortable utility belt.
Right, which I think is good to know, but not exactly *news*. OSX has been coming with X11 on the install CD (optional install) for a couple years now, and you can run Gnome and KDE. Of course, if you want, you could also just install Darwin or Linux on your Mac, and then you can replace the nice, flashy GUI with KDE, but then you wouldn't be able to run the nice, flashy OSX programs (MS Office, Photoshop, etc.) without running OSX within Linux.
All of which I thought was common knowledge for a few years now. You can run X11 apps is OSX, so long as they've been ported for PPC/Darwin. It's nice, but due to the slowness and ugliness, I would generally avoid it. It's much nicer to have native ports.
What if I just went to a friends house and he gave me mp3s of his latest recordings, when I get home, will itunes overwrite these automatically?
If you use automatic syncing, your iPod is bound to one "Library" (on a single computer), and any changes made to the library will overwrite what you have on your iPod. If you use automatic syncing, iTunes also won't copy music onto your iPod any way but through the automatic syncing. This includes if you take your iPod to someone else's computer, you won't be able to copy any songs over to your iPod without turning off automatic syncing, or else binding your iPod to your friend's iTunes Library. If you bind your iPod to your friend's Library, it will erase the songs that are already on it (all of them) and replace them with your friend's songs, but it will warn you first.
Again, I don't use itunes, so I may not be right - but I understood that itunes could be used with any mp3 player? The fact that it works as a standalone music player suggests you can.
I believe some other MP3 players will connect through iTunes, but iTunes rips into AAC by default. Does your mp3 player support AAC? Even if your MP3 player will sync and play AACs (or if you switch and tell it to use MP3s), you still won't be able to use songs purchased from iTMS.
Well, and what's the real difference between the Wimpy Curses vs. Real Curses? I'm always shocked by how many people seem to assume that the difference is in the word itself. As though "shit" has some inherent magical ability to be worse than "crap". Really, if you stopped everyone from ever saying "shit", people would eventually forget about it, and it wouldn't be bad anymore. We would just invent new "bad words".
Think about the example of the politically-correct race designations (which, these days, seems to be the quickest changing form of "bad words"). "Negro" was once considered a non-offensive word. As "negro" became offensive, people wanted to be called "colored" instead, then as "colored became offensive, "black". Eventually "black" became offensive, and so it became "African American". When will people learn that the words aren't at fault? If you invent a term to designate a specific race, no matter how well-chosen and politically correct, and racism exists against that race, then that term will take on racist connotations. It's not that we need to find a new word for "African American" in order to end racism, it's that we need to stop making race-based distinctions so often, and therefore not needing new names for those distinctions, and then the words won't matter so much.
Ok, so that went into an off-topic rant, but here's where it gets back on-topic. As long as we deficate and urinate, engage in sexual intercourse, have penises and vaginas, we'll have funny words for those things that someone thinks are "dirty" or "crude". That's not a sign that the words are dirty and crude, but that people think penises and vaginas and sex and shitting and pissing are dirty and crude.
Because before the advent of recorded music, it was so much easier to make a career out of music, right? All you had to do was find a wealthy aristocrat or merchant willing to support your career. Or you had the choice of becoming a traveling minstrel.
Musicians have much more opportunity today then before the advent of recorded music.
I'm sorry, did that appear to be what I was saying? That our options are:
Have huge monopolistic record companies
-or-
Time travel
Were those the options I set forth? I didn't mean to. I thought, you know, we could keep the whole "recorded music" thing, maybe even the idea of "rock concerts" and "clubs" (you know, establishments wherein music is played, and the owners pay musicians while charging for drinks or something).
I think a lot of people will be disappointed though. Disbanding large record companies *and* creating time travel in a single swoop would be a real winner with the crowd here at Slashdot.
In addition, the company said Ray Ozzie will expand his role as chief technical officer by assuming responsibility for helping drive its software-based services strategy and execution across all three divisions.
So I guess this means this Ray Ozzie character is the new "Head of Monopolistic Practices"?
um... The incremental cost of distributing a particular song are pretty low. The distribution costs overall are immense.
Relative to physical media distribution? I'm not saying you're wrong, but I find it hard to believe that, with all the parts of the supply chain that Apple is replacing, that the total cost of distribution wouldn't be pretty darn small in comparison to traditional methods.
Besides bandwidth, Apple has to pay to have the CD ripped once, cover art scanned. Let's even throw in the cost of software design, which, admittedly, isn't $0 and website design. On the other side, think about the cost of the CD itself, Cutting it, packaging and jewel cases, shipping costs, the cost of the record store to stock the music, etc.
Let's talk more about the record store itself. I'd bet if you compared Apple's iTMS with Tower Records (nation-wide), Apple probably pays less per CD for their support personnel than Tower pays in their in-store employees. Likewise, I bet it's cheaper per CD for Apple to host their store than the combination of real-estate costs, store furnishings, listening posts, in-store displays, etc., for all the Tower Records across the country.
Are you telling me that, considering all that, the cost to distribute a significant volume of music isn't small in comparison to media distribution? Maybe you're right, but it seems counter-intuitive to me.
There also might be some issue of administrative costs for Apple; if all the songs have weird/variable prices, then someone has to enter that info, check it to make sure it's correct, etc. This also means more constant communication with record labels, which could increase staffing needs.
The music industry is just greedy and they're completely out of control. Someone needs to shut them down and quick. However, without their money many artists probably wouldn't get their albums published, so it's kind of a necessary evil that we have to deal with.
Who knows, that might even be better for musicians. If the prominence of the worldwide "major label" music scene slips, it might open the window to lots of smaller and more local scenes, live music might take an up-turn, and it might become more viable for a greater number of people to make a living as "professional musicians" (i.e. enough to get by, though not ba-zillionaires).
Not that I really know, but I don't think the fall of huge record companies will destroy the human appetite for music, and if enough people want something, if the demand is great enough, there will be money to be made from the supply side.
Part of the reason for the simplified pricing scheme was a response to the reality of other music stores at the time iTMS opened. In many of those stores, you had different prices and different licensing schemes for different songs. You'd pay a monthly fee, and some songs were free to play with a subscription to the service, and some you could download. Some songs you could transfer to a portable player, but some you could only listen to while it was streaming (it didn't even allow a download). Some songs you could download, but they cost extra, in addition to the subscription. Keep in mind that all these different schemes would exist in the same store at the same time. Many stores tried to simplify this process, but the different licenses were insisted upon by the various record companies. It was maddening, and contributed to the failure of every online store leading up to iTunes.
So iTunes simplified that, and instituted a rule that all songs (with a few exceptions) would be treated the same. I don't know how Jobs got the various record companies to agree to 99cents a song, but it sure is better than what existed before. Along with everything else, it seems to keep record companies from jacking up the price on random songs. Really, if Apple did allow variable prices, what do you think would happen? 99 cents would become the base *minimum*, and song prices would range up from there.
For one thing, as good a deal as iTMS is for the big record companies (supposedly, despite having fewer costs and charging nearly the same prices, they give the artists an even smaller cut), it's also a big threat. They record companies have long justified their large piece of the pie by the fact that the cost of distribution was too high for an individual to fund.
Online distribution changes that; distribution costs are rock-bottom. Many of those in the record industry probably felt bullied into the iTMS-- it was obvious where things were going, and whether they liked it or not, they had to get involved in the future.
However, bumping up prices becomes a win/win situation for the record companies. Either consumers pay the high prices, which represents amazing profit margins, or consumers refuse to pay, which means they stick with physical media.
You just have to remember that the RIAA selling music through iTMS is, at best, an uneasy alliance. If the RIAA wants to keep their strangle-hold on music distribution, they really have to sabotage online distribution sufficiently to keep it a niche market.
A browser that has 5 reported vulnerabilities is not more secure than a browser that has 30.... Once any vulnerability is discovered, relative security depends upon is how many users are exposed, and for how long.
Of course, there's always the question of "discovered by whom?" When we talk about security holes being "discovered", are we talking about discovery by Microsoft/Mozilla, or by hackers who want to use the exploit. Who knows when an exploit is first discovered by hackers?
That's part of the problem I have with this whole thing. Instead of saying, "25 flaws were reported in Mozilla while only 18 were reported in IE," you could just as easily say, "25 flaws were fixed in Mozilla while only 18 were fixed in IE." Question is, out of how many existing and perhaps unknown (but perhaps known to some hackers) flaws in each browser, which is a question that is harder to answer.
Slashdot Mirror
And already we have feature creep, and there's your whole problem. You're saying, "Why do we have phones with all these features? Why don't we have them with only the features I want?! " Your desire for laptop/internet connectivity is another man's camera. Of course we all want the features "I want", and don't really care about anything else.
You might think, at first, that it's because Apple users are brainwashed. However, the real problem is that they're incredibly picky. Take, for example, the Powerbook Ti, which had certain areas where the paint chipped off. When this became a known problem, owners went out and found replacement paint, being very careful to match the color exactly. A small market opened up, and people were selling paint specifically as "Powerbook Ti touch-up paint."
Now, has this happened on such a large scale with Sony, Dell, or HP laptops? No. Is it because Sony, Dell, and HP laptops don't ever have discolorations or chipped, faded, or worn away paint on their casings? No. It's because if you've owned a Sony laptop for 3 years, and a little paint gets worn away, you probably don't even notice. You just expect that something being carried around all the time like that will eventually have some wear and tear. Mac users, on the other hand, get incredibly upset that their little pride and joy has a tiny little flake come loose.
I'm sure it's the same issue here, though I haven't seen any pictures, I've just read reports that the nano scratches. Ho hum. My 4G ipod has scratches. Everyone I know who's owned an mp3 player for more than a few days, there's probably a little wear and tear somewhere. It's lost it's "new car smell". I bet the things still work and that you can still navigate the menu system. It's still a hell of a little device.
Which brings us back to why Apple owners are going to be forgiving: it's still a hell of a device. Like I said, Apple users are picky. They're annoyed by the fact that the products they buy have occasional flaws, but that's nothing compared to what they view as the mountain of flaws afflicting the products made by other manufacturers.
One might even say that I would be overly-dismissive of the WSJ to call Microsoft a "monopoly". It might give "normal people" the idea that there were no alternatives and reenforce the idea that Microsoft is the only way.
In the midst of FOSS activism (which I have no problem with being a FOSS advocate, and often consider myself one) people tend to take their eyes off the ball. The important goal is not to have all software be GPL'ed, but to have real open standards. In fact, I don't think we should even mind Microsoft maintaining a large market share so long as they start using open standards. As customers and potential customers, we should all demand (in whatever way we're capable) that Microsoft provide freely available documentation to their file formats, protocols, and APIs. Insofar as they fail to do so, we should consider that a problem with their product, and look for alternatives.
The tremendous value and power of FOSS is not in having everyone use it all the time, but in anyone and everyone having the ability to use it whenever is appropriate for them. If a Linux server can be used as an easy drop-in replacement for a Windows server and OpenOffice can open/save MS Office documents, then Microsoft will not be capable of abusing their own customers. Microsoft will be forced to compete with FOSS by offering better quality and features rather than vendor lock in, and frankly, if they would do that, I would have no problem with Microsoft whatsoever.
Also, as much of a fan of FOSS as I am, I am also a fan of Apple and Google because I do believe they're competing by offering quality and features that people want.
I don't wait for my users to jump to that false conclusion. I just go ahead and tell them that every EXE file that comes through the e-mail is a virus. I tell them that every file they receive in the email with instructions to "install it" is a virus. Might not be true, but it's close enough.
Explaining it to them in terms that:...They understand.
Yeah, I think that's your mistake right there. If you expect people to understand, you've already lost. Now, some people might-- I'll grant you that. But not everyone. Instead, you have to know when to lie to them, when to scare them, and when to make them feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
I was suggesting there that removing all campaign finance rules amounted to legalizing bribery. I think it's a pretty fair suggestion, too, if you really mean to do away with any sort of campaign finance laws. If you say anyone can give their money to any official, or can spend their money any way they want in order to influence elections, and it's all considered "free speech", I don't see how you can then bring a charge against a Congressman for accepting a bribe.
This is only sort of true. Sometimes users have to know some jargon. Sometimes users have to understand the technical issues well enough to avoid them. A real helpdesk pro (or anyone that deals with customers/users) will avoid jargon when possible. When technical issues need explaining, a good IT professional will distill the issues into a couple simple metaphorical ideas, making them no more complicated than they must be, and expect that the user probably won't remember the explanation for next time.
Some users even insist on knowing why. You tell them you can't send an EXE through the e-mail system, and they ask "why?". You tell them it's a security issue, and they say, "so?"
Some users won't accept any explanation they're given if it keeps them from doing what they want, and that's the real measure of your skill. How well does your helpdesk tech deal with the belligerent CEO who is completely irrational and has unrealistic expectations? If your tech can walk away, without giving in to the unrealistic demands, but also without the CEO feeling insulted or ignored, your tech has just earned his paycheck.
So what am I saying? Forget the education angle. Users can't be educated. The real key to helpdesk interaction is to keep your users happy and feeling good about their computers, so that when you tell them "You can't do that," you won't really have to explain why (with all the jargon). They'll just believe you.
I'm barely joking.
And removing laws against murder won't create a situation where people murder each other, because that situation exists.
The second argument was that local politicians should have more power, because they are more likely to get away with being bribed.
You mean less likely? Ok, either way, I think there are probably many things handled at the federal level which could be better handled at the state level. I'm not sure allowing Federal officials to take bribes will make that happen. In fact, allowing Federal officials to take bribes will make them less likely to give up power, since it also means giving up bribes.
At the heart of the problem is that Congress is the body capable of passing meaningful campaign finance reform, yet Congressmen are the people who will suffer from meaningful campaign finance reform. The only way Congress, therefore, will pass meaningful reform is if you have a congress which dominantly consists of honest people, and yet if Congress were so dominantly honest, you wouldn't really need reform. Catch-22?
Because of this catch 22, the only campaign finance reform which will pass through are those measures which can be circumvented.
Now that times have changed, however, I think media companies must account for what they're selling us. Are they selling us a medium, or are they selling us a license? The easy answer, of course, is "both", but then what's the breakdown?
For example, let's say I spend $15 on a CD; how much of that money is for the CD, and how much for the license? If you say $5 is for the medium, and $10 for the license, then I should be able to buy the license, sans media, for $10. Also, if I lose/break the medium, or want the same content on the new medium, I should be able to request a new disc for a $5 charge.
Yes, courts decide on laws which are already in existence. Technically, they aren't supposed to rule based on what they want or what they think is right, but only the letter and intent of the law that the legislature has written. Therefore, if a case comes before them for which no law sufficiently covers the situation, they might rule a certain way, and in their decision instruct the legislature to be more specific about these situations.
Wait... so your argument is, it should be fine for politicians to take bribes because they shouldn't even have all the power that they do have?
what is next? going down the street and arresting people for trying to convince others to vote for their person? fuck them all.
I don't know, I think it's a bit more complicated than people here are thinking. How do you feel about citizens going door to door, talking to their fellow citizens about why they think a particular candidate should be elected? Pretty good, right?
Do your feelings change if those citizens are on the payroll of a specific corporation or political party? What if they are being paid by that corporation to go door to door, pretending to be "concerned citizens"?
Like, let's say one presidential candidate had vowed to look into Microsoft's practices (yeah, I'm choosing MS because they're a popular villain here, and also politically neutral). Say the candidate had said, if it finds illegal/monopolistic behavior, he wants to break Microsoft up. Now, imagine an army of "concerned citizens", while being paid by Microsoft, go door to door spreading "FUD" about this candidate, pretending to do so only out of their own concern. Does it sound improper yet?
So would it be much different if, instead of going door-to-door, Microsoft paid them to set up phony political weblogs? What if they're not on the Microsoft payroll directly, but Microsoft is the major advertiser on the site? Where do you draw that line?
Now, I'm not saying it's clear-cut, that the government should regulate weblogs. I'm saying it's not clear-cut. There are lots of fine lines here, and room for impropriety. I'm not willing, yet, to dismiss the possibility that laws might be warranted. Perhaps political web sites should be forced to disclose their sponsors, just as TV ads do.
I'm not sure what's appropriate, but I'd like to hear a discussion on what laws are in discussion, and what people think the consequences would be.
For me, sorta. I'm not really complaining, though. When I got my first iPod, I thought it was terrifically small for the amount it held, and it was substantially bigger than current iPods. However, yes, the full sized iPods are a little large to be carried around in my pocket. I've typically kept mine in one of those belt holsters or a messenger bag, because, typically, the most I'm willing to carry in my pockets is my wallet and keychain. The situation only gets worse as you factor in a cell phone, camera, and PDA.
You want to say they're great, I'll agree. You want to say they're impressively small, I won't really argue. But are they big enough that they're a little uncomfortable and annoying to carry around? Yes, that too. I'm hoping they'll eventually come out with a viable convergence device, or else the devices will keep getting smaller and someone will design a super-comfortable utility belt.
All of which I thought was common knowledge for a few years now. You can run X11 apps is OSX, so long as they've been ported for PPC/Darwin. It's nice, but due to the slowness and ugliness, I would generally avoid it. It's much nicer to have native ports.
If you use automatic syncing, your iPod is bound to one "Library" (on a single computer), and any changes made to the library will overwrite what you have on your iPod. If you use automatic syncing, iTunes also won't copy music onto your iPod any way but through the automatic syncing. This includes if you take your iPod to someone else's computer, you won't be able to copy any songs over to your iPod without turning off automatic syncing, or else binding your iPod to your friend's iTunes Library. If you bind your iPod to your friend's Library, it will erase the songs that are already on it (all of them) and replace them with your friend's songs, but it will warn you first.
Again, I don't use itunes, so I may not be right - but I understood that itunes could be used with any mp3 player? The fact that it works as a standalone music player suggests you can.
I believe some other MP3 players will connect through iTunes, but iTunes rips into AAC by default. Does your mp3 player support AAC? Even if your MP3 player will sync and play AACs (or if you switch and tell it to use MP3s), you still won't be able to use songs purchased from iTMS.
What about the Seamonkey Project?
Think about the example of the politically-correct race designations (which, these days, seems to be the quickest changing form of "bad words"). "Negro" was once considered a non-offensive word. As "negro" became offensive, people wanted to be called "colored" instead, then as "colored became offensive, "black". Eventually "black" became offensive, and so it became "African American". When will people learn that the words aren't at fault? If you invent a term to designate a specific race, no matter how well-chosen and politically correct, and racism exists against that race, then that term will take on racist connotations. It's not that we need to find a new word for "African American" in order to end racism, it's that we need to stop making race-based distinctions so often, and therefore not needing new names for those distinctions, and then the words won't matter so much.
Ok, so that went into an off-topic rant, but here's where it gets back on-topic. As long as we deficate and urinate, engage in sexual intercourse, have penises and vaginas, we'll have funny words for those things that someone thinks are "dirty" or "crude". That's not a sign that the words are dirty and crude, but that people think penises and vaginas and sex and shitting and pissing are dirty and crude.
Musicians have much more opportunity today then before the advent of recorded music.
I'm sorry, did that appear to be what I was saying? That our options are:
-or-
Were those the options I set forth? I didn't mean to. I thought, you know, we could keep the whole "recorded music" thing, maybe even the idea of "rock concerts" and "clubs" (you know, establishments wherein music is played, and the owners pay musicians while charging for drinks or something).
I think a lot of people will be disappointed though. Disbanding large record companies *and* creating time travel in a single swoop would be a real winner with the crowd here at Slashdot.
So I guess this means this Ray Ozzie character is the new "Head of Monopolistic Practices"?
Relative to physical media distribution? I'm not saying you're wrong, but I find it hard to believe that, with all the parts of the supply chain that Apple is replacing, that the total cost of distribution wouldn't be pretty darn small in comparison to traditional methods.
Besides bandwidth, Apple has to pay to have the CD ripped once, cover art scanned. Let's even throw in the cost of software design, which, admittedly, isn't $0 and website design. On the other side, think about the cost of the CD itself, Cutting it, packaging and jewel cases, shipping costs, the cost of the record store to stock the music, etc.
Let's talk more about the record store itself. I'd bet if you compared Apple's iTMS with Tower Records (nation-wide), Apple probably pays less per CD for their support personnel than Tower pays in their in-store employees. Likewise, I bet it's cheaper per CD for Apple to host their store than the combination of real-estate costs, store furnishings, listening posts, in-store displays, etc., for all the Tower Records across the country.
Are you telling me that, considering all that, the cost to distribute a significant volume of music isn't small in comparison to media distribution? Maybe you're right, but it seems counter-intuitive to me.
There also might be some issue of administrative costs for Apple; if all the songs have weird/variable prices, then someone has to enter that info, check it to make sure it's correct, etc. This also means more constant communication with record labels, which could increase staffing needs.
Who knows, that might even be better for musicians. If the prominence of the worldwide "major label" music scene slips, it might open the window to lots of smaller and more local scenes, live music might take an up-turn, and it might become more viable for a greater number of people to make a living as "professional musicians" (i.e. enough to get by, though not ba-zillionaires).
Not that I really know, but I don't think the fall of huge record companies will destroy the human appetite for music, and if enough people want something, if the demand is great enough, there will be money to be made from the supply side.
So iTunes simplified that, and instituted a rule that all songs (with a few exceptions) would be treated the same. I don't know how Jobs got the various record companies to agree to 99cents a song, but it sure is better than what existed before. Along with everything else, it seems to keep record companies from jacking up the price on random songs. Really, if Apple did allow variable prices, what do you think would happen? 99 cents would become the base *minimum*, and song prices would range up from there.
Online distribution changes that; distribution costs are rock-bottom. Many of those in the record industry probably felt bullied into the iTMS-- it was obvious where things were going, and whether they liked it or not, they had to get involved in the future.
However, bumping up prices becomes a win/win situation for the record companies. Either consumers pay the high prices, which represents amazing profit margins, or consumers refuse to pay, which means they stick with physical media.
You just have to remember that the RIAA selling music through iTMS is, at best, an uneasy alliance. If the RIAA wants to keep their strangle-hold on music distribution, they really have to sabotage online distribution sufficiently to keep it a niche market.
Of course, there's always the question of "discovered by whom?" When we talk about security holes being "discovered", are we talking about discovery by Microsoft/Mozilla, or by hackers who want to use the exploit. Who knows when an exploit is first discovered by hackers?
That's part of the problem I have with this whole thing. Instead of saying, "25 flaws were reported in Mozilla while only 18 were reported in IE," you could just as easily say, "25 flaws were fixed in Mozilla while only 18 were fixed in IE." Question is, out of how many existing and perhaps unknown (but perhaps known to some hackers) flaws in each browser, which is a question that is harder to answer.
Of course, there are other factors as well.