That is pretty much never the case. Physicists have long been proud makers of their own tools and software is no different.
You are begging the question. Computer Scientists aren't necessarily making tools, but are the architects of computer models. A computer scientist may not ever write a single line of discrete code, but at a higher level, direct programmers to code modules that fit in the grand design. Also, it matters not what the discipline the scientist comes from, if they are doing computer science, they are computer scientists.
One reason why they are doing this: because this way, their content is much more difficult to pirate.
Automatic extraction or conversion to e.g. PDF cannot be implemented.
PDF also has standard security features to prevent viewing, printing, copying or extracting any content, depending on which features are implemented. It is not trivial for the layman to bypass these features.
I assume that most great cosmologists aren't expert computer programmers with specialties in high performance computation, and that most great programmers specializing in high performance computation aren't great cosmologists.
So how do these people get their ridiculously complicated physics stuff crunched by ridiculously complicated machines?
This: the humble computer scientist (no, programmers are not necessarily, and only very infrequently, computer scientists) will act as a liason between the two.
SGI says its UV2 can scale to 4,096 cores and 64 terabytes of memory, with a peak I/O rate of four terabytes per second and runs off-the-shelf Linux software.
Finally, something that can run Java/Flash/WoW/Firefox/WMP/etc. at full speed!
(sorry... until someone posts with an interesting comment, I have nothing helpful to add... I should really just wait... sorry again)
Extremely contagious, quick, and deadly diseases like Ebola Zaire often go too quickly for their own good. They can kill everyone so fast...
I don't understand how such deadly diseases can evolve... kill everything, including itself, and then outbreaks can reoccur once this has happened.
While fascinating, I find biology far too complicated to ever get my head around completely because it seems too difficult to reduce to the simpler underlying systems, like one can get away with only knowing a few trigonometry equations and derive the rest from those when needed. There is far too much information for me to memorize it all. I am thankful that there are those that have the biological knack, that understand it and think biology is simple, and are readily available to dumb-it-up for people like me. Thx for posting.
I'm confused, are you saying you bought a magazine from the News Stand and it turned out to be an audio book?
Obviously you are. No, of course not... I was making a point. You almost got it, though. If I had done this, it would also be a digital version of a magazine, but it would be essentially so distant from the original printed version that you couldn't refer to it as the authoritative digital version, which is what Apple is trying to do with the content in their Newsstand app. Its metaphor, you see? If this existed, and it might, neither Apple nor publishers could pass it off as a replacement for the printed version.
I disagree... with a pdf version, if enabled, you could print out the fold-in.
Ummmm... okay. You seriously think that's a viable alternative?
mmmkay... my response stops right here. Its clear there is little point in responding further to your posts: you just outed yourself as a troll.
Secondly, property includes your body, your eyes, your kidneys, your brain, etc. Either you own them or you don't, and when gov't tells you that you can't put something into your body yourself voluntarily, they are also stealing your property rights.
Not disagreeing with you, but I'd like to point out that you are your body. You are your own possession, unless you subscribe to dualism. The seat of perception, the eyes, generally, is where people feel themselves being, but from the perspective of realism, your arms and hands, your legs, even your toes, areyou (unless or until they, unfortunately I expect, become separate).
I mean they are so completely different that you couldn't consider one a version of the other, and it certainly doesn't fit what I would colloqually call the "digital version of the print version." To make the point only, if instead what you receieved was an audio file completely duplicated the entire content in computerized vocalizations, it would also be a digital representation of the original content, but it would not be the same, nor would I consider it "the" digital version.
In the Mad Magazine, for example, you're able to do the fold-in. You can't do that with, for example, a PDF version.
I disagree... with a pdf version, if enabled, you could print out the fold-in. Also, as I detailed in another post, there's nothing inherent in the format that prevents you from doing this... pdf can handle that kind of manipulation. But I think your example is a rare case... I can't think of any other publication where every edition requires you to manipulate the media in a way to reveal a secret visualization.
If anything, the interactivity opens some interesting doors.
I don't have any complaint against rich content. My complaint is they are pushing these things as though they are the same, mere digital versions, that could replace the printed version of the periodical. They can't. They are too different, too far removed, from what all the periodicals actually are. The content simply is not the same. Further, they are requiring publishers to hire development teams to remanipulate the content into these things, on the one hand giving a publisher that wishes some day to migrate completely to this kind of format a way into developing rich media, if only for Apple's customers, but on the other hand it is straining publishers' resources that are already strained by the web's encroachment on printed periodicals. pdfs could replace printed periodicals, and offer all the advantages of digital informational manipulation.
Apple has a special developer's program to deal with bugs in News Stand apps.. it's called repeat business. When apps get buggy, people de-star them, and they lose business. Self-healing-apps
You are helping to make my point. Publishers are not software developers. Developers don't come cheap. This is a whole new space for them that may or may not be profitable. My guess is not: no matter how neat the experience is, if they can't replace the printed periodical, they don't serve the purpose of doing that. In the end they may be just another product, but these things will not unseat the print versions they claim to be digital versions of, like pdf can.
Without updates? I've already gotten an update to one of the magazines I have.
I haven't seen anything I have demoed (about a dozen titles) receive any updates, and half of them were bug nests, but if you have, then it's my mistake. But again this is requiring spending resources to fix these things. Its not the same as a line or two of retraction in a subsequent issue, but pushing out new software. I can't imagine publishers relish supporting old editions in this manner.
It's almost exactly like print delivery
I must disagree in the strongest manner. It is nothing like print delivery. The content is different. What you are calling bells and whistles serves no purpose but to be a play thing for the reader. This is a silly device that stands between the reader and the content. If you enjoy this, then good for you, but I, and many others on the web that have complained, find it distracting and pointless.
Seriously dude, you're really reaching here for a reason to bitch about it.
Seriously dude, my points are all valid and nothing you have responded with has altered the original argument. You happen to like the rich media, but that i
That's simply not true. Each TITLE is an app. That app downloads new content once per day or once per month depending on whether it's a newspaper or a magazine. It DOES NOT download a new app each time. Thus the UI does not change each time, only the content.
You are incorrect. Each new edition is a new discrete app. The framing app, the Apple Newsstand outer layer, operates more like a folder, and the frames for the individual publications are alse like a folder. But the new editions are indeed discrete applications themselves.
Ideally I'd say that the iBooks Author system would be the basis of an ideal system. EPub based, not PDF. But that would involve re-writing history, and Apple forcing a system on publishers who'd already chosen another way.
I like ePubs are nice for some books, but for periodicals, IMO, pdf is ideal. This is the model most publishers have already embraced prior to Apple's Newsstand being released. The reason is pretty obvious: no extra work for publishers. They are already generating pdf's in order to print their publication. Downsampling this for internet delivery and user consuption is academic, and could easily be integrated into their digital pre-press automation with no extra work involved... pump out the pdf at the correct dpi for zooming on an end-users display, and send it off to their resident web master. PDFs are not without their drawbacks, but as I detailed in another post, most of these issues have been mitigated by better software, better hardware, and faster internet connections. The remaining draw backs from the users perspective, and I think your own complaint with the format, is that you can't easily re-manipulate the content within the document. This, also, is ideal for publisers... as they don't want you doing that. But if you are interested and investigative enough, the content within pdf can be manipulated as easily as you can manipulate content within a Microsoft Word *.doc. It just takes a bit of learning what pdfs are, how they are structured, and most importantly, having an application that allows you to do that. There are a number out there, and a growing number of OSS offerings... but my favorites are made by enfocus.
I'm not sure they are still around, but once there was an Austin based startup called "NewsStand, Inc.," whose model was exactly what publishers and subscribers would suspect, but they were ahead of their time. What you saw in their reader was exactly what you saw in the printed edition.
That would suck. Why would I want the digital version to look like the plain one?
Familiarity. When you go to read an eBook, wouldn't you be surprised that instead of a digital version of the book, along with all the advantages of being digital, that someone decided to make it look and function in a way that was completely alien? What if eBook publishers decided that if you wanted digital, that must mean that you also want multimedia, and each page contained not only the text, but a short film? The point is, a digital version of an analog media doesn't mean that it needs to be so drastically different that it must be so unrecognizable as to no longer even be the same nature as what it is emulating. If it did, then one thing is not a version of the other. They stand apart.
I want to be able to choose the font. I want to be able to search the text and copy and paste it and such.
I'm not sure where you are seeing this functionality, but you aren't seeing it in Apple's Newsstand. But anything that is digital-ized, one would expect that you'd be able to copy out text and paste it elsewhere, not for piracy reasons, but for convenience in quoting an article, or to be able to search it for keywords. I haven't seen this ability in any of the editions I have demoed in Apple's Newsstand app. But in the reader for NewsStand, Inc., I believe this was possible. As far as being able to choose the font. if you have enough understanding of how to manipulate pdf, even this is possible, but then it really wouldn't be the same as a subscription to, say, the New York Times. They pay graphic designers and production artists, i.e. qualified professionals, to do that for you, and the nyt has a particular look and feel to it that separates it from, say, the LA Times, or National Geographic. I don't think the editors of these publications would appreciate your desire to change their publications in the way you are describing.
When they write an article about a particular piece of legislation, I want a hyperlink to the actual Bill.
Have you ever heard of pdf? This document format is perfectly cabable of handling hyperlinks.
Trying to maintain the paper-based format is exactly what's wrong with this sort of thing.
Cautiously, I'd have to agree... how many stories have their been of people getting killed by a falling stack of their collection of newspapers? More than a few. I don't think that can happen in digital versions, but als I don't think that's a legitimate fear for what's wrong with printed content. Loving trees is a better argument against printed pieces. And the archiving methods of Apple's Newsstand app are also not what you'd expect: you don't have control of the content, Apple, or the publisher, keeps track of what you have subscribed to, and automatically archives your old editions for you. Should you move to another platform, you can't take any of that content with you. With a document-based model, there's no reason you couldn't personally maintain your own archives.
He's complaining that it's not like a PDF. I might have complained as well because I had to familiarize myself with how to navigate their way. On the plus side, the Mad fold-in works just like it does on paper, which I think justifies that move.
His complaint doesn't really add up to a whole lot.
Not quite. The complaint is that they are advertising these subscriptions as something they are not. The content is not the same. What you are getting with the Apple Newsstand app subscriptions is a whole new multimedia experience. Some may argue that it is better, but my argument is that there was nothing wrong with a document-based model, and that an application-based model for periodicals is, in practice, flawed. Now you must face the new bugs every new application is subject to, without updates, because each new edition is its own discrete application, and functions quite diffently between different periodicals and different editions and different publishers. In the printed publishing industry, it is standard that paper is bound a certain way, for instance. Or that the front cover is on the front, the back cover on the back. There is no such standardization in Apple's Newsstand. Some periodicals, like USA Today, won't even interface with the Newsstand app (and I wonder what's behind that decision). The crux of my complaint is that it is in no way like the traditional periodical subscription, and they are fallaciously promoting it in this way (begging the question, allowing readers to assume that it is). It is not a replacement for printed periodicals. It is something altogether different. And, further, it is unlike anything else; there are no other apps like it. It is indescribable.
Newsstand, which was introduced in last year's iOS 5, was a great idea: Put all of our favorite news sources all in one place, and let readers buy magazines from the app just like they'd buy a magazine off a newsstand. There was hope that this new purchasing and subscription service would be journalism's savior. Finally, a way for journalism to be profitable.
Problem was, by the time Newsstand was released, it was a dud app. The app worked fine, but it was a dud because none of the magazines you actually want to read were on there.
No, no, no. What they are doing is not digital distribution of the same content found in the printed periodicals. What they are doing is forcing down the consumers throat some one's sick idea of what periodicals should be in the future as seen from a Harry Potter movie a decade ago. The paradigm sucks royally. Every single new issue is a discrete new application, not a document. While I find that detail bizarre, in theory its not a terrible idea. But the implementation is horrifying. Its so far from what it should be its absurd. Newsstand isn't failing because of a thin roster, Newsstand is failing because the implementation is a terrible idea. A subscription through Newsstand is nothing like a real subscription. Its not even like the web model, which at least has become familiar. The subscriber is forced to learn to operate a new application every single edition. This is anathema.
Even operating systems that function in an entirely different manner do not do this: Windows is actually very similar to Ubuntu or Macintosh from a users perspective because they are all using common functions at the desktop level, in effect while the colors and shadows may be different, its still all menus, windows, icons, clicking and dragging. What Apple and the publishers that are embracing the Newsstand model are doing is madness... new applications that are nothing like anything that has come before! And each new edition (app) has the potential, and in practice it is so, to be entirely different from the last, making anything learned about how the last edition functions worthless. I understand the frustration of users, and it is not what the article is claiming, and I can only imagine the strain on resources that each new edition of a periodical poses for publishers.... they now need a development team.
I'm not sure they are still around, but once there was an Austin based startup called "NewsStand, Inc.," whose model was exactly what publishers and subscribers would suspect, but they were ahead of their time. What you saw in their reader was exactly what you saw in the printed edition. The subscriber model was very similar, if not identical, to the traditional model. I'm not certain, but I think Zinio has a similar model to this. Originally, viewing pdf's on a screen wasn't ideal: the software and hardware was slow to respond to the users commands. But now the software is pretty good and the hardware can handle fast screen redraws and is nimble enough to keep up with the user. pdf's used to require a "pdf warning" next to the links so as not to upset the user downloading and not expecting it, which would tie up their browser and possibly crash it because of the file size. This has been mitigated by the steady progress of technology: our browsers, readers, and graphics card and network connections can now handle the graphics rich content, and it just doesn't bother anyone anymore. Many ebook readers (those reading, not necessarily the hardware) actually prefer to read a document that is identical to the printed piece.
The mistake Apple and publishers are making is to assume that the old publishing model is broken or outdated. It isn't! It is merely being encroached upon by the web model (namely, free content), but is fundamentally sound. People, for the most part, like magazines and newspapers the way they are. The idea to move from a document based model to an application based mode
Well, not quite, right ? Rémi complained to Apple that they were imposing DRMs that were incompatible with the GPL under which VLC is released.
Instead of removing DRMs, Apple pulled the app. Expected behavior ? Perhaps.
I would say that "complained" is understating immensly what he did. He launched a full campaign, which in and of itself would be impressive if the results didn't suck so tremendously.
Rediscovered and capitalized upon... this isn't new information, just new to their audience. Anyone that learned to play piano or guitar figured this out long before these guys... and cringe every time the pattern is re-released as a new pop single. It's kind of funny and subtle that transition from sensitive artist to business man... funny how that teenage girls always fall for it, and the business man always looks identical while performing. My best friend, a piano prodigy, wrote this very song at age 8 or 9, back in the late 70's, same chords, but unfortunate lyrics making fun of the retarted. I knew it immediately then as "Heart and Soul," from my grandmother singing it and my father playing it. I picked up guitar when I was 17, and within a year realized this pattern was insanely popular throughout the history of rock/pop... that was 1988... I have little doubt that the musicians of the 30's, 40's, 50's and 60's were well aware of it as well, but the songs they knew it as are likely unknown to us even if we would immediately recognize the music.
... Apple has a process to report infringement of apps, and they probably used it, just like Nokia used it to remove VLC...
And Apple generally does pull apps when there are disputes going on - like the VLC developers all fighting about VLC in the app store.
It was just one guy, Rémi Denis-Courmont, a VLC contributor who was also a Nokia employee, that, without the backing of The VideoLAN dev community, single-handedly convinced Apple to pull the VLC app from AppStore.
This treatment slows or prevents the progress of the auto-immune attack of beta cells by pathogenic t-lymphocytes in mice with a specific genetic disorder of a certain type of nerve cell.
Normal mice don't suffer from diabetes via this route, so it's pretty questionable as to whether diabetes is typically neurological or not.
By your pessimism, sounds like any research involving genetically introduced traits in mice for study is not worth the effort, and any scientific medical conclusions derived from it is also questionable. Can you name any research using genetically introduced traits in mice where normal mice do not become inflicted by the particular disease being studied by a different route? I like mice, too, FWIW, and like yourself, I have zero expertise in medical research, but using mice for medical study and synthetically reproducing/introducing the desired disease to be studied via genetic alterations, seems to be ubiquitous in medical research involving the study of mice. Mice, apparently, make a decent analog for humans, and must help with medical research that ultimately is intended to help humans. I mean... it just appears that way to me, as a layman.
Love it! (aside from the bizarre and unncessary political cracks about President Clinton and President Kennedy). I've seen the commercials... I think... I can barely remember, don't remember Herbie Hancock in them, and I don't see a problem with someone lying to promote some product (anymore... I am used to it, this is America ffs)... and I think I have seen someone that had 901's, but I never heard them nor was aware that there was an entire theory behind them, had no idea they were anything more than regular speakers of Bose's design. I have never actually purchased speakers for myself! But I when I do, I'll definately take a listen to his suggestion as par for the course, the Cambridge SoundWorksModel Twelve, if I can find them, but I think I can do better than a Panasonic SLSX469V that he recommends. If someone so passionate about fidelity sound is recommending a $500 system, I just can't ignore it. There's nothing wrong with purchasing used speaker systems, IMO, the more they are used (but not abused) the better they sound.
I know what you mean about the exaggerated bass, that's is exactly what I experienced with their speakers in their show room. However, I purchased their original noise cancelling head phones ($300) when they first came out because my cubical was immediately below the heating and air conditioning system. The head phones DID NOT exhibit the same bass boost that their speakers did and the noise cancelling ability was outstanding. I've tried other noise cancelling head phones just as a point of comparison and none did as good a job. The tonal range seemed to be evenly distributed and the ability to reproduce sounds accurately was good as near as I can tell. Also, Bose will (or at least did) give you a $100 credit if you brought in an old pair for replacement. Seems like an absolute necessity if you work in a cubical environment.
As I admit freely, the Bose engineers are out of this world and do seemingly miraculous things with audio reproduction. I wish all pro audio engineers had their talent. My point was merely about fidelity. Bose speakers, in my experience, make the music sound nicer than it really is, and typical to Bose is the low end boost, thus it is not exactly fidelity by the definition of the word... Bose speakers lie to you. I think most people wouldn't mind this in most applications, but it doesn't hurt to be aware of it.
The hw in the iPad WiFi + 4G is not deceptive, but in fact, by all definitions and standards of 4G, actually 4G hardware.
But it doesn't work on 4G,
As I said, this is incidental. It is 4G by the only definition of 4G.
and thus isn't, under the Australian definition, where this case is being heard.
There is no "Australian definition" of 4G!! If there is such a thing, by all means, show it... don't just arbitrarily make one up. In point of fact, none of the Australian networks even meet the standard to be called 4G.
The model name is NOT marketing... it's a name.
Liar. If you believe that, you wouldn't have ignored the 4x4 example, as that's the name, and not "marketing" (which is another lie, as names are marketing as well).
I am not a liar and I did not ignore the example, I dismissed it as inapplicable, i.e. a poor metaphor. For it to be a proper metaphor, the 4x4 would need to be a 4x4 somewhere and meet the definition of what a 4x4 is... then, for some reason, it would need to be incompatible with Australia. As I said... poor metaphor... does not fit.
You've stopped responding and just say what makes you feel better, so there's no reason for me to even read your response to this, which I presume will be filled with further lies and not actually address the issue (iPad 4G will not work as a 4G device in Australia, but was marketed as such).
Well, I can easily degrade a perfectly good argument into ad hominem attacks as well (you're an idiot!), except that I don't need to, because my argument is strong.
To recap: It is the Australian providers that are engaging in misleading marketing, because no data network in Australia meets the definition of what 4G is, yet they are using the standard term.
Apple's hardware meets the only definition of 4G that exists! It is incidental that it will not reach 4G speeds on Australia's networks... it doesn't change Apple's hardware.
The case is being tried in what is by definition, and ironically enough, a kangaroo court, and will have little effect on international consumers.
If true, however, it is a paradigm shift in the understanding of the illness. No one before was able to prove that diabetes is neurological in origin, and , afaik, no one even suspected.
Any number of scientists have claimed miracle cures in the past. The work will need to be replicated to establish credibility.
Additionally, mice are a poor model organism for studying obesity. Their fat metabolism is quite different from humans. They have given false hopes before to a "cure" for obesity via leptin.
Point well made. A scientifically replicatable cure for diabetes, and any sort of claimed breakthrough in medicine, is completely unnewsworthy, and the major news outlets in the US are correct to ignore it. Speaking for mice used in medical experiments everywhere, "let my people go."
I corrected myself later in response to another poster.. I meant to have typed ACC
Excellent!
But I had an anacdotal story in case you intended to argue... which I'm going to share with you anyway. The main point being that we don't know, necessarily, what audio source Apple is using for their iTunes ALAC selections. So it goes like this:
There was an audio cassette duplicating company in the 1990's that claimed their audio cassettes sounded as good as CD's, and would send out samples to prove it. If you received a sample, and listened carefully, invariably you would certainly have to agree that the cassette sample did indeed sound as good as and exactly like the CD sample they sent with it. Interestingly, the CD also suffered from wow and flutter audio artifacts, so what they obviously did was make a CD from their cassette sample, ensuring that their cassette sounded just as good as the CD.
Always, always... consider the source. This applies to information as well as audio.
unable to work out who the writer was but they likely worked on diabetes
I realize that insulin is a huge cash cow for Big Pharma in the US, but hopefully they are not so brazen as to actively lobby the FDA to attempt to prevent the cure (discovered 6 years ago) from reaching the millions suffering from this disease. Suspiciously, I haven't seen any major US news outlets reporting on this interesting and insanely good news for those that suffer from the disease.
Slashdot Mirror
That is pretty much never the case. Physicists have long been proud makers of their own tools and software is no different.
You are begging the question. Computer Scientists aren't necessarily making tools, but are the architects of computer models. A computer scientist may not ever write a single line of discrete code, but at a higher level, direct programmers to code modules that fit in the grand design. Also, it matters not what the discipline the scientist comes from, if they are doing computer science, they are computer scientists.
One reason why they are doing this: because this way, their content is much more difficult to pirate.
Automatic extraction or conversion to e.g. PDF cannot be implemented.
PDF also has standard security features to prevent viewing, printing, copying or extracting any content, depending on which features are implemented. It is not trivial for the layman to bypass these features.
I assume that most great cosmologists aren't expert computer programmers with specialties in high performance computation, and that most great programmers specializing in high performance computation aren't great cosmologists.
So how do these people get their ridiculously complicated physics stuff crunched by ridiculously complicated machines?
This: the humble computer scientist (no, programmers are not necessarily, and only very infrequently, computer scientists) will act as a liason between the two.
thx. it's late, brain in economy mode
SGI says its UV2 can scale to 4,096 cores and 64 terabytes of memory, with a peak I/O rate of four terabytes per second and runs off-the-shelf Linux software.
Finally, something that can run Java/Flash/WoW/Firefox/WMP/etc. at full speed!
(sorry... until someone posts with an interesting comment, I have nothing helpful to add... I should really just wait... sorry again)
Extremely contagious, quick, and deadly diseases like Ebola Zaire often go too quickly for their own good. They can kill everyone so fast...
I don't understand how such deadly diseases can evolve... kill everything, including itself, and then outbreaks can reoccur once this has happened.
While fascinating, I find biology far too complicated to ever get my head around completely because it seems too difficult to reduce to the simpler underlying systems, like one can get away with only knowing a few trigonometry equations and derive the rest from those when needed. There is far too much information for me to memorize it all. I am thankful that there are those that have the biological knack, that understand it and think biology is simple, and are readily available to dumb-it-up for people like me. Thx for posting.
I'm confused, are you saying you bought a magazine from the News Stand and it turned out to be an audio book?
Obviously you are. No, of course not... I was making a point. You almost got it, though. If I had done this, it would also be a digital version of a magazine, but it would be essentially so distant from the original printed version that you couldn't refer to it as the authoritative digital version, which is what Apple is trying to do with the content in their Newsstand app. Its metaphor, you see? If this existed, and it might, neither Apple nor publishers could pass it off as a replacement for the printed version.
I disagree... with a pdf version, if enabled, you could print out the fold-in.
Ummmm... okay. You seriously think that's a viable alternative?
mmmkay... my response stops right here. Its clear there is little point in responding further to your posts: you just outed yourself as a troll.
Secondly, property includes your body, your eyes, your kidneys, your brain, etc. Either you own them or you don't, and when gov't tells you that you can't put something into your body yourself voluntarily, they are also stealing your property rights.
Not disagreeing with you, but I'd like to point out that you are your body. You are your own possession, unless you subscribe to dualism. The seat of perception, the eyes, generally, is where people feel themselves being, but from the perspective of realism, your arms and hands, your legs, even your toes, are you (unless or until they, unfortunately I expect, become separate).
What do you mean by 'not the same'?
I mean they are so completely different that you couldn't consider one a version of the other, and it certainly doesn't fit what I would colloqually call the "digital version of the print version." To make the point only, if instead what you receieved was an audio file completely duplicated the entire content in computerized vocalizations, it would also be a digital representation of the original content, but it would not be the same, nor would I consider it "the" digital version.
In the Mad Magazine, for example, you're able to do the fold-in. You can't do that with, for example, a PDF version.
I disagree... with a pdf version, if enabled, you could print out the fold-in. Also, as I detailed in another post, there's nothing inherent in the format that prevents you from doing this... pdf can handle that kind of manipulation. But I think your example is a rare case... I can't think of any other publication where every edition requires you to manipulate the media in a way to reveal a secret visualization.
If anything, the interactivity opens some interesting doors.
I don't have any complaint against rich content. My complaint is they are pushing these things as though they are the same, mere digital versions, that could replace the printed version of the periodical. They can't. They are too different, too far removed, from what all the periodicals actually are. The content simply is not the same. Further, they are requiring publishers to hire development teams to remanipulate the content into these things, on the one hand giving a publisher that wishes some day to migrate completely to this kind of format a way into developing rich media, if only for Apple's customers, but on the other hand it is straining publishers' resources that are already strained by the web's encroachment on printed periodicals. pdfs could replace printed periodicals, and offer all the advantages of digital informational manipulation.
Apple has a special developer's program to deal with bugs in News Stand apps.. it's called repeat business. When apps get buggy, people de-star them, and they lose business. Self-healing-apps
You are helping to make my point. Publishers are not software developers. Developers don't come cheap. This is a whole new space for them that may or may not be profitable. My guess is not: no matter how neat the experience is, if they can't replace the printed periodical, they don't serve the purpose of doing that. In the end they may be just another product, but these things will not unseat the print versions they claim to be digital versions of, like pdf can.
Without updates? I've already gotten an update to one of the magazines I have.
I haven't seen anything I have demoed (about a dozen titles) receive any updates, and half of them were bug nests, but if you have, then it's my mistake. But again this is requiring spending resources to fix these things. Its not the same as a line or two of retraction in a subsequent issue, but pushing out new software. I can't imagine publishers relish supporting old editions in this manner.
It's almost exactly like print delivery
I must disagree in the strongest manner. It is nothing like print delivery. The content is different. What you are calling bells and whistles serves no purpose but to be a play thing for the reader. This is a silly device that stands between the reader and the content. If you enjoy this, then good for you, but I, and many others on the web that have complained, find it distracting and pointless.
Seriously dude, you're really reaching here for a reason to bitch about it.
Seriously dude, my points are all valid and nothing you have responded with has altered the original argument. You happen to like the rich media, but that i
That's simply not true. Each TITLE is an app. That app downloads new content once per day or once per month depending on whether it's a newspaper or a magazine. It DOES NOT download a new app each time. Thus the UI does not change each time, only the content.
You are incorrect. Each new edition is a new discrete app. The framing app, the Apple Newsstand outer layer, operates more like a folder, and the frames for the individual publications are alse like a folder. But the new editions are indeed discrete applications themselves.
Ideally I'd say that the iBooks Author system would be the basis of an ideal system. EPub based, not PDF. But that would involve re-writing history, and Apple forcing a system on publishers who'd already chosen another way.
I like ePubs are nice for some books, but for periodicals, IMO, pdf is ideal. This is the model most publishers have already embraced prior to Apple's Newsstand being released. The reason is pretty obvious: no extra work for publishers. They are already generating pdf's in order to print their publication. Downsampling this for internet delivery and user consuption is academic, and could easily be integrated into their digital pre-press automation with no extra work involved... pump out the pdf at the correct dpi for zooming on an end-users display, and send it off to their resident web master. PDFs are not without their drawbacks, but as I detailed in another post, most of these issues have been mitigated by better software, better hardware, and faster internet connections. The remaining draw backs from the users perspective, and I think your own complaint with the format, is that you can't easily re-manipulate the content within the document. This, also, is ideal for publisers... as they don't want you doing that. But if you are interested and investigative enough, the content within pdf can be manipulated as easily as you can manipulate content within a Microsoft Word *.doc. It just takes a bit of learning what pdfs are, how they are structured, and most importantly, having an application that allows you to do that. There are a number out there, and a growing number of OSS offerings... but my favorites are made by enfocus.
I'm not sure they are still around, but once there was an Austin based startup called "NewsStand, Inc.," whose model was exactly what publishers and subscribers would suspect, but they were ahead of their time. What you saw in their reader was exactly what you saw in the printed edition.
That would suck. Why would I want the digital version to look like the plain one?
Familiarity. When you go to read an eBook, wouldn't you be surprised that instead of a digital version of the book, along with all the advantages of being digital, that someone decided to make it look and function in a way that was completely alien? What if eBook publishers decided that if you wanted digital, that must mean that you also want multimedia, and each page contained not only the text, but a short film? The point is, a digital version of an analog media doesn't mean that it needs to be so drastically different that it must be so unrecognizable as to no longer even be the same nature as what it is emulating. If it did, then one thing is not a version of the other. They stand apart.
I want to be able to choose the font. I want to be able to search the text and copy and paste it and such.
I'm not sure where you are seeing this functionality, but you aren't seeing it in Apple's Newsstand. But anything that is digital-ized, one would expect that you'd be able to copy out text and paste it elsewhere, not for piracy reasons, but for convenience in quoting an article, or to be able to search it for keywords. I haven't seen this ability in any of the editions I have demoed in Apple's Newsstand app. But in the reader for NewsStand, Inc., I believe this was possible. As far as being able to choose the font. if you have enough understanding of how to manipulate pdf, even this is possible, but then it really wouldn't be the same as a subscription to, say, the New York Times. They pay graphic designers and production artists, i.e. qualified professionals, to do that for you, and the nyt has a particular look and feel to it that separates it from, say, the LA Times, or National Geographic. I don't think the editors of these publications would appreciate your desire to change their publications in the way you are describing.
When they write an article about a particular piece of legislation, I want a hyperlink to the actual Bill.
Have you ever heard of pdf? This document format is perfectly cabable of handling hyperlinks.
Trying to maintain the paper-based format is exactly what's wrong with this sort of thing.
Cautiously, I'd have to agree... how many stories have their been of people getting killed by a falling stack of their collection of newspapers? More than a few. I don't think that can happen in digital versions, but als I don't think that's a legitimate fear for what's wrong with printed content. Loving trees is a better argument against printed pieces. And the archiving methods of Apple's Newsstand app are also not what you'd expect: you don't have control of the content, Apple, or the publisher, keeps track of what you have subscribed to, and automatically archives your old editions for you. Should you move to another platform, you can't take any of that content with you. With a document-based model, there's no reason you couldn't personally maintain your own archives.
He's complaining that it's not like a PDF. I might have complained as well because I had to familiarize myself with how to navigate their way. On the plus side, the Mad fold-in works just like it does on paper, which I think justifies that move.
His complaint doesn't really add up to a whole lot.
Not quite. The complaint is that they are advertising these subscriptions as something they are not. The content is not the same. What you are getting with the Apple Newsstand app subscriptions is a whole new multimedia experience. Some may argue that it is better, but my argument is that there was nothing wrong with a document-based model, and that an application-based model for periodicals is, in practice, flawed. Now you must face the new bugs every new application is subject to, without updates, because each new edition is its own discrete application, and functions quite diffently between different periodicals and different editions and different publishers. In the printed publishing industry, it is standard that paper is bound a certain way, for instance. Or that the front cover is on the front, the back cover on the back. There is no such standardization in Apple's Newsstand. Some periodicals, like USA Today, won't even interface with the Newsstand app (and I wonder what's behind that decision). The crux of my complaint is that it is in no way like the traditional periodical subscription, and they are fallaciously promoting it in this way (begging the question, allowing readers to assume that it is). It is not a replacement for printed periodicals. It is something altogether different. And, further, it is unlike anything else; there are no other apps like it. It is indescribable.
No, no, no. What they are doing is not digital distribution of the same content found in the printed periodicals. What they are doing is forcing down the consumers throat some one's sick idea of what periodicals should be in the future as seen from a Harry Potter movie a decade ago. The paradigm sucks royally. Every single new issue is a discrete new application, not a document. While I find that detail bizarre, in theory its not a terrible idea. But the implementation is horrifying. Its so far from what it should be its absurd. Newsstand isn't failing because of a thin roster, Newsstand is failing because the implementation is a terrible idea. A subscription through Newsstand is nothing like a real subscription. Its not even like the web model, which at least has become familiar. The subscriber is forced to learn to operate a new application every single edition. This is anathema.
Even operating systems that function in an entirely different manner do not do this: Windows is actually very similar to Ubuntu or Macintosh from a users perspective because they are all using common functions at the desktop level, in effect while the colors and shadows may be different, its still all menus, windows, icons, clicking and dragging. What Apple and the publishers that are embracing the Newsstand model are doing is madness... new applications that are nothing like anything that has come before! And each new edition (app) has the potential, and in practice it is so, to be entirely different from the last, making anything learned about how the last edition functions worthless. I understand the frustration of users, and it is not what the article is claiming, and I can only imagine the strain on resources that each new edition of a periodical poses for publishers.... they now need a development team.
I'm not sure they are still around, but once there was an Austin based startup called "NewsStand, Inc.," whose model was exactly what publishers and subscribers would suspect, but they were ahead of their time. What you saw in their reader was exactly what you saw in the printed edition. The subscriber model was very similar, if not identical, to the traditional model. I'm not certain, but I think Zinio has a similar model to this. Originally, viewing pdf's on a screen wasn't ideal: the software and hardware was slow to respond to the users commands. But now the software is pretty good and the hardware can handle fast screen redraws and is nimble enough to keep up with the user. pdf's used to require a "pdf warning" next to the links so as not to upset the user downloading and not expecting it, which would tie up their browser and possibly crash it because of the file size. This has been mitigated by the steady progress of technology: our browsers, readers, and graphics card and network connections can now handle the graphics rich content, and it just doesn't bother anyone anymore. Many ebook readers (those reading, not necessarily the hardware) actually prefer to read a document that is identical to the printed piece.
The mistake Apple and publishers are making is to assume that the old publishing model is broken or outdated. It isn't! It is merely being encroached upon by the web model (namely, free content), but is fundamentally sound. People, for the most part, like magazines and newspapers the way they are. The idea to move from a document based model to an application based mode
Well, not quite, right ? Rémi complained to Apple that they were imposing DRMs that were incompatible with the GPL under which VLC is released.
Instead of removing DRMs, Apple pulled the app. Expected behavior ? Perhaps.
I would say that "complained" is understating immensly what he did. He launched a full campaign, which in and of itself would be impressive if the results didn't suck so tremendously.
... luck and opportunity...
Ecclesiastes 9:11
Rediscovered and capitalized upon... this isn't new information, just new to their audience. Anyone that learned to play piano or guitar figured this out long before these guys... and cringe every time the pattern is re-released as a new pop single. It's kind of funny and subtle that transition from sensitive artist to business man... funny how that teenage girls always fall for it, and the business man always looks identical while performing. My best friend, a piano prodigy, wrote this very song at age 8 or 9, back in the late 70's, same chords, but unfortunate lyrics making fun of the retarted. I knew it immediately then as "Heart and Soul," from my grandmother singing it and my father playing it. I picked up guitar when I was 17, and within a year realized this pattern was insanely popular throughout the history of rock/pop... that was 1988... I have little doubt that the musicians of the 30's, 40's, 50's and 60's were well aware of it as well, but the songs they knew it as are likely unknown to us even if we would immediately recognize the music.
... Apple has a process to report infringement of apps, and they probably used it, just like Nokia used it to remove VLC ...
And Apple generally does pull apps when there are disputes going on - like the VLC developers all fighting about VLC in the app store.
It was just one guy, Rémi Denis-Courmont, a VLC contributor who was also a Nokia employee, that, without the backing of The VideoLAN dev community, single-handedly convinced Apple to pull the VLC app from AppStore.
This treatment slows or prevents the progress of the auto-immune attack of beta cells by pathogenic t-lymphocytes in mice with a specific genetic disorder of a certain type of nerve cell.
Normal mice don't suffer from diabetes via this route, so it's pretty questionable as to whether diabetes is typically neurological or not.
By your pessimism, sounds like any research involving genetically introduced traits in mice for study is not worth the effort, and any scientific medical conclusions derived from it is also questionable. Can you name any research using genetically introduced traits in mice where normal mice do not become inflicted by the particular disease being studied by a different route? I like mice, too, FWIW, and like yourself, I have zero expertise in medical research, but using mice for medical study and synthetically reproducing/introducing the desired disease to be studied via genetic alterations, seems to be ubiquitous in medical research involving the study of mice. Mice, apparently, make a decent analog for humans, and must help with medical research that ultimately is intended to help humans. I mean... it just appears that way to me, as a layman.
Bose has more problems than just inaccurate sound...
This guy writes a fun rant :-)
http://philintheblank.com/philled/Bose.html
No Highs, No Lows, Must be BOSE!
Love it! (aside from the bizarre and unncessary political cracks about President Clinton and President Kennedy). I've seen the commercials... I think... I can barely remember, don't remember Herbie Hancock in them, and I don't see a problem with someone lying to promote some product (anymore... I am used to it, this is America ffs)... and I think I have seen someone that had 901's, but I never heard them nor was aware that there was an entire theory behind them, had no idea they were anything more than regular speakers of Bose's design. I have never actually purchased speakers for myself! But I when I do, I'll definately take a listen to his suggestion as par for the course, the Cambridge SoundWorks Model Twelve, if I can find them, but I think I can do better than a Panasonic SLSX469V that he recommends. If someone so passionate about fidelity sound is recommending a $500 system, I just can't ignore it. There's nothing wrong with purchasing used speaker systems, IMO, the more they are used (but not abused) the better they sound.
I know what you mean about the exaggerated bass, that's is exactly what I experienced with their speakers in their show room. However, I purchased their original noise cancelling head phones ($300) when they first came out because my cubical was immediately below the heating and air conditioning system. The head phones DID NOT exhibit the same bass boost that their speakers did and the noise cancelling ability was outstanding. I've tried other noise cancelling head phones just as a point of comparison and none did as good a job. The tonal range seemed to be evenly distributed and the ability to reproduce sounds accurately was good as near as I can tell. Also, Bose will (or at least did) give you a $100 credit if you brought in an old pair for replacement. Seems like an absolute necessity if you work in a cubical environment.
As I admit freely, the Bose engineers are out of this world and do seemingly miraculous things with audio reproduction. I wish all pro audio engineers had their talent. My point was merely about fidelity. Bose speakers, in my experience, make the music sound nicer than it really is, and typical to Bose is the low end boost, thus it is not exactly fidelity by the definition of the word... Bose speakers lie to you. I think most people wouldn't mind this in most applications, but it doesn't hurt to be aware of it.
The hw in the iPad WiFi + 4G is not deceptive, but in fact, by all definitions and standards of 4G, actually 4G hardware.
But it doesn't work on 4G,
As I said, this is incidental. It is 4G by the only definition of 4G.
and thus isn't, under the Australian definition, where this case is being heard.
There is no "Australian definition" of 4G!! If there is such a thing, by all means, show it... don't just arbitrarily make one up. In point of fact, none of the Australian networks even meet the standard to be called 4G.
The model name is NOT marketing... it's a name.
Liar. If you believe that, you wouldn't have ignored the 4x4 example, as that's the name, and not "marketing" (which is another lie, as names are marketing as well).
I am not a liar and I did not ignore the example, I dismissed it as inapplicable, i.e. a poor metaphor. For it to be a proper metaphor, the 4x4 would need to be a 4x4 somewhere and meet the definition of what a 4x4 is... then, for some reason, it would need to be incompatible with Australia. As I said... poor metaphor... does not fit.
You've stopped responding and just say what makes you feel better, so there's no reason for me to even read your response to this, which I presume will be filled with further lies and not actually address the issue (iPad 4G will not work as a 4G device in Australia, but was marketed as such).
Well, I can easily degrade a perfectly good argument into ad hominem attacks as well (you're an idiot!), except that I don't need to, because my argument is strong.
To recap: It is the Australian providers that are engaging in misleading marketing, because no data network in Australia meets the definition of what 4G is, yet they are using the standard term. Apple's hardware meets the only definition of 4G that exists! It is incidental that it will not reach 4G speeds on Australia's networks... it doesn't change Apple's hardware.
The case is being tried in what is by definition, and ironically enough, a kangaroo court, and will have little effect on international consumers.
I call BS. This so-called 'cure' is at best a treatment.
http://jim.nord.univ-mrs.fr/IMG/pdf/TRPV1_revue-2.pdf
If true, however, it is a paradigm shift in the understanding of the illness. No one before was able to prove that diabetes is neurological in origin, and , afaik, no one even suspected.
Any number of scientists have claimed miracle cures in the past. The work will need to be replicated to establish credibility.
Additionally, mice are a poor model organism for studying obesity. Their fat metabolism is quite different from humans. They have given false hopes before to a "cure" for obesity via leptin.
Point well made. A scientifically replicatable cure for diabetes, and any sort of claimed breakthrough in medicine, is completely unnewsworthy, and the major news outlets in the US are correct to ignore it. Speaking for mice used in medical experiments everywhere, "let my people go."
I corrected myself later in response to another poster.. I meant to have typed ACC
Excellent!
But I had an anacdotal story in case you intended to argue... which I'm going to share with you anyway. The main point being that we don't know, necessarily, what audio source Apple is using for their iTunes ALAC selections. So it goes like this:
There was an audio cassette duplicating company in the 1990's that claimed their audio cassettes sounded as good as CD's, and would send out samples to prove it. If you received a sample, and listened carefully, invariably you would certainly have to agree that the cassette sample did indeed sound as good as and exactly like the CD sample they sent with it. Interestingly, the CD also suffered from wow and flutter audio artifacts, so what they obviously did was make a CD from their cassette sample, ensuring that their cassette sounded just as good as the CD.
Always, always... consider the source. This applies to information as well as audio.
:D
unable to work out who the writer was but they likely worked on diabetes
I realize that insulin is a huge cash cow for Big Pharma in the US, but hopefully they are not so brazen as to actively lobby the FDA to attempt to prevent the cure (discovered 6 years ago) from reaching the millions suffering from this disease. Suspiciously, I haven't seen any major US news outlets reporting on this interesting and insanely good news for those that suffer from the disease.