1) spend $99+tax on iPod shuffle
2) destroy it completely to show that not much is new inside
3) take pictures and post them on the web
4) get minor apple slashdotted
5) withold geeky information from the descriptions and piss people off
6) ???
7) profit?
1) they can't. apple has design patent on the clickwheel.
2) even if they could mimic it, that will just further reinforce the idea that they are "poor man's iPod" and the mainstream wouldn't want that.
i think the accelerating circular navigation is the most efficient way to navigate a large number of songs. to beat it, they will have to really think "outside the box" or incorporate the physical shape/size of the player into the design consideration so that a particular (non-wheel) navigation system would be efficient for a particular physical design... a tough task, no doubt...
>If they think that people are buying iPods so that they can download music from the ITMS, they still don't get it.
i completely agree with this... why would 99 cent download services be a big consideration when purchasing $99 to $599 music devices? the device better be worth the money on its own merit instead of touting the download service because for many, music device is where they spend most of the money.
online vendor compatibility is not a concern because catalogs are nearly the same. about the only time it's a concern is when you want to share music with others. however, with the introduction of affordable iPods, chances are, those with non-iPods will be told to buy an iPod for themselves if they want to share iTMS-bought music.
you said it, the "PowerBook G5"!!! how dare you?!?!?
as a frequenter of Mac rumor sites, i can tell you that the rumor mills are sick and tired of even hearing the word "PB G5"... even when an apple rep says "not anytime soon," some don't give up hope and keep on mentioning it, thinking that it will come out in a week or two, because that is "not anytime soon" in their mind...
the basis, and the strength, of open source is the fact it's almost a hobby for many involved...
you may take "pride and joy" in the hobby, but as long as there are passionate developers out there who consider open source development very much his/her hobby, i don't see the open source as a whole "gloating" no matter the success.
being mad about a phenomenon where i receive the same email about refinancing 50 times an hour is, i feel, not displaced nor am i willing to shoulder any of the blame for it.
another thing that gets me mad is that spammers largely aren't held accountable. what they do, they do without ever being held liable for their actions or consequences. it's so sneaky and hence disgusting. direct mailers actually incur costs. telemarketers actually incur costs. not so for spammers. they inflict all the damages they want and hell with all the consequences because they aren't affected themselves so they don't care...
yeah, i know, but i'd love to have a chance to meet them... i know why they do it, i still want to know what kind of sick mind they have to not care about the malicious consequences of their actions.
making something that cannot effectively be controlled illegal does nothing. the value of making something "illegal" comes from being able to hand out effective punishments for the violations, not in the simple act of "labeling" it illegal. something being illegal is hardly a deterrant on its own...
all this just makes me sad...
on
Spammers' Upend DNS
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
...and also mad.
this is not meant as any kind of informative post, but every time i read something like this, or receive another spam in my Inbox, i feel a bit of both sadness and anger...
here is a wonderful tool that made communication easy, fast and cheap but is absolutely being ruined by the malicious few with absolutely no morals, ethics or concerns for others.
just like those orphan traders at tsunami disaster areas... i really would like to have a chance to confront these disguisting people and try to make sense of their thought process...
actually, i stand corrected... blue trip will let you roam around with the iPod... but i'm still not sure if it's worth that much $$$. a nice gadget for those with cash, i guess.
not to flame, but guns differ from cars/knives/laser pointers/chainsaws/etc. because it's primary (and only) function is violent, physical destruction. (close case can be made for controlling chainsaw, but i hope you see my point.) a good argument can be made that the very purpose of guns, as a design, is for "sinister use."
just out of curiosity, do the pilots have to let the passengers know if they get lasered but (obviously) not turn into a big accident.
i ask because a friend of mine experienced a plane accelerating to take off after trying to land. after reaching a higher altitude, he heard over the PA that "they had to abort the first landing attempt because there was another plane on the runway." (no joke.)
if they can divulge such information to the passengers, can they do the same about a "hot" topic like being lasered, provided the passengers are safe in the end?
>I can see no case where disclosing information a week early would do irreperable harm to the company.
but that's for apple to decide, not for those who signed the NDA who leaked the insider info to thinksecret.
in this case, the "rumor" was so spot on that it was obviously a leak, not just a random (or even well thought out) guesses. someone who signed an NDA leaked this to ThinkSecret and ThinkSecret is soliciting such leaks. apple is asking ThinkSecret to tell them who leaked it. they are not suing ThinkSecret to stop publishing rumors.
breach of NDA is a serious violation of corporate ethics, not to mention a legal contract. i have to say apple is right to try to identify the offender.
>An attacker has only to transmit malformed test messages to himself, and information left over in memory, from previous messages destined for other people, will appear with the test messages, in the attacker's inbox. Sometimes, this information may include usernames and passwords...
no one is transmitting any passwords. a malicious stranger can send a mail to him/herself and as a result, can get pieces of email sent by a third party to another third party, sometimes containing password/id of some third party.
here's the details of the settlement... what i posted before was a bit off. for convenience, i'll simply use $1 = 100 yen.
the lawsuit was filed in aug. 01, seeking $200 million in compensation for the blue LED. in jan. 04, the court valued the blue LED at $1.2 billion and gave Dr. Nakamura 50% contribution to its invention, thus ordering the payment of the entire amount that had been sought by Dr. Nakamura, $200 million. (since he was deemed to be owed $600 million, which was more than the amount he sued for.)
in this round, his contribution was reduced to 5% and the court ordered the company to pay him $6 million in compensation and $2 million on delays and fees.
note that these valuations were specifically determined in response to Dr. Nakamura's lawsuit. the court is not ordering the company to distribute $1.2 billion in compensations to inventors of the blue LED. if others feel slighted and can claim significant contributions to the invention of the blue LED (which i sort of doubt, since Dr. Nakamura's original contribution was estimated at 50%, indicating he was very largely responsible for its invention...), then they can probably sue the company and get their "fair share."
the take in japan is that it's not as cut and dry as "one works for the company to invent, whatever profit derived from it is owned by the company and not to the inventor."
this is not the first lawsuit of this kind. inventor of aspartane (artificial sweetner) sued ajinomoto (company known for MSG) and won ~$1.5 million before.
basically, the feeling is that providing reasonable compensation for inventors, regardless of where technically the invention patent or methods belong to, is good for the morale of workers, provides incentives and thus advances the society as a whole and increases competitiveness of corporations. finally, providing reasonable compensation is also economically viable for the company.
he was awarded $8.1 million after his contribution to the invention was deemed to be 5%, instead of the 50% in the prior ruling. the original ruling resulted in ~$600 million settlement.
the company issued a statement saying it's glad that the invention of LED was attributed to more than just one person, as indicated by the reduction of Dr. Nakamura's contribution value by the court.
Slashdot Mirror
a replacement for goatse! :P
1) spend $99+tax on iPod shuffle
2) destroy it completely to show that not much is new inside
3) take pictures and post them on the web
4) get minor apple slashdotted
5) withold geeky information from the descriptions and piss people off
6) ???
7) profit?
2) even if they could mimic it, that will just further reinforce the idea that they are "poor man's iPod" and the mainstream wouldn't want that.
i think the accelerating circular navigation is the most efficient way to navigate a large number of songs. to beat it, they will have to really think "outside the box" or incorporate the physical shape/size of the player into the design consideration so that a particular (non-wheel) navigation system would be efficient for a particular physical design... a tough task, no doubt...
i completely agree with this... why would 99 cent download services be a big consideration when purchasing $99 to $599 music devices? the device better be worth the money on its own merit instead of touting the download service because for many, music device is where they spend most of the money.
online vendor compatibility is not a concern because catalogs are nearly the same. about the only time it's a concern is when you want to share music with others. however, with the introduction of affordable iPods, chances are, those with non-iPods will be told to buy an iPod for themselves if they want to share iTMS-bought music.
you are right, i should have said "take advantage of" instead of "run"
you can "officially" run panther on any mac with a usb port. that doesn't mean an old machines can run quartz extreme.
as a frequenter of Mac rumor sites, i can tell you that the rumor mills are sick and tired of even hearing the word "PB G5"... even when an apple rep says "not anytime soon," some don't give up hope and keep on mentioning it, thinking that it will come out in a week or two, because that is "not anytime soon" in their mind...
don't you think that, perhaps, their business model no longer depends on "coming up with anything original"?
you may take "pride and joy" in the hobby, but as long as there are passionate developers out there who consider open source development very much his/her hobby, i don't see the open source as a whole "gloating" no matter the success.
...for the pr0n directory, by uploading the pics of various parts of the body... to identify the actress...
another thing that gets me mad is that spammers largely aren't held accountable. what they do, they do without ever being held liable for their actions or consequences. it's so sneaky and hence disgusting. direct mailers actually incur costs. telemarketers actually incur costs. not so for spammers. they inflict all the damages they want and hell with all the consequences because they aren't affected themselves so they don't care...
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/01/04/in donesia.children/index.html
yeah, i know, but i'd love to have a chance to meet them... i know why they do it, i still want to know what kind of sick mind they have to not care about the malicious consequences of their actions.
making something that cannot effectively be controlled illegal does nothing. the value of making something "illegal" comes from being able to hand out effective punishments for the violations, not in the simple act of "labeling" it illegal. something being illegal is hardly a deterrant on its own...
this is not meant as any kind of informative post, but every time i read something like this, or receive another spam in my Inbox, i feel a bit of both sadness and anger...
here is a wonderful tool that made communication easy, fast and cheap but is absolutely being ruined by the malicious few with absolutely no morals, ethics or concerns for others.
just like those orphan traders at tsunami disaster areas... i really would like to have a chance to confront these disguisting people and try to make sense of their thought process...
how's the battery life?
blue trip is $149... wouldn't an iPod dock/airport express combo be more functional for about the same price?
not to flame, but guns differ from cars/knives/laser pointers/chainsaws/etc. because it's primary (and only) function is violent, physical destruction. (close case can be made for controlling chainsaw, but i hope you see my point.) a good argument can be made that the very purpose of guns, as a design, is for "sinister use."
i ask because a friend of mine experienced a plane accelerating to take off after trying to land. after reaching a higher altitude, he heard over the PA that "they had to abort the first landing attempt because there was another plane on the runway." (no joke.)
if they can divulge such information to the passengers, can they do the same about a "hot" topic like being lasered, provided the passengers are safe in the end?
he does go to Harvard... :P
but that's for apple to decide, not for those who signed the NDA who leaked the insider info to thinksecret.
in this case, the "rumor" was so spot on that it was obviously a leak, not just a random (or even well thought out) guesses. someone who signed an NDA leaked this to ThinkSecret and ThinkSecret is soliciting such leaks. apple is asking ThinkSecret to tell them who leaked it. they are not suing ThinkSecret to stop publishing rumors.
breach of NDA is a serious violation of corporate ethics, not to mention a legal contract. i have to say apple is right to try to identify the offender.
>An attacker has only to transmit malformed test messages to himself, and information left over in memory, from previous messages destined for other people, will appear with the test messages, in the attacker's inbox. Sometimes, this information may include usernames and passwords...
no one is transmitting any passwords. a malicious stranger can send a mail to him/herself and as a result, can get pieces of email sent by a third party to another third party, sometimes containing password/id of some third party.
the lawsuit was filed in aug. 01, seeking $200 million in compensation for the blue LED. in jan. 04, the court valued the blue LED at $1.2 billion and gave Dr. Nakamura 50% contribution to its invention, thus ordering the payment of the entire amount that had been sought by Dr. Nakamura, $200 million. (since he was deemed to be owed $600 million, which was more than the amount he sued for.)
in this round, his contribution was reduced to 5% and the court ordered the company to pay him $6 million in compensation and $2 million on delays and fees.
note that these valuations were specifically determined in response to Dr. Nakamura's lawsuit. the court is not ordering the company to distribute $1.2 billion in compensations to inventors of the blue LED. if others feel slighted and can claim significant contributions to the invention of the blue LED (which i sort of doubt, since Dr. Nakamura's original contribution was estimated at 50%, indicating he was very largely responsible for its invention...), then they can probably sue the company and get their "fair share."
and japan isn't quite full of "oohhh, there's a precedent now!!! let's go get them $$$" lawyers... :D
this is not the first lawsuit of this kind. inventor of aspartane (artificial sweetner) sued ajinomoto (company known for MSG) and won ~$1.5 million before.
basically, the feeling is that providing reasonable compensation for inventors, regardless of where technically the invention patent or methods belong to, is good for the morale of workers, provides incentives and thus advances the society as a whole and increases competitiveness of corporations. finally, providing reasonable compensation is also economically viable for the company.
he was awarded $8.1 million after his contribution to the invention was deemed to be 5%, instead of the 50% in the prior ruling. the original ruling resulted in ~$600 million settlement.
the company issued a statement saying it's glad that the invention of LED was attributed to more than just one person, as indicated by the reduction of Dr. Nakamura's contribution value by the court.