Actually Apple is 100% interested in the iTunes/iPod lock in.
Absolutely. But that has nothing to do with DRM. Do you imagine that elimination of DRM on songs will allow Windows Media Player to connect to your iPod? Sure, you could move songs into other players with a little work--but you can do that already with the DRM-free music that many iPod owners rip from disks. You can even do it now with iTMS songs if you are willing to accept a minor loss in fidelity that the typical iPod/earbuds listener will never hear.
Bullshit. The Mighty Mouse is a single button mouse, where the one button behaves differently depending on how you click it. Why this is better than having two (or more) physical buttons, I simply don't get. It would seem that having two physical buttons would be a lot less confusing, not to mention having physical buttons means I can also click more than one button at a time. The fact that you can't click more than one button at a time pretty much makes the Mighty Mouse a 1.5 button mouse, at best.
If you are going to nitpick, it is a no-button mouse. You depress the entire shell to click. The advantage from Apple's standpoint is that it can present new users with the simple beginner interface upon which Apple made its reputation, where every action can be accomplished with a single type of click. There is no confusion over multiple buttons and whether they do the same thing or a different thing. Or with 10 seconds in the Preferences, advanced users can configure it to act as a three button mouse. I gave up a conventional 3-button mouse in favor of the Mighty Mouse; I find it far more comfortable, and there is a lot more freedom of where I press to generate a click. As for multiple button presses at the same time, I never had a need to do that even when I used a three button mouse. Of course, there are specialized mice festooned that essentially turn your mouse into a mini keyboard, and I suppose that these can be useful for gaming, but I don't see the point for normal computing.
Same thing with the touchpad on Mac laptops. I've never liked used the touchpad as a mouse button as it's inprecise and likes to register a lot of false clicks (and click and drags). And you also have the same problem of only being able to click one button at a time. So you're still stuck with one physical mouse button, but atleast given the form factor atleast your other hand is usually right over the modifier keys.
Using the touchpad as a mouse button is an option. I don't care for it either, but many people like it and Apple offers the option for those who like it. On the other hand, I hate dual trackpad buttons. Twisting my wrist into the unnatural configuration required to reach that right button is a recipe for nerve damage. Apple's two-finger = right button solution is far better.
That must be why he allows indie artists and studios to sell their music on iTunes without DRM.
Oh wait, he doesn't.
It doesn't surprise me that Jobs is drawing the line at DRM for all songs, or for none. The fundamental principle on which the iTunes Music Store is based is same deal for all songs--same prices, same rights. I can't imagine Apple ever embracing a scheme in which users have to read the small print to find out what they can and cannot do with each song--it goes against the fundamental principles of uniformity, simplicity, and transparency upon which Apple has built its reputation.
Since when has wikipedia's credibility rested on the academic credentials of its employees? It never even occurred to me to look up who they are, much less their credentials. For me, wikipedia's credibility is based on the quality of the information. In the areas where I have knowledge, I've always found it to be pretty good. I only use it as a starting point for serious research anyway, particularly if it's a topic on which there might be controversy.
The Boston problem became worse because two 'real' (actually fake, but made to look real) pipe bombs were found that day. One was planted by a disgruntled employee at Tufts (NE Med Ctr). So, when a bunch of vaguely claymore shaped things started to get noticed flipping the bird using LEDs (rather than blinking numbers, I guess), especially at 'strategic locations', well, the inevitable happened. I won't fault the response, at the time it just all seemed a little
I don't see how finding a couple of fake pipe bombs excuses anybody from thinking that "vaguely claymore shaped things" (by which I presume you mean "flat", the only resemblance that I can detect) posed a threat to buildings and bridges. Even a real claymore mine wouldn't hurt a building or bridge, and up there it wouldn't pose much threat to people, either. Finding the (fake) pipe bombs only compounds the stupidity. Even if by some contorted train of thought you could convince yourself that a terrorist would festoon his bombs with blinking lights and put them where they couldn't possibly hurt anything, you now have to come up with some sort of rationalization for why he would do that for some bombs, and for others use plain vanilla pipe bombs. Anybody engaging in this kind of irrational thinking does not belong in a position of responsibility, where (in a genuine threat) rapid decisions about disposition of resources will need to be made on a rational basis, rather than from unreasoning hysteria.
The first step is to demand that public officials accept responsibility for CYA blunders.
Boston still has yet to do this, with the mayor and other public officials continuing to point the finger at Turner Broadcasting and the poor buys who put up the LiteBrite ads (who are still in legal trouble) and referring to the ads that initiated the hysteria as "hoax bombs." Surely there was somebody in the police force or bomb squad who was smart enough to say, "Dudes, chill out. Even if a terrorist was stupid enough to put lights on his bomb, these things aren't even close to big enough to hurt a bridge or a building even if they were completely made of explosives." But the City of Boston went on to waste millions of dollars, shut down the city, and decrease the chance the people will take it seriously if there ever is a real attack.
Let's see some public officials stand up and take responsibility, instead of trying to cast blame on the people who put up the signs--who actually did us a big favor by revealing how unprepared Boston is to recognize a real threat.
And here you hit the nail right on the head. Would you do the same if the paper costed 5 bucks? Or would you actually start pondering how to avoid that expense?
Five bucks, probably not. I probably wouldn't seek out free copies, though, I'd probably just stop reading the paper. One buck? I'd probably continue to buy a copy. And I get considerably less use out of a paper than I do out of a song.
Going out of your way just to save 50 cents makes you a cheapskate and puts you, for me, at the same level of the people I belittle for driving around town for an hour in the search for the gas station that sells fuel for 5 cents less a gallon.
Which is pretty much the way I feel about people who search the web for free copies of music and videos that are available for a buck or two from legitimate retailers.
I don't see what's so difficult for people to accept: mercury is toxic; toxic things should not go inside your body; if they do, bad things might happen to you.
It makes no sense to insist that something is toxic without considering dose. All sorts of things are toxic at some dose--salt, even water. And with a sufficiently sensitive assay, you will find that we all have traces of all kinds of nasty toxins in our bodies, but at levels too low to cause serious harm.
At that point, what is easier for you to do to listen to that song again (or for the first time)? Spend 30+ minutes (possibly) driving out to purchase the cd at the store or the 3 minutes it takes to find the song online and download it...
Maybe. Googling through various sites, installing it in my music player, listening to it on the spot while I'm thinking about it to make sure that it is OK and good quality. 3 minutes seems a bit optimistic based on my experience. But even then I'd pay a buck or so just to be able to click on iTunes, click iTMS, click on the song, and have it automatically downloaded, in known quality, and installed in iTunes with all of the tags correct so that I don't have to futz with it. And in seconds rather than minutes. I don't do that now for only one reason--DRM. Instead I go to Amazon, type in the song name and order the used CD. Still a lot faster than googling for a free copy, and better quality, DRM-free, and a backup disk in the bargain. But I do have to wait for it to show up in the mail, so I'd probably go with iTMS if it wasn't for the DRM.
But will this new strategy really keep piracy at low levels? If I know that one of my friends has a hot new track that he downloaded from a site that lets the users download MP3s, it would seem stupid(in my opinion) for someone to fork over a dollar for the track. If I can get a good from free(from the friend), why in the world would I pay for it? Would it not become even easier to share copyrighted content?
I buy a newspaper almost every day, although if I wanted to save the 50 cents, I could surely find a discarded newspaper or ask a friend to give me his copy after he's done. Or I could hang out next to a newspaper vending box and piggy-back on somebody else's coin to steal a copy for myself. But the convenience of picking it up from the vendor or the box without having to look around or ask around is worth more to me than the money that I could save.
Yes, the PS3 is now available at list, at least online (but I've decided to pass on it for now), but the Wii is not. Sony at least has an incentive to limit production--they are still probably losing money on each one sold, but Nintendo is reportedly making a profit on the Wii, so they're probably pumping them out as fast as I can.
If intelligence was even just ten times harder to evolve than eyes and wings, it would have occurred more than once in the entire history of the Earth.
Unless, of course, one intelligent, tool using species precludes any others. There may just be one "niche" for creatures like us.
Except Apple came right out and said that iTV was not the final name when we first got our sneak peak of it. They've done no such thing wrt the iPhone.
Neither have they made any commitment to use the iPhone name on the final product. Why would Apple want to show their hand this early? I think that there is no question that Apple would like to use the iPhone name if it doesn't cost them too much, but they clearly don't need it. Their negotiating position is strengthened by keeping their options open.
I think that I'm with the owner. Genetic sequencing technology is still rapidly developing. Eventually, it will probably be possible to sequence the frog's entire genome in a few days from a small sample, so let's wait to drill.
Cisco could have negotiated with Apple until they reached an agreement over the use of the iPhone trademark, but I think they sued Apple because they could get more money this way.
Absolutely. And Apple could have reached an agreement early on, but they thought they could save money this way.
Both companies have fairly strong positions. Cisco had the rights to the name and is currently using it (even if they obviously stuck the name on a product just to head Apple off). But Apple could use another name on the box at this point and everybody would still call it "iPhone" no matter what Cisco did. After all, Apple already did that very thing with iTV...sorry, I meant AppleTV. So it is taking both companies awhile to gauge the strength of one another's bargaining positions and figure out what that translates into in terms of dollars.
I note that the article repeats the conventional just-so-story blaming Atari for the crash of '83
The stink lingering over the video game industry was so bad that it spread to personal computers as well.
Is this even remotely plausible? Most of the people that I knew back then who played PC games would not have been caught dead playing a game on the Atari 2600, with its blocky graphics, so how could the failure of the 2600 have "spread" to them. Even the coin arcades suffered, and this was a time of great creativity in coin arcade game design.
I think that it is far more plausible that Atari was simply the canary in the coal mine--the earliest and most visible symptom of the end of the video game fad. Because at one point enthusiasm was so high that virtually any game would sell, and because the user-base of Atari 2600s was so high, many publishers were seriously overextended with investments in 2600 game development. So when the fad ended, they were the first to take the fall. As is so often the case after a fad, there was a reaction in which that which was cool became decidedly uncool. It was only after that reaction subsided that it was possible for publishers and developers to build a more healthy game industry in which games sold in competition with other media on the basis of the entertainment value rather than their novelty.
The sad thing is that EA is a company that started out with a commitment toward innovation in game design and games as an art form (Look at that initial lineup of games!) and has turned into a company whose continued existence is largely based on churning out annual sequels to sports titles. There was a time when the name of Electronic Arts on the package was a strong incentive for me to buy, whereas today it is a negative.
There's little of value on television that one couldn't learn more profoundly by going to the library, reading an encyclopedia article, talking to someone knowledgeable, taking a walk, or just reflecting. And anything that television does teach is likely not as worthwhile as any of these alternatives.
And for that matter, a lot of the stuff in the library is pretty questionable as well. Thank god we have the government to protect us from unprofound media. Once they finish cleaning up TV, they can start burning all of those less profound works on the library shelves.
This is the last country on earth to have no TV, until 2002. When foreign TV was introduced, complete with violent porgrams, the crime rate in the country went ballistic. The country now has all kinds of social problems that were previously unheard of. People often claim you cant tell the effects TV has because there is no test case. they are wrong Bhutan was a perfect test case, and a damning one for showing TVs potential negative effects.
This is ridiculous. Institution of mass media is a massive cultural change. Even if that were the only change to take place (which sounds unlikely, it is probably only one aspect of a host other technological and social changes), seizing upon one particular aspect of TV programming to blame is pure bias. After all, people have been known to riot at sports events, so maybe the problem is broadcast sports. Or news, spreading stories of violence and inflammatory political reporting across the country. Or simply the fact that people are spending more time in front of the tube, getting less exercise and have more pent-up energy.
However, the article also talked about restrictions on cable, which is a private resource. I imagine that any such restrictions would be immediately overturned by the courts on first amendment grounds, however.
Instituting even more repressive restrictions on network TV sounds like a good way to destroy the networks. That will happen eventually, anyway--the future is almost certainly internet distribution of content--but this would be a good way to speed it up.
Most people that have an XBox 360 use online, so the price of a premium XBox 360 is greater than a premium PS3 but without the HD drive.
I use online, but it didn't cost me much of anything. I just ran a cable from my router to the 360. Even if I wanted to pay for Microsoft's overpriced USB adapter, why would I want to bog a game system down with the speed limitations of WiFi?
Currently, I'm very happy with my TiVo. I have many hours of my favorite TV shows, all in HD, available any time. So if Apple continues to offer just a few shows, the way they do now, with limited resolution, I'd have to think whether I really have a use for this device. After all, I can buy shows to download to my XBox 360 (often in HD), and TiVo is about to start offering a similar service, so if Apple is offering just another video download service with a fairly limited inventory (like what they now offer), I'll probably pass. On the other hand, if I could get any TV show (movies are of less interest to me; I'd rather go to the video store or get them through NetFlix), any time, it would certainly be worth it to me to buy the Apple box.
The part about this story that bothers me is that a theory is being advanced by subjecting opposing views to "international ridicule" and censoring away any mention of controversy.
The claim that there is any significant scientific controversy regarding the validity of evolution is itself a falsehood, and has no place in teaching of science. I suppose that there might be considered to be a religious controversy between the major religious sects that accept evolution and various fundamentalist sects that do not, but that controversy belongs in a class on religion, not a class on science
Slashdot Mirror
Absolutely. But that has nothing to do with DRM. Do you imagine that elimination of DRM on songs will allow Windows Media Player to connect to your iPod? Sure, you could move songs into other players with a little work--but you can do that already with the DRM-free music that many iPod owners rip from disks. You can even do it now with iTMS songs if you are willing to accept a minor loss in fidelity that the typical iPod/earbuds listener will never hear.
If you are going to nitpick, it is a no-button mouse. You depress the entire shell to click. The advantage from Apple's standpoint is that it can present new users with the simple beginner interface upon which Apple made its reputation, where every action can be accomplished with a single type of click. There is no confusion over multiple buttons and whether they do the same thing or a different thing. Or with 10 seconds in the Preferences, advanced users can configure it to act as a three button mouse. I gave up a conventional 3-button mouse in favor of the Mighty Mouse; I find it far more comfortable, and there is a lot more freedom of where I press to generate a click. As for multiple button presses at the same time, I never had a need to do that even when I used a three button mouse. Of course, there are specialized mice festooned that essentially turn your mouse into a mini keyboard, and I suppose that these can be useful for gaming, but I don't see the point for normal computing.
Using the touchpad as a mouse button is an option. I don't care for it either, but many people like it and Apple offers the option for those who like it. On the other hand, I hate dual trackpad buttons. Twisting my wrist into the unnatural configuration required to reach that right button is a recipe for nerve damage. Apple's two-finger = right button solution is far better.
It doesn't surprise me that Jobs is drawing the line at DRM for all songs, or for none. The fundamental principle on which the iTunes Music Store is based is same deal for all songs--same prices, same rights. I can't imagine Apple ever embracing a scheme in which users have to read the small print to find out what they can and cannot do with each song--it goes against the fundamental principles of uniformity, simplicity, and transparency upon which Apple has built its reputation.
Since when has wikipedia's credibility rested on the academic credentials of its employees? It never even occurred to me to look up who they are, much less their credentials. For me, wikipedia's credibility is based on the quality of the information. In the areas where I have knowledge, I've always found it to be pretty good. I only use it as a starting point for serious research anyway, particularly if it's a topic on which there might be controversy.
I don't see how finding a couple of fake pipe bombs excuses anybody from thinking that "vaguely claymore shaped things" (by which I presume you mean "flat", the only resemblance that I can detect) posed a threat to buildings and bridges. Even a real claymore mine wouldn't hurt a building or bridge, and up there it wouldn't pose much threat to people, either. Finding the (fake) pipe bombs only compounds the stupidity. Even if by some contorted train of thought you could convince yourself that a terrorist would festoon his bombs with blinking lights and put them where they couldn't possibly hurt anything, you now have to come up with some sort of rationalization for why he would do that for some bombs, and for others use plain vanilla pipe bombs. Anybody engaging in this kind of irrational thinking does not belong in a position of responsibility, where (in a genuine threat) rapid decisions about disposition of resources will need to be made on a rational basis, rather than from unreasoning hysteria.
The first step is to demand that public officials accept responsibility for CYA blunders.
Boston still has yet to do this, with the mayor and other public officials continuing to point the finger at Turner Broadcasting and the poor buys who put up the LiteBrite ads (who are still in legal trouble) and referring to the ads that initiated the hysteria as "hoax bombs." Surely there was somebody in the police force or bomb squad who was smart enough to say, "Dudes, chill out. Even if a terrorist was stupid enough to put lights on his bomb, these things aren't even close to big enough to hurt a bridge or a building even if they were completely made of explosives." But the City of Boston went on to waste millions of dollars, shut down the city, and decrease the chance the people will take it seriously if there ever is a real attack.
Let's see some public officials stand up and take responsibility, instead of trying to cast blame on the people who put up the signs--who actually did us a big favor by revealing how unprepared Boston is to recognize a real threat.
And here you hit the nail right on the head. Would you do the same if the paper costed 5 bucks? Or would you actually start pondering how to avoid that expense?
Five bucks, probably not. I probably wouldn't seek out free copies, though, I'd probably just stop reading the paper. One buck? I'd probably continue to buy a copy. And I get considerably less use out of a paper than I do out of a song.
Going out of your way just to save 50 cents makes you a cheapskate and puts you, for me, at the same level of the people I belittle for driving around town for an hour in the search for the gas station that sells fuel for 5 cents less a gallon.
Which is pretty much the way I feel about people who search the web for free copies of music and videos that are available for a buck or two from legitimate retailers.
It makes no sense to insist that something is toxic without considering dose. All sorts of things are toxic at some dose--salt, even water. And with a sufficiently sensitive assay, you will find that we all have traces of all kinds of nasty toxins in our bodies, but at levels too low to cause serious harm.
Maybe. Googling through various sites, installing it in my music player, listening to it on the spot while I'm thinking about it to make sure that it is OK and good quality. 3 minutes seems a bit optimistic based on my experience. But even then I'd pay a buck or so just to be able to click on iTunes, click iTMS, click on the song, and have it automatically downloaded, in known quality, and installed in iTunes with all of the tags correct so that I don't have to futz with it. And in seconds rather than minutes. I don't do that now for only one reason--DRM. Instead I go to Amazon, type in the song name and order the used CD. Still a lot faster than googling for a free copy, and better quality, DRM-free, and a backup disk in the bargain. But I do have to wait for it to show up in the mail, so I'd probably go with iTMS if it wasn't for the DRM.
I buy a newspaper almost every day, although if I wanted to save the 50 cents, I could surely find a discarded newspaper or ask a friend to give me his copy after he's done. Or I could hang out next to a newspaper vending box and piggy-back on somebody else's coin to steal a copy for myself. But the convenience of picking it up from the vendor or the box without having to look around or ask around is worth more to me than the money that I could save.
Yes, the PS3 is now available at list, at least online (but I've decided to pass on it for now), but the Wii is not. Sony at least has an incentive to limit production--they are still probably losing money on each one sold, but Nintendo is reportedly making a profit on the Wii, so they're probably pumping them out as fast as I can.
Unless, of course, one intelligent, tool using species precludes any others. There may just be one "niche" for creatures like us.
Neither have they made any commitment to use the iPhone name on the final product. Why would Apple want to show their hand this early? I think that there is no question that Apple would like to use the iPhone name if it doesn't cost them too much, but they clearly don't need it. Their negotiating position is strengthened by keeping their options open.
I think that I'm with the owner. Genetic sequencing technology is still rapidly developing. Eventually, it will probably be possible to sequence the frog's entire genome in a few days from a small sample, so let's wait to drill.
Absolutely. And Apple could have reached an agreement early on, but they thought they could save money this way.
Both companies have fairly strong positions. Cisco had the rights to the name and is currently using it (even if they obviously stuck the name on a product just to head Apple off). But Apple could use another name on the box at this point and everybody would still call it "iPhone" no matter what Cisco did. After all, Apple already did that very thing with iTV...sorry, I meant AppleTV. So it is taking both companies awhile to gauge the strength of one another's bargaining positions and figure out what that translates into in terms of dollars.
Is this even remotely plausible? Most of the people that I knew back then who played PC games would not have been caught dead playing a game on the Atari 2600, with its blocky graphics, so how could the failure of the 2600 have "spread" to them. Even the coin arcades suffered, and this was a time of great creativity in coin arcade game design.
I think that it is far more plausible that Atari was simply the canary in the coal mine--the earliest and most visible symptom of the end of the video game fad. Because at one point enthusiasm was so high that virtually any game would sell, and because the user-base of Atari 2600s was so high, many publishers were seriously overextended with investments in 2600 game development. So when the fad ended, they were the first to take the fall. As is so often the case after a fad, there was a reaction in which that which was cool became decidedly uncool. It was only after that reaction subsided that it was possible for publishers and developers to build a more healthy game industry in which games sold in competition with other media on the basis of the entertainment value rather than their novelty.
The sad thing is that EA is a company that started out with a commitment toward innovation in game design and games as an art form (Look at that initial lineup of games!) and has turned into a company whose continued existence is largely based on churning out annual sequels to sports titles. There was a time when the name of Electronic Arts on the package was a strong incentive for me to buy, whereas today it is a negative.
And for that matter, a lot of the stuff in the library is pretty questionable as well. Thank god we have the government to protect us from unprofound media. Once they finish cleaning up TV, they can start burning all of those less profound works on the library shelves.
So what you are saying is that adults who work nights or have to go to bed early are not entitled to watch whatever they choose?
This is ridiculous. Institution of mass media is a massive cultural change. Even if that were the only change to take place (which sounds unlikely, it is probably only one aspect of a host other technological and social changes), seizing upon one particular aspect of TV programming to blame is pure bias. After all, people have been known to riot at sports events, so maybe the problem is broadcast sports. Or news, spreading stories of violence and inflammatory political reporting across the country. Or simply the fact that people are spending more time in front of the tube, getting less exercise and have more pent-up energy.
However, the article also talked about restrictions on cable, which is a private resource. I imagine that any such restrictions would be immediately overturned by the courts on first amendment grounds, however.
Instituting even more repressive restrictions on network TV sounds like a good way to destroy the networks. That will happen eventually, anyway--the future is almost certainly internet distribution of content--but this would be a good way to speed it up.
I use online, but it didn't cost me much of anything. I just ran a cable from my router to the 360. Even if I wanted to pay for Microsoft's overpriced USB adapter, why would I want to bog a game system down with the speed limitations of WiFi?
Currently, I'm very happy with my TiVo. I have many hours of my favorite TV shows, all in HD, available any time.
So if Apple continues to offer just a few shows, the way they do now, with limited resolution, I'd have to think whether I really have a use for this device. After all, I can buy shows to download to my XBox 360 (often in HD), and TiVo is about to start offering a similar service, so if Apple is offering just another video download service with a fairly limited inventory (like what they now offer), I'll probably pass. On the other hand, if I could get any TV show (movies are of less interest to me; I'd rather go to the video store or get them through NetFlix), any time, it would certainly be worth it to me to buy the Apple box.
The claim that there is any significant scientific controversy regarding the validity of evolution is itself a falsehood, and has no place in teaching of science. I suppose that there might be considered to be a religious controversy between the major religious sects that accept evolution and various fundamentalist sects that do not, but that controversy belongs in a class on religion, not a class on science
Bluetooth is an RF (radio frequency) protocol.