I really wish you iPod bashers would stop trolling here. It gets tedious correcting you every time there's an article that mentions the devices. If you must do so, at least stick with the truth.
First, here are the two unequivocal facts you mention:
Have integrated FM radios.
You're right about this, and I'd certainly like to see it. I will point out that a decent radio would add to the cost and complexity of the interface, and some people may not appreciate that.
Allow music to be uploaded from any PC, without having install special software to do so.
Correct again, though I will point out as long as the software is free, this is not a tremendous impediment for most people. However, I agree it is disadvantagous for people who run any OS that is neither windows nor OS X. Even so, there are non-officially sanctioned solutions, such as this.
Next, to address your distortions:
Smaller.
Maybe some are, maybe some aren't; maybe those that are smaller are less capable, or more expensive, or uglier, or have an unpleasant interface. In any event, this certainly doesn't seem to be a limiting factor in customer acceptance based either on the sales numbers, or on converstions with any of the dozens of iPod owners I know.
Have battery lives that match vendors claims.
Granted, there was a lawsuit about this, and I believe Apple is more forthright now because of this. Nevertheless, for most people, it doesn't matter. Let me digress into real-world numbers based on my own experience. My 2G 20GB had a battery life that ranged from more than 10 hours when I got it (refurb) to about 3-4 hours after more than two years of almost daily charge/recharge cycles. My wife's 3G 10GB (also refurbed) maintained a charge for more than 10hr over its entire lifespan of about 1.5 years. Neither of these are still with us, due to no fault of Apple. Our replacements (a 1 year old Shuffle, a 4GB Nano, and a 4G 60GB Photo (the latter two are about.5 year old)) are all still going strong with more than 10hr per charge. Why do I keep referring to that mystical 10hr figure? Because for us, and probably the vast majority of people, that's long enough. I don't spend my entire day listening to my iPod to the exclusion of all other activities that require the use of my ears. As long as an overnight charge gives me enough juice to last through the next day, I'm satisfied, and I'm pretty sure most people feel the same way. Also, not everyone wants to deal with the hassle of swapping out "replacable" batteries all the time, even if they use rechargable ones.
Dont scratch.
Well, my 2G, 3G, and 4G are pretty scratch resistant (as much as I'd expect them to be, anyway), and the Shuffle is certainly more than adequate under reasonable usage. I concur that the Nano is considerably less tolerant of abrasion, and I admit I'm not very pleased about it. However, it's clearly impossible for ANY player to be completely unscratchable (unless perhaps it's made of somthing exotic like diamonds).
Finally, your falsehoods:
Dont cost $50 to replace the failing battery.
Well, that's just silly. Most people don't assume that the original vendor will be the least expensive option; in Apple's case, this is rarely true. However, they are definitely not the only option for replacement batteries. One that I have no relationship to (except as a satisfied customer) can be found here. If you glance at the page, you'll see that no replacement battery tops $30, and most of these are rated for longer lives than Apple's originals. As referenced above, this shouldn't be necessary under even pretty heavy usage more often than once every 1.5-2 years, which is not an incredibly large expenditure for a product that costs about ten times that much.
Dont attempt to lock users into Apples music format and the iTunes store.
Yeah, I hate it when the
Turning off drivers won't do much good if your users retain the ability to boot from a liveCD such as Knoppix. Of course, you might very well remove CD/DVD drives or restrict boot devices in the (password-protected) BIOS, but those are additional steps.
The purpose of the clause was to keep the government from interfering with religion.
Actually, if you read the writings of the founding fathers, it's quite clear that they included the establishment clause not so much to keep religion safe from government, but to keep government safe from religion. There are abundant quotes to support this. Here are a few samples:
Which part of Aliens (except, maybe, biology) ignored physics?
Oh, I believe there were several, but I don't recall all of them at the moment. Some of the most egregious errors concerned the nuclear explosion. First of all, it's hard to keep a controlled fusion reaction going; there is no risk of a runaway chain reaction from inadequate cooling as there is with fission. Secondly, the radius of effect of a fusion explosion is huge; furthermore, the light, sound, and shockwave all propogate at different rates. If the spaceship experiences the flash, sound, and turbulance from the blast practically simultaneously, it is way too close to ground zero and certainly within the fireball. This would effectively destroy the ship and its occupants.
I just remembered another flaw. Reasonably assume that the "mother" alien and the loader each mass at least 500kg. Well, the ship somehow has artificial gravity approximately equal to 1G (from obvious visual clues)(and we'll ignore the physics of THAT at the moment). This means that when the cargo door is open to space and the alien is clutching at Ripley's leg, she's supporting a ton or more with just one arm hooked through the rung of a ladder. I rather doubt that she would emerge from that intact.
I suppose I could nitpick a lot of additional gaffes if I sat down to watch it again for that purpose, but I won't bother. It was a fun movie; it just wasn't as accurate as it could have been, particularly compared to its predecessor.
So your analogy only works to someone who is eavesdropping on my wireless connection--something that might considered a violation of federal wiretapping laws.
The act of receiving unencrypted, standards-compliant data packets that are broadcast in a public space on a public frequency cannot possibly be considered wiretapping.
Once you join the network and start broadcasting, the analogy falls apart. Closest I can come using your analogy is that you've moved my sprinkler. Sure, it's still watering my lawn (I can still use the wireless) but not precisely in the way I want (you're using up some of my bandwidth).
Well, to torture the analogy yet further, it's more akin to posting a big sign next to the sprinkler (SSID) saying "If you know how to move a sprinkler, you're welcome to adjust the coverage pattern of this one for your own benefit (DHCP) - and everyone is permitted to do so (unencrypted/no password)."
The key point you're missing is that this water (WAP) is intruding on public space. It is assumed that unprotected resources in a public space are meant for the enjoyment of all (by definition). If you put a waterproof wall up along your sidewalk so that the water doesn't hit the sidewalk, then your intent is clear, and evading that wall to procure water would be wrong.
But of course, that's not what we're discussing. We're talking about 1) broadcast SSID 2) standards-compliant data packets 3) open DHCP 4) lack of password 5) lack of encryption 6) public frequencies 7) intruding on public spaces.
Change any one of these, and the intent is clear (well, clearer). At least, it's probably enough evidence of intent that reasonable people would leave your WAP alone. But making your resource so available to the public arena (indeed, forcing oneself upon it) gives you no legitimate cause to complain.
Let's look at another example, this time with a slightly more plentiful resource than the small space in my trash bin. How about water? I have a water hose on the outside of my property. If I caught someone using it, I could have them arrested, despite my lack of a fence, surveillance, or a posted sign that says that no one is allowed to use the water.
This is a flawed, or at least incomplete analogy. Let's further suppose that your water is used in a sprinkler which has a pattern that reaches a public sidewalk. If, on a hot summer day, I walk down the sidewalk and choose to stand within the coverage area, I am perfectly within my rights to do so.
The point is that if you want to secure your resources from being utilized when they impinge on public spaces, YOU are responsible for doing so. It is hardly the city's responsibility to move the public sidewalk whenever you water your lawn, or to mandate use of umbrellas when passing your house, or any other contrived solution.
An unsecured wireless network that intrudes on airspace beyond the owner's property is no less available to the public than is water from a sprinkler that wets public sidewalks. If you don't want others to use it, take steps to limit availability.
The great thing about these choices is that they're all non-commercial (in both senses of the word). Depending on my mood, I can almost always find something worth listening to on one of them.
Which is a really good thing. I've developed such a distaste for obnoxious advertising that I simply cannot listen to commercial radio anymore. (No, I don't watch much TV, either.)
Of course, as I've just shown, the Miracle of the Internet allows you to hear these stations anywhere you're connected, not just in the Twin Cities. But for those of us who live here, it's nice to be able to tune in with any radio when you're offline.
IANA physicist, but I'd think the time-dilation effects at the surface would red-shift the incoming light. Wouldn't the wavelengths appear "stretched out" and thus longer? See this.
First, you (and the RIAA) may call it theft, but that doesn't make it so. Theft involves taking something from another and thus preventing their use of it. If I take a copy of a song but leave the original unaltered and still in the possession of the original owner, that is not theft. It is copyright infringement.
You may argue that there is theft of the revenue that the artist (and the RIAA) would otherwise derive, and perhaps there is some of that. However, it is obvious that many people simply would do without, rather than pay for music that they aren't particularly attached to. On the flip side, many people will go out and purchase music once they've had a free sample and decided that they like it. I know anecdotally that this is very true for myself and for many of my personal acquaintances.
Second, it is very clear (from both the Constitution and related writings by the founding fathers on this topic) that copyright was intended to be secured only for a limited time, so that society would benefit from an intellectual commons. All creative works (be they music, literature, film, or whatever) build on what has gone before. Nothing is created in a vacuum. Since society's intellectual commons provided the environment for the fruit, it is altogether fitting and proper that the fruit's remains pass back to that environment after the owner has received the bulk of the benefit.
The time-limited copyright is used as a mechanism to provide incentive for artists/writers/composers/etc. Although SCOTUS thinks the current length of copyright is technically a limited period of time, most reasonable people would conclude that for practical purposes, it is not.
There is no reason an alternate mechanism could not be used. In earlier times, patronage provided an artist with compensation for work that was then available for all to enjoy (I'm obviously simplifying here). A system which might work today could be to charge a premium for new music, and a discount for older works. Very old works would enter the public domain, as once they did.
It sounds as though I'm wandering off topic a bit, but the preceding has bearing. You seem to treat copyright infringement as a morally absolute wrong. It isn't. It is circumvention of a system that was originally designed to balance the rights and needs of society with those of the individual. Many, if not most, people now feel that balance is shifted too far in the artist's and RIAA's favor.
My point is that this is not a moral issue. It is a matter of providing reasonable compensation to those who produce works while ensuring that society is also allowed to benefit. Many believe that our current method of achieving this is broken.
Perhaps this will help you understand why so many people do not feel that they are doing anything wrong when they share music.
The water was also rich in sulfates, which acted as a preservative, allowing the beer to be shipped to distant locations, even India - the Burton beers were called India pale ales, or I.P.A. for short. "The I.P.A. style came about because of the geology on which Burton was sited," Dr. Maltman said.
Back in those days before pasteurization, hops were used as preservatives, and the IPA style owes more of its defining characteristic to extra hopping. IPAs have the highest levels of hops and subsequent bitterness/aroma/hop flavour of any beer style. Although technically incorrect to market a modern beer as preservative free, the hops now are added purely for flavouring, because pasteurization or cask/bottle conditioning preserves modern beer.
It's also relevant to note that a proper IPA should have at least a slight aroma or flavor of oak. Originally, the long, unrefrigerated journey around the Horn of Africa required the use of any method of preservation that was available. Storing the ale in oak casks also added to the stability (for reasons I've forgotten, something about the wood helps prevent deterioration). When I brew a batch, I usually steam a good handfull of fresh oak chips (to sterilize them) and toss them into the primary fermentation. They are left behind when I rack the brew into the secondary, but the aroma and the slightest hint of flavor remain with the finished beer.
Slashdot Mirror
First, here are the two unequivocal facts you mention:
Have integrated FM radios. You're right about this, and I'd certainly like to see it. I will point out that a decent radio would add to the cost and complexity of the interface, and some people may not appreciate that.
Allow music to be uploaded from any PC, without having install special software to do so. Correct again, though I will point out as long as the software is free, this is not a tremendous impediment for most people. However, I agree it is disadvantagous for people who run any OS that is neither windows nor OS X. Even so, there are non-officially sanctioned solutions, such as this.
Next, to address your distortions:
Smaller. Maybe some are, maybe some aren't; maybe those that are smaller are less capable, or more expensive, or uglier, or have an unpleasant interface. In any event, this certainly doesn't seem to be a limiting factor in customer acceptance based either on the sales numbers, or on converstions with any of the dozens of iPod owners I know.
Have battery lives that match vendors claims. Granted, there was a lawsuit about this, and I believe Apple is more forthright now because of this. Nevertheless, for most people, it doesn't matter. Let me digress into real-world numbers based on my own experience. My 2G 20GB had a battery life that ranged from more than 10 hours when I got it (refurb) to about 3-4 hours after more than two years of almost daily charge/recharge cycles. My wife's 3G 10GB (also refurbed) maintained a charge for more than 10hr over its entire lifespan of about 1.5 years. Neither of these are still with us, due to no fault of Apple. Our replacements (a 1 year old Shuffle, a 4GB Nano, and a 4G 60GB Photo (the latter two are about .5 year old)) are all still going strong with more than 10hr per charge. Why do I keep referring to that mystical 10hr figure? Because for us, and probably the vast majority of people, that's long enough. I don't spend my entire day listening to my iPod to the exclusion of all other activities that require the use of my ears. As long as an overnight charge gives me enough juice to last through the next day, I'm satisfied, and I'm pretty sure most people feel the same way. Also, not everyone wants to deal with the hassle of swapping out "replacable" batteries all the time, even if they use rechargable ones.
Dont scratch. Well, my 2G, 3G, and 4G are pretty scratch resistant (as much as I'd expect them to be, anyway), and the Shuffle is certainly more than adequate under reasonable usage. I concur that the Nano is considerably less tolerant of abrasion, and I admit I'm not very pleased about it. However, it's clearly impossible for ANY player to be completely unscratchable (unless perhaps it's made of somthing exotic like diamonds).
Finally, your falsehoods:
Dont cost $50 to replace the failing battery. Well, that's just silly. Most people don't assume that the original vendor will be the least expensive option; in Apple's case, this is rarely true. However, they are definitely not the only option for replacement batteries. One that I have no relationship to (except as a satisfied customer) can be found here. If you glance at the page, you'll see that no replacement battery tops $30, and most of these are rated for longer lives than Apple's originals. As referenced above, this shouldn't be necessary under even pretty heavy usage more often than once every 1.5-2 years, which is not an incredibly large expenditure for a product that costs about ten times that much.
Dont attempt to lock users into Apples music format and the iTunes store. Yeah, I hate it when the
[snip] a movie must make AT LEAST 4x it's negative cost
Overall, that was a nicely informative post. However, as a self-proclaimed writer, you might find this helpful.
Certainly not. After all, no one is able to trademark a ridiculously common word, such as, say, windows, or word, or office.
But are there free-range full databases? And do they taste like chicken?
Turning off drivers won't do much good if your users retain the ability to boot from a liveCD such as Knoppix. Of course, you might very well remove CD/DVD drives or restrict boot devices in the (password-protected) BIOS, but those are additional steps.
So, it lasts 10, 000,000, 000,000,000 / 1,000,000,000 = 10, 000,000 or 10 million seconds, or (lessee, carry the one...) almost 116 days?
You know, scientific notation was created for a reason.
Actually, if you read the writings of the founding fathers, it's quite clear that they included the establishment clause not so much to keep religion safe from government, but to keep government safe from religion. There are abundant quotes to support this. Here are a few samples:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_found ers.html
http://monotheism.us/
http://www.deism.org/foundingfathers.htm
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/extra/found ing-fathers.html
http://www.aztriad.com/fathers.html
Oh, I believe there were several, but I don't recall all of them at the moment. Some of the most egregious errors concerned the nuclear explosion. First of all, it's hard to keep a controlled fusion reaction going; there is no risk of a runaway chain reaction from inadequate cooling as there is with fission. Secondly, the radius of effect of a fusion explosion is huge; furthermore, the light, sound, and shockwave all propogate at different rates. If the spaceship experiences the flash, sound, and turbulance from the blast practically simultaneously, it is way too close to ground zero and certainly within the fireball. This would effectively destroy the ship and its occupants.
I just remembered another flaw. Reasonably assume that the "mother" alien and the loader each mass at least 500kg. Well, the ship somehow has artificial gravity approximately equal to 1G (from obvious visual clues)(and we'll ignore the physics of THAT at the moment). This means that when the cargo door is open to space and the alien is clutching at Ripley's leg, she's supporting a ton or more with just one arm hooked through the rung of a ladder. I rather doubt that she would emerge from that intact.
I suppose I could nitpick a lot of additional gaffes if I sat down to watch it again for that purpose, but I won't bother. It was a fun movie; it just wasn't as accurate as it could have been, particularly compared to its predecessor.
Since the definition of celibacy is the state of not being married, all people are celibate until marriage.
The act of receiving unencrypted, standards-compliant data packets that are broadcast in a public space on a public frequency cannot possibly be considered wiretapping.
Once you join the network and start broadcasting, the analogy falls apart. Closest I can come using your analogy is that you've moved my sprinkler. Sure, it's still watering my lawn (I can still use the wireless) but not precisely in the way I want (you're using up some of my bandwidth).
Well, to torture the analogy yet further, it's more akin to posting a big sign next to the sprinkler (SSID) saying "If you know how to move a sprinkler, you're welcome to adjust the coverage pattern of this one for your own benefit (DHCP) - and everyone is permitted to do so (unencrypted/no password)."
The key point you're missing is that this water (WAP) is intruding on public space. It is assumed that unprotected resources in a public space are meant for the enjoyment of all (by definition). If you put a waterproof wall up along your sidewalk so that the water doesn't hit the sidewalk, then your intent is clear, and evading that wall to procure water would be wrong.
But of course, that's not what we're discussing. We're talking about 1) broadcast SSID 2) standards-compliant data packets 3) open DHCP 4) lack of password 5) lack of encryption 6) public frequencies 7) intruding on public spaces.
Change any one of these, and the intent is clear (well, clearer). At least, it's probably enough evidence of intent that reasonable people would leave your WAP alone. But making your resource so available to the public arena (indeed, forcing oneself upon it) gives you no legitimate cause to complain.
Of course, analogies are never perfect
Ain't that the truth!
This is a flawed, or at least incomplete analogy. Let's further suppose that your water is used in a sprinkler which has a pattern that reaches a public sidewalk. If, on a hot summer day, I walk down the sidewalk and choose to stand within the coverage area, I am perfectly within my rights to do so.
The point is that if you want to secure your resources from being utilized when they impinge on public spaces, YOU are responsible for doing so. It is hardly the city's responsibility to move the public sidewalk whenever you water your lawn, or to mandate use of umbrellas when passing your house, or any other contrived solution.
An unsecured wireless network that intrudes on airspace beyond the owner's property is no less available to the public than is water from a sprinkler that wets public sidewalks. If you don't want others to use it, take steps to limit availability.
In addition to the news, classical, and local/indie/rock flavors of the MPR, we have a very good jazz station , the U of M's station , and a terrific community station .
The great thing about these choices is that they're all non-commercial (in both senses of the word). Depending on my mood, I can almost always find something worth listening to on one of them.
Which is a really good thing. I've developed such a distaste for obnoxious advertising that I simply cannot listen to commercial radio anymore. (No, I don't watch much TV, either.)
Of course, as I've just shown, the Miracle of the Internet allows you to hear these stations anywhere you're connected, not just in the Twin Cities. But for those of us who live here, it's nice to be able to tune in with any radio when you're offline.
Don't forget, IBM's POWER4, POWER4+, and POWER5 are also multicore.
IANA physicist, but I'd think the time-dilation effects at the surface would red-shift the incoming light. Wouldn't the wavelengths appear "stretched out" and thus longer? See this.
First, you (and the RIAA) may call it theft, but that doesn't make it so. Theft involves taking something from another and thus preventing their use of it. If I take a copy of a song but leave the original unaltered and still in the possession of the original owner, that is not theft. It is copyright infringement.
You may argue that there is theft of the revenue that the artist (and the RIAA) would otherwise derive, and perhaps there is some of that. However, it is obvious that many people simply would do without, rather than pay for music that they aren't particularly attached to. On the flip side, many people will go out and purchase music once they've had a free sample and decided that they like it. I know anecdotally that this is very true for myself and for many of my personal acquaintances.
Second, it is very clear (from both the Constitution and related writings by the founding fathers on this topic) that copyright was intended to be secured only for a limited time, so that society would benefit from an intellectual commons. All creative works (be they music, literature, film, or whatever) build on what has gone before. Nothing is created in a vacuum. Since society's intellectual commons provided the environment for the fruit, it is altogether fitting and proper that the fruit's remains pass back to that environment after the owner has received the bulk of the benefit.
The time-limited copyright is used as a mechanism to provide incentive for artists/writers/composers/etc. Although SCOTUS thinks the current length of copyright is technically a limited period of time, most reasonable people would conclude that for practical purposes, it is not.
There is no reason an alternate mechanism could not be used. In earlier times, patronage provided an artist with compensation for work that was then available for all to enjoy (I'm obviously simplifying here). A system which might work today could be to charge a premium for new music, and a discount for older works. Very old works would enter the public domain, as once they did.
It sounds as though I'm wandering off topic a bit, but the preceding has bearing. You seem to treat copyright infringement as a morally absolute wrong. It isn't. It is circumvention of a system that was originally designed to balance the rights and needs of society with those of the individual. Many, if not most, people now feel that balance is shifted too far in the artist's and RIAA's favor.
My point is that this is not a moral issue. It is a matter of providing reasonable compensation to those who produce works while ensuring that society is also allowed to benefit. Many believe that our current method of achieving this is broken.
Perhaps this will help you understand why so many people do not feel that they are doing anything wrong when they share music.
Back in those days before pasteurization, hops were used as preservatives, and the IPA style owes more of its defining characteristic to extra hopping. IPAs have the highest levels of hops and subsequent bitterness/aroma/hop flavour of any beer style. Although technically incorrect to market a modern beer as preservative free, the hops now are added purely for flavouring, because pasteurization or cask/bottle conditioning preserves modern beer.
It's also relevant to note that a proper IPA should have at least a slight aroma or flavor of oak. Originally, the long, unrefrigerated journey around the Horn of Africa required the use of any method of preservation that was available. Storing the ale in oak casks also added to the stability (for reasons I've forgotten, something about the wood helps prevent deterioration). When I brew a batch, I usually steam a good handfull of fresh oak chips (to sterilize them) and toss them into the primary fermentation. They are left behind when I rack the brew into the secondary, but the aroma and the slightest hint of flavor remain with the finished beer.