No it's not. You make it sound like it is, but yet you don't even quote his whole statement, or even an accurate part of it. 1) No mention of iTunes. 2) He *did not ask* what they are in the UK before the interviewer interrupted with the UK price. 3) He says "You're being ripped off," which taken in context could very well mean that 99c or 79p or both is a rip off.
You also don't detect sarcasm. In either Peter Moore's interview, or in my comment.
"You're" could mean anything. People tend to say that in speech when they should say "one" or "we" or maybe Peter Moore is saying he, himself, doesn't pay at all and that the interviewer's paying anything at all is a rip-off. Did you stop to even consider that? No. You're just blindly defending him like the others.
Peter Moore also whips out Steve Jobs as an example... of something, and a very American one at that.
My whole POINT is that Peter Moore is a jackass because he ambiguously, yes ambiguously, states that 99c or 79p or both are a rip-off for online music tracks, but does not say why. He led himself down this path, maybe he detects that he stumbled, and only then veers off suddenly back to trashing physical media sales.
For crying out loud. You and your buddies continuously and conveniently leave off his sarcastic remark about Steve Jobs rescuing us.
Steve Jobs comes to the rescue to figure out a way to charge you 99 cents or whatever you're paying in the UK.
The second part you and your buddies fail at is this: The next thing out of the interviewer's mouth was just a statement and not even a response. There wasn't a question asked!
79p Is that what it is? You're being ripped off. We're not going to do that, we're going to evolve, we're going to go faster for the consumer, whatever the consumer wants.
I've continued the quote here for your convenience since you aren't inclined to quote in context, and I've put analysis below since you fail at logic.
Peter Moore is saying: 1) 79p is a rip-off (and not 99c), therefore he has a solution for the UK (because he agrees with the 99c price) or 2) 99c AND 79p is a rip-off, therefore he has a solution for *everyone*.
However, he does not actually say he'll offer a lower price. He just vaguely says "whatever the consumer wants" and then goes off on physical media being antiquated, which, since I need to point out the obviousness of it here, has *nothing to do* with online pay-per-track or its pricing model.
Who's paying you to defend him? If this is not what Peter Moore said, answer my question: what did the interviewer leave out?
Wow! The Peter Moore Damage Control is strong in this thread!
Peter Moore absolutely insinuates that "Steve Jobs" is ripping people off by charging per track.
The relevant portion:
So it's all about downloads and community? We've gone from connected consumers being the minority to connected consumers being the majority.
We need to look three years into the future and say it's going to be a completely different business, because of broadband connections. I am not going to be at the helm of a company that ends up like the music business that refused to stop trying to sell you CDs for £15 because it was a hugely profitable model. And the music consumer says, 'you know, I don't want to pay £15 for 12 tracks of which I want two, I don't want shiny discs anymore'. And so what did the industry do? It started suing its consumers for illegal downloads and, you know, Steve Jobs comes to the rescue to figure out a way to charge you 99 cents or whatever you're paying in the UK.
79p Is that what it is? You're being ripped off. We're not going to do that, we're going to evolve, we're going to go faster for the consumer, whatever the consumer wants. So in the future hard drives are going to be bigger, broadband is going to be faster and we're going to look back and laugh at the fact that we used to drive to the store to buy a piece of plastic with data on it. That business model isn't going to exist - I don't know whether it's going to be five years from now or ten years, but it's not going to be around anymore.
Peter Moore offers no alternative. He just goes on further to say he'll eliminate selling "plastic." Which Steve Jobs, Amazon, and others pretty much have done.
No talk about charging *less per track*. Or how he can charge *less per track*.
Sorry, Peter Moore is still just being a jackass. Did the interviewer leave something out?
I did RTFA, because I was sure the summary was wrong. Nope.
How is 99c a track a rip-off? He doesn't explain. He could have justified it by comparing to Amazon, or something even about how artists don't get most of it.... Not even an attempt. Peter Moore just comes off as a jackass. Is there something the interviewer left off?
But even if solar forcing in the past was more important than this estimate suggests, as some scientists think, there is no correlation between solar activity and the strong warming during the past 40 years. Claims that this is the case have not stood up to scrutiny (pdf document).
Direct measurements of solar output since 1978 show a steady rise and fall over the 11-year sunspot cycle, but no upwards or downward trend .
Similarly, there is no trend in direct measurements of the Sun's ultraviolet output and in cosmic rays. So for the period for which we have direct, reliable records, the Earth has warmed dramatically even though there has been no corresponding rise in any kind of solar activity.
And yet, they do revise them by working on and ratifying a new version.
It's great to tote out "standards compliance" as the holy grail, but the problem is that there are plenty of things that the standard just does not define.. and those things get discovered by web developers who work around the issues and it never gets back to the standards drafters.
That sounds nice, but you're advocating a moving target. Standards or recommendations would never be finished.
Now there's the link tag but it's optional.. yeah, that's right, the standard says that a browser can optionally implement the tag.. what kind of standard is that anyway? So no-one used it. Instead, they use the img tag and set the width and height of the image to 0.. unfortunately, the standard never said "if the width of the image is zero, thou shalt not render anything."
Just because *you* want it, doesn't mean others do.
Unfortunately even a lot of stuff that is in the acid test never makes it back to the standard, so browser developers have to reverse engineer the Acid test!
I'm guessing you're a web developer. Therefore, you or your company have a demonstrated interest in the recommendations, which means you can sign up and be a member of the committees and advocate your changes and proposals for the next version of the recommendation.
I hope this helps a bit to further your understanding of the process.
Then just have people email you as +notspam, and give your email to websites without it. Of course, those websites' emails will be marked as spam, which takes away the point of giving it to them anyway.
I believe you're talking about merely filtering rather than rejection at the MTA. With my method, I don't have to modify my MTA, or add to a spam filter. Setting up another alias is not a hassle. If the alias gets spammed, I drop it, and if necessary, make a new one.
As for salting, I was indirectly saying that one wouldn't need to care about it if one used my method. But, this method only works if you control your domain's MTA like I do. If you're using Gmail, and using the "+" system, you're mistakenly trusting that the person who sends you e-mail will keep the suffix. Spammers will try both, anyway. More importantly, you can't simply shut off that "+" extension without shutting off your primary.
Then you should also link to the follow-up article where they admit they goofed, and the results for power consumption weren't so cut-and-dried like you suggest. In fact, they even say there was at least one flash device on the market that beat them all.
I'll bet that Windows' penchant for hitting the hard disk as often as it does even when "idle" makes the disk use more power than a flash device.
Well, see, that's what you're comfortable with.;) I prefer to be happy, which, as part of my definition, excludes all the crap you have to go through to protect yourself. Sure, what I do isn't perfect, but it's yet another several steps and guesses for someone to get to the point where I need to do what you're talking about. Why make it easy?
(2) if it did happen, countermeasures are certainly available
No, they're not. Not in the way that you think.
1) Police are very limited in understanding and action with harassment crimes. 2) Retaliating will likely get *you* into trouble, rather than the initial tard. 3) Even if you do get a civil judgement, these people likely have nothing to lose. Therefore, you lose. 4) Sending them to jail just makes them more pissed off. Then re-visit #3.
In public forums like this, there are a lot of crazies on both sides of any argument. It's best to limit your exposure, unless you don't mind inviting trouble.
And the few times a harvester is correctly written? What then? That's the address that gets spread around. Obscurity doesn't work on the Internet. Just don't post it at all.
But you seem fine with it because you're also posting your personal domain name here, which links to your name and your photo, along with a street address and phone number (which I hope are only P.O. box and a voicemail-only phone service). You're a hell of a lot more comfortable with it than I am. (At least I hope you knew that all that info was very publicly available.)
Giving out e-mails with "+something" is worthless for spam. The malicious spammers will just strip the "+something" from address, as both can be delivered, but the short form will be less likely filtered, and you won't know which service it was sold/stolen from.
I actually make a separate alias for each site eg. name-something@example.com. If you shorten my alias to the part before the hyphen, it won't deliver. Yes, spammers have tried.
If you're using "+something" just know that you might as well not append that onto your e-mail address, for all the good that it does, as you're giving out your primary address anyway. Cat, bag, already open.
First, we'll stop maintaining the street in front of your house and bar you from driving on any road that you haven't paid into personally.
Next, we'll tell your bank that your mortgage is no longer insured by the federal government, and you'll need to buy expensive mortgage insurance. On top of that, FEMA will no longer come to your financial aid in the event of a natural disaster.
And those firefighters who show up at your house when it's burning? They will only make sure your neighbors' houses aren't affected... unless you prepaid your fire district for assistance!
If you have a medical or police emergency, we can't deny you help, but you just may be bankrupted from the bills for service!
And remember how your road isn't maintained any more? Just think about the extra few thousand you'll be spending each year on costly repairs and maintenance for your vehicles. What? Washboard surfaces and potholes aren't kind to your suspension, chassis, and delicate electronics.
You are an idiot because you won't have any money left for your investments -- unless you're ultra-rich. Do you believe you're ultra-rich?
We can all go back to unmaintained dirt roads, paying full cost for schools, and paying exorbitant interest rates for loans in exchange for little to no taxes. One needs to only look back as far as the 1930's... or the 1880's if one's feeling adventurous. According to your philosophy, those were great times!
Greenies are so afraid of nuke plants that they blocked any being built for quite some time.
Blocked in part because the glowies were blind to the problems of the reactors at the time and the problems of scalding hot water discharge that destroyed the surrounding water ecosystems, as well as the fishkill from the intakes. And there was always the issue of cost -- states would rather build coal plants because it had cheaper rates! Much on those fronts has been solved today, but a lot of that resistance was well-founded. Now that nuclear is becoming more responsible and more mature, you'll see (and are seeing) less resistance.
I believe you're over-generalizing what "greenie" is. I used the entire state of CA as an example. You tend to think that SF's borders extend to Oregon, Nevada, and Mexico as far as policy, and you forget that CA also has deeply conservative regions. Where do you think Reagan and Nixon came from?
The power generation options you conveniently left out are natural gas, wind, solar, and geothermal. Your state can't provide any of that? You'd rather pollute with coal for short-term gains than explore other options? It sounds like you are gung-ho about nuclear, which is fine except you're blind to all the other options. Nuclear *by itself* will not solve your power issues, because peak demand is what causes problems and a nuclear plant can't easily respond to large fluctuations. Overbuilding a nuclear plant is wasteful and too costly as all the capacity will be unused at non-peak. You can fire up another hydro/gas turbine much quicker than you can fire up another reactor. You need base power as well as peak power.
Your advocacy of nuclear for everything is just as specious as those who completely oppose nuclear power. Would you like it if I lumped you into a group called "glowies" as those who only want nuclear?
Oh? Why is it California (which everyone associates with "greenies") uses mostly hydro and natural gas? Please count how many coal plants there are. You may have to strain a bit because they're buried by the avalanche of cleaner types of power. Blame your own state's government for putting coal power online.
Slashdot Mirror
No it's not. You make it sound like it is, but yet you don't even quote his whole statement, or even an accurate part of it.
1) No mention of iTunes.
2) He *did not ask* what they are in the UK before the interviewer interrupted with the UK price.
3) He says "You're being ripped off," which taken in context could very well mean that 99c or 79p or both is a rip off.
How you got modded informative is beyond me.
Oh, you're back.
You also don't detect sarcasm. In either Peter Moore's interview, or in my comment.
"You're" could mean anything. People tend to say that in speech when they should say "one" or "we" or maybe Peter Moore is saying he, himself, doesn't pay at all and that the interviewer's paying anything at all is a rip-off. Did you stop to even consider that? No. You're just blindly defending him like the others.
Peter Moore also whips out Steve Jobs as an example ... of something, and a very American one at that.
My whole POINT is that Peter Moore is a jackass because he ambiguously, yes ambiguously, states that 99c or 79p or both are a rip-off for online music tracks, but does not say why. He led himself down this path, maybe he detects that he stumbled, and only then veers off suddenly back to trashing physical media sales.
For crying out loud. You and your buddies continuously and conveniently leave off his sarcastic remark about Steve Jobs rescuing us.
Steve Jobs comes to the rescue to figure out a way to charge you 99 cents or whatever you're paying in the UK.
The second part you and your buddies fail at is this: The next thing out of the interviewer's mouth was just a statement and not even a response. There wasn't a question asked!
79p
Is that what it is? You're being ripped off. We're not going to do that, we're going to evolve, we're going to go faster for the consumer, whatever the consumer wants.
I've continued the quote here for your convenience since you aren't inclined to quote in context, and I've put analysis below since you fail at logic.
Peter Moore is saying:
1) 79p is a rip-off (and not 99c), therefore he has a solution for the UK (because he agrees with the 99c price)
or
2) 99c AND 79p is a rip-off, therefore he has a solution for *everyone*.
However, he does not actually say he'll offer a lower price. He just vaguely says "whatever the consumer wants" and then goes off on physical media being antiquated, which, since I need to point out the obviousness of it here, has *nothing to do* with online pay-per-track or its pricing model.
Who's paying you to defend him? If this is not what Peter Moore said, answer my question: what did the interviewer leave out?
Wow! The Peter Moore Damage Control is strong in this thread!
Peter Moore absolutely insinuates that "Steve Jobs" is ripping people off by charging per track.
The relevant portion:
So it's all about downloads and community?
We've gone from connected consumers being the minority to connected consumers being the majority.
We need to look three years into the future and say it's going to be a completely different business, because of broadband connections. I am not going to be at the helm of a company that ends up like the music business that refused to stop trying to sell you CDs for £15 because it was a hugely profitable model. And the music consumer says, 'you know, I don't want to pay £15 for 12 tracks of which I want two, I don't want shiny discs anymore'. And so what did the industry do? It started suing its consumers for illegal downloads and, you know, Steve Jobs comes to the rescue to figure out a way to charge you 99 cents or whatever you're paying in the UK.
79p
Is that what it is? You're being ripped off. We're not going to do that, we're going to evolve, we're going to go faster for the consumer, whatever the consumer wants. So in the future hard drives are going to be bigger, broadband is going to be faster and we're going to look back and laugh at the fact that we used to drive to the store to buy a piece of plastic with data on it. That business model isn't going to exist - I don't know whether it's going to be five years from now or ten years, but it's not going to be around anymore.
Peter Moore offers no alternative. He just goes on further to say he'll eliminate selling "plastic." Which Steve Jobs, Amazon, and others pretty much have done.
No talk about charging *less per track*. Or how he can charge *less per track*.
Sorry, Peter Moore is still just being a jackass. Did the interviewer leave something out?
I did RTFA, because I was sure the summary was wrong. Nope.
How is 99c a track a rip-off? He doesn't explain. He could have justified it by comparing to Amazon, or something even about how artists don't get most of it.... Not even an attempt. Peter Moore just comes off as a jackass. Is there something the interviewer left off?
An organism may suffer in space travel, but how well does hardware bear up after a few years, even with shielding?
To answer your first question:
Pioneer, Voyager, Galileo, Cassini....
Not everything goes perfectly, but sometimes you get very lucky.
Sorry, no. And WTF does an anti-AGW statement have to do with a dust-devil on Mars?
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/DamonLaut2004.pdf
and
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11650
But even if solar forcing in the past was more important than this estimate suggests, as some scientists think, there is no correlation between solar activity and the strong warming during the past 40 years. Claims that this is the case have not stood up to scrutiny (pdf document).
Direct measurements of solar output since 1978 show a steady rise and fall over the 11-year sunspot cycle, but no upwards or downward trend .
Similarly, there is no trend in direct measurements of the Sun's ultraviolet output and in cosmic rays. So for the period for which we have direct, reliable records, the Earth has warmed dramatically even though there has been no corresponding rise in any kind of solar activity.
(hand wave) *Yours is the comment we need to highly moderate.*
All you've done is planted the suggestion that you're not looking for your own comment...
(hand wave)I need to watch Star Wars again.
Please do not take this negatively:
Ya know what I'd like to see? Standards revision.
And yet, they do revise them by working on and ratifying a new version.
It's great to tote out "standards compliance" as the holy grail, but the problem is that there are plenty of things that the standard just does not define.. and those things get discovered by web developers who work around the issues and it never gets back to the standards drafters.
That sounds nice, but you're advocating a moving target. Standards or recommendations would never be finished.
Now there's the link tag but it's optional.. yeah, that's right, the standard says that a browser can optionally implement the tag.. what kind of standard is that anyway? So no-one used it. Instead, they use the img tag and set the width and height of the image to 0.. unfortunately, the standard never said "if the width of the image is zero, thou shalt not render anything."
Just because *you* want it, doesn't mean others do.
Unfortunately even a lot of stuff that is in the acid test never makes it back to the standard, so browser developers have to reverse engineer the Acid test!
I'm guessing you're a web developer. Therefore, you or your company have a demonstrated interest in the recommendations, which means you can sign up and be a member of the committees and advocate your changes and proposals for the next version of the recommendation.
I hope this helps a bit to further your understanding of the process.
Sorry. My joke imploded.
They aren't dealing in light. From the article
Well of course they aren't! From the submission:
super-massive black hole
Then just have people email you as +notspam, and give your email to websites without it. Of course, those websites' emails will be marked as spam, which takes away the point of giving it to them anyway.
I believe you're talking about merely filtering rather than rejection at the MTA. With my method, I don't have to modify my MTA, or add to a spam filter. Setting up another alias is not a hassle. If the alias gets spammed, I drop it, and if necessary, make a new one.
As for salting, I was indirectly saying that one wouldn't need to care about it if one used my method. But, this method only works if you control your domain's MTA like I do. If you're using Gmail, and using the "+" system, you're mistakenly trusting that the person who sends you e-mail will keep the suffix. Spammers will try both, anyway. More importantly, you can't simply shut off that "+" extension without shutting off your primary.
Then you should also link to the follow-up article where they admit they goofed, and the results for power consumption weren't so cut-and-dried like you suggest. In fact, they even say there was at least one flash device on the market that beat them all.
I'll bet that Windows' penchant for hitting the hard disk as often as it does even when "idle" makes the disk use more power than a flash device.
Complexity, power, heat, and failure from kinetic shock. These are either reduced or zero with a flash device.
If you're looking for non-mobile, or a large storage application, then the disk makes sense.
Um, you could do the same thing with the '+' system.
Not without modifying your MTA.
Well, see, that's what you're comfortable with. ;) I prefer to be happy, which, as part of my definition, excludes all the crap you have to go through to protect yourself. Sure, what I do isn't perfect, but it's yet another several steps and guesses for someone to get to the point where I need to do what you're talking about. Why make it easy?
(2) if it did happen, countermeasures are certainly available
No, they're not. Not in the way that you think.
1) Police are very limited in understanding and action with harassment crimes.
2) Retaliating will likely get *you* into trouble, rather than the initial tard.
3) Even if you do get a civil judgement, these people likely have nothing to lose. Therefore, you lose.
4) Sending them to jail just makes them more pissed off. Then re-visit #3.
In public forums like this, there are a lot of crazies on both sides of any argument. It's best to limit your exposure, unless you don't mind inviting trouble.
And the few times a harvester is correctly written? What then? That's the address that gets spread around. Obscurity doesn't work on the Internet. Just don't post it at all.
But you seem fine with it because you're also posting your personal domain name here, which links to your name and your photo, along with a street address and phone number (which I hope are only P.O. box and a voicemail-only phone service). You're a hell of a lot more comfortable with it than I am. (At least I hope you knew that all that info was very publicly available.)
Giving out e-mails with "+something" is worthless for spam. The malicious spammers will just strip the "+something" from address, as both can be delivered, but the short form will be less likely filtered, and you won't know which service it was sold/stolen from.
I actually make a separate alias for each site eg. name-something@example.com. If you shorten my alias to the part before the hyphen, it won't deliver. Yes, spammers have tried.
If you're using "+something" just know that you might as well not append that onto your e-mail address, for all the good that it does, as you're giving out your primary address anyway. Cat, bag, already open.
*swoosh*
What does Nike have to do with any of this? Or were you saying an Air Jordan powered sneakernet would be more efficient?
Ah, the anti-tax idiot. Yes, you are an idiot.
First, we'll stop maintaining the street in front of your house and bar you from driving on any road that you haven't paid into personally.
Next, we'll tell your bank that your mortgage is no longer insured by the federal government, and you'll need to buy expensive mortgage insurance. On top of that, FEMA will no longer come to your financial aid in the event of a natural disaster.
And those firefighters who show up at your house when it's burning? They will only make sure your neighbors' houses aren't affected... unless you prepaid your fire district for assistance!
If you have a medical or police emergency, we can't deny you help, but you just may be bankrupted from the bills for service!
And remember how your road isn't maintained any more? Just think about the extra few thousand you'll be spending each year on costly repairs and maintenance for your vehicles. What? Washboard surfaces and potholes aren't kind to your suspension, chassis, and delicate electronics.
You are an idiot because you won't have any money left for your investments -- unless you're ultra-rich. Do you believe you're ultra-rich?
We can all go back to unmaintained dirt roads, paying full cost for schools, and paying exorbitant interest rates for loans in exchange for little to no taxes. One needs to only look back as far as the 1930's... or the 1880's if one's feeling adventurous. According to your philosophy, those were great times!
You first, indeed!
Greenies are so afraid of nuke plants that they blocked any being built for quite some time.
Blocked in part because the glowies were blind to the problems of the reactors at the time and the problems of scalding hot water discharge that destroyed the surrounding water ecosystems, as well as the fishkill from the intakes. And there was always the issue of cost -- states would rather build coal plants because it had cheaper rates! Much on those fronts has been solved today, but a lot of that resistance was well-founded. Now that nuclear is becoming more responsible and more mature, you'll see (and are seeing) less resistance.
I believe you're over-generalizing what "greenie" is. I used the entire state of CA as an example. You tend to think that SF's borders extend to Oregon, Nevada, and Mexico as far as policy, and you forget that CA also has deeply conservative regions. Where do you think Reagan and Nixon came from?
The power generation options you conveniently left out are natural gas, wind, solar, and geothermal. Your state can't provide any of that? You'd rather pollute with coal for short-term gains than explore other options? It sounds like you are gung-ho about nuclear, which is fine except you're blind to all the other options. Nuclear *by itself* will not solve your power issues, because peak demand is what causes problems and a nuclear plant can't easily respond to large fluctuations. Overbuilding a nuclear plant is wasteful and too costly as all the capacity will be unused at non-peak. You can fire up another hydro/gas turbine much quicker than you can fire up another reactor. You need base power as well as peak power.
Your advocacy of nuclear for everything is just as specious as those who completely oppose nuclear power. Would you like it if I lumped you into a group called "glowies" as those who only want nuclear?
I'm not sure how SF figures into this. Ya know, life exists outside of hating SF. The point was to rebut the notion of "greenies" wanting coal.
The fact that they don't is lost on you. But nice strawman anyway.
Oh? Why is it California (which everyone associates with "greenies") uses mostly hydro and natural gas? Please count how many coal plants there are. You may have to strain a bit because they're buried by the avalanche of cleaner types of power. Blame your own state's government for putting coal power online.
Stay informed, my friend.