OK, good reason generally but I don't think it applies here for two reasons. First, the small company is claiming to follow the law, which is a completely different kettle of fish. You say "apparently" but on what basis? It's pretty obvious SeeqPod is a music distribution business, not a search business, so does their Safe Harbor claim have any merit? Their motive is different to Google, their business model is different, their service is most definitely not "neutral" with regards to the content it finds, etc.
Second, I just don't like SeeqPod's apparent approach. If I ever manage to start a business in music distribution (I've given up on anyone ever liking my own music), I would hold it to be necessary that we find a way to pay the artists we profit from. SeeqPod appear to be simultaneously paying lawyers to avoid any such obligations, while asking other people to give them money because they've found a nifty way to getting free music, essentially shitting all over the artist. I think that attitude stinks and I've no problem with them being sued.
The fact that Warner Bros may not give artists a fair share of what comes in and generally needs to wake up and smell the coffee is irrelevant. If you want to avoid the majors for that reason, or simply because you've got good taste, that makes sense. But to support a company with an even more exploitative attitude to the individual just because they're a smaller company doesn't make sense to me.
On the other hand, I like having words available that have distinctly different meanings and implications. Price point means there are multiple competitive goods involved, and implies a different approach to pricing than simply margin-based calculation. In a conversation between two people that are not abusing language, then jargon makes things discussions move quicker.
Of course, when someone is simply trying to appear more intelligent or hip, then s/he's a tosser. But there's nothing you can do about that - they'll be a tosser even if you strip them of their buzzwords. For instance, in the Slashdot editor's post, saying the pricepoint is too high is bullshit. A pricepoint can't be too high because by definition an excessively high price is not competitive. But at least the misuse of jargon let's us know the editor is clueless and their judgement questionable.
Personally, I've been convinced that the MBA isn't for me because of the lack of 3G (which would be my definition of "Air") and it looks like the USB port is actually a bad piece of design, which ruins it for my usual "I pay extra for good looking designs" fetish.
Overall, a good review - it's nice to see it acknowledged that thin, light and stylish is a feature some people will pay for. But there's one thing in particular that bugs me about all reviews of the MBA, namely the lack of replaceable battery. I simply don't believe the frequent flying people who can easily afford to buy the MBA (not geeks with a design fetish) carry around a spare battery. Many of the highly paid sales people and execs I've met struggle to carry around a spare brain cell, fer chrissakes. Expecting them to have a train of thought that lasts longer than a couple of hours is kinda pointless:)
If that is all that is available in terms of content filters, then I guess you could go further and say that there is *no* way of filtering content effectively
That's a curious logic. You're basically saying that if something hasn't been done already then it's impossible. Don't you believe in innovation?
Not sure about your sense of architecture, either. How would you propose a website distributes those agents? A simpler approach would be to simply apply the filter at the central search engine.
Y'know, I've often wondered why people haven't been pointing that out.
It's because these sites are making money. Why go after the little guy when the key accomplice so conveniently sets up a company that is much easier to find?
Filled with a sense of self-importance, aren't we?
there's nothing inherent about copying that lets them know when someone is doing it to "their" file
You completely miss the point. Catching an individual P2P transfer may be tricky, but setting yourself up as a company, attracting investors, making press releases, and cutting deals with other service providers is bit of a fucking clue, isn't it?
Seems pretty simple to me - set up a business (e.g. SeeqPod) that explicitly aims to make money out of online content, and you'll either pay fees or get sued by the owners of that content.
No doubt there will be many and various cunning arguments in this thread as to why this is wrong e.g. if I can't get it for free, I'll take my money elsewhere; I've already got the CD so why should a service that also caters to people without the CD have to pay anything; technology may be a wonderful thing but strangely I also believe it is incapable of ever doing something I don't approve of; etc. While all of these points do actually have merit in various aspects of the whole brave new digital world discussion (please ignore my paraphrasing), they neglect a fundamental law of human nature:
When you seek to make money based upon other people's efforts or property, those other people will find a way to get some or all of your profits.
Corollary: When money is involved, you will never win an argument by stating that the property doesn't actually exist i.e. smart arse comments about "Imaginary Property" won't cut it.
Actually, I didn't even take mine out of the box. I know it was perfect the day Steve Jobs announced it, why sully it with the imperfect air which I breathe? Let it's perfection remain untarnished for ever more!
He probably thought it was obvious. So do I. Smaller borders mean the thumbnails can be larger and clearer.
That's always a bad assumption to make when rendering criticism. If it is obvious, then the designer will have been aware of it and has likely decided against it for a reason. This reason may be that the obvious or the received wisdom turns out in fact to be incorrect, so this is a particular risk for an acknowledged (and egotistical) leader is his field because assumptions make confirmation bias even easier. What is interesting is that that you make the easy point i.e. a larger thumbnail is a clearer thumbnail, and miss the question - does a mere line of extra pixels actually make a difference to the eye's ability to perceive a thumbnail? I'd argue not. You don't address the grey vs. white question, either. Building on your point that the eye could perceive the grid pattern anyway, and assuming that a line of pixels makes such a difference, why have any border at all? Explicitly recommending a border implies that separation makes it easier to scan a collection of thumbnails. Perhaps the increased separation of a 2-4 pixel border is preferable. Now we see that the "obvious" is a set of assumptions which may be reasonably questioned. Which leads directly to Tufte's own point - to clarify, add detail.
The value of a graph is not to read off the value of a single data point; for that you use a table. The advantage of a graph is that you can take in trends with a glance.
Thank you, that was exactly my point. This is why I was ridiculing the fact Tufte is so proud his graphs include thousands of data points. He's just bullshitting.
The advantage is they provide context--how does the magnitude of the recent move compare to moves in the recent past.
No they don't, and the fact you've failed to understand the actual data doesn't help your case! Those graphs cram six years worth of data from 1998 to 2004 into a single graph. Who wants to review six years worth of data on their phone? His graph obscures the magnitude of recent changes, obscures the recent past, and provides no interface to change the scale because Tufte doesn't understand interactive apps. Also, this is not "supplementary" - this is a suggested replacement for the stock app, and Tufte clearly thinks his version is superior. I argue it does not meet the use case, and is therefore basically crap.
He's hardly a hypocrite to argue that maximizing ( the part of the screen that is used for substance is a good thing.
No, he's a hypocrite for criticising someone else for doing the same thing as he does in his own designs - pretty classic definition of hypocrite, I would say!
And how does making them transparent, as he suggested, interfere with either of these?
You should parse the entire paragraph before making yourself look bad. I address the transparency issue separately a few sentences later. The point I am making here is in support of the 10% screen space decision, namely that these functions are essential and they need to be sufficiently large to be usable. Making them smaller e.g. using only 5% of the space would be a repeat of Tufte's preference for information, not interfaces.
My personal opinion is that they should start out opaque and fade to transparent after a few seconds.
Why, because you've seen it on e.g. video, photo or iPod interfaces? In those cases, a) tapping on the screen has no chance of hitting a hyperlink, and b) the user is mostly passive and for the vast majority of the time does not interact with the application. You're getting your use cases confused - a browser is an app where the user not only needs instant access to some key functions, but also has to be visually aware that e.g. book marking is available. Also, you miss my point about "condescending" compromise
"It's great, but I would have done some things a little differently.".. that's the highest praise any contemporary could ever hope to get
Unless the contemporary takes it to mean "I'm being polite, but actually it fails on several counts". Real praise is when you say someone did a better job than you could do, or introduced new ideas and broke new ground or somesuch. At the very least you should judge a work on its own merits, and not apply your expertise (in data visualisation) to another's (in interface design). Tufte makes this mistake at least once when he says that the browser should overlay essential navigation icons on a web page's hyperlinks (rendering a user's actions ambiguous in their expected outcome), or not use them at all (preventing them from ever taking the action). This is either complacent thinking within his own comfort zone, or a simple lack of respect for another's work. Either way, it is not the highest praise he could give and both Tufte and Apple derive less benefit from his review as a result.
I'm being picky, though - I think I would be generally pleased on Apple's side once his more egregious nonsense is filtered out.
I get the distinct feeling that Tufte understands data visualisation, but not interface design. These are different things, and he's letting his expertise in one area make him think he can make pronouncements from on high in other areas and comes out with some real bullshit as a result.
His "to clarify, add detail" rule could be applied to his comment on the photo browser. He says they should be grey not white, and only one pixel wide, but gives no reason why. I'd like some detail to clarify why he says that! It would not fit more images onto the screen, it would add no information content, it's barely even an aesthetic change to the design. It's news to me that arranging images against a plain white background is a bad approach. I've met a lot of smart people that like to "show off" by making detailed comments like this, without any actual substance or empirical evidence to back up what is simply their own preference. Tufte seems to be doing so here.
He criticises the stock app for being "cartoony" and "PowerPoint" like, which seems again a mere preference rather than an objective comment, uses words designed to provoke an emotional reaction rather than an intellectual one. He claims his app has more detail - which of course it should when it only has three stocks, not six. But I don't see how x thousand points of data points in a tiny little graph is of use. First of all, if you fit thousands of data points into a single graph, it's going to need a damn big piece of paper before I'm capable of distinguishing them, combined with a ruler and a set square if I want to get the value for a specific data point. Second, why would I want this level of detail on a phone app? Personally, I find the iPhone's red light / green light view combined with percentage points useful - it jumps out at you when e.g. the market crashes as it did recently. In Tufte's example, it's impossible to tell what recent market changes have taken place, and there is no obvious way to quickly see data for e.g. the last week. The "modest data graphic cartoon" conveys just as much information to the viewer as his "image resolution" with thousands of data points, and is the kind of thing a portable stocker checker would be used for. Tufte is letting his expertise get in the way of understanding the use case - all his catchphrases are there for the converted, but his use of them here just annoys me.
Here's a nice little piece - take a look at his site at http://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00036T. He criticises the iPhone browswer for having 10% of the screen used for buttons, but in his own designs he comments "about 90% of the image is substance". Clearly he's happy with that 10% sacrifice when it's his own work. And if you look at the designs, you'll note that in each case there is a navigation bar of some form at the top or bottom of the page. What a hypocrite.
Finally, he's very keen on getting rid of computer admin debris. The problem is, he treats looking at a web page the same as looking at a picture. But when I'm looking at a picture, I don't want to bookmark it (it's already in my collection), and I don't want to make a webclip of it. I don't need the back button with photos, because I can navigate via the photo collection. But I do need those functions in the browser, and I need them large enough to easily hit with my finger. We're all used to scrolling down webpages, so having a mere 90% of the screen available, and an intuitive flick of a finger to scroll down, is perfect. Commenting that the button bar should at least be transparent strikes me as just one of those condescending little compromises some people like to make when they know they won't convince the other side of "the right answer". It would be bad interface design to have application buttons hovering over hyperlinks, making it distinctly ambiguous what would happen when you touched that bottom 10% of the screen.
What confuses me is that there are several references to people being sales specialists, who typically earn more than someone with equivalent knowledge doing an IT job, and get their variable pay as commission/bonus for results, not extra hours worked.
If that is the case across all the plaintiffs, then they're asking for two forms of additional payment over and above a high base pay, which at first glance seems unreasonable. And the job search could be difficult if the next employer realises that you sued your last employer for using the same sales compensation plan as every other company.
At this point nobody has the vaguest idea what OOXML will look like in February,
I'm guessing it's gonna look pretty similar to the current version. What does the guy expect, a complete re-write from a company that isn't known for making concessions and has the market share to mostly get their way?
No matter how many and how significant the changes made to OOXML as M$ forces it through the standards bodies, the situation then will be no different than now - OOXML is not yet supported by many applications, not many people are using it just yet, anyone on MS Office will be able to open it, there will be a spattering of converters out there for those that can be bothered to get hold of it.
To use the phrase "the riskiest thing you can do" (highlighted in bold in the centre of the page, no less) in reference to a format that - no matter how proprietary - consists of XML files and a zip container is basically just pathetic. Having no patience for FUD, I wonder if Sutor realises that posts like this simply inspire the hope (against my better instincts) that M$ get their way soon so I can stop reading pathetic whiney shite like this.
The big difference I see is that AT&T both owns the wires and charges for the service. Hence there is a clear basis for holding responsible for what is effectively on their property and (should they start to filter) within their control.
If you buy a Mac, you are the owner. Why should Apple be responsible for what you do with your equipment? Where is the logical leap from "we have taken steps to prevent the reverse-engineering of our software/we are protecting IP" to "we have got into the business of helping other people conduct reverse-engineering/we are copying IP"?
Apple market OS X as a UNIX system and have done for a long time. They're just smart enough only to market it as a UNIX system to the markets that appreciate UNIX.
"Diagnostic tool that won't look at all processes is no tool at all."
That's logically comparable to "99.99999% is equal to 0%". If you went through all the use cases where DTrace is extremely useful, you would find very few cases where iTunes is part of the use case.
"Legally recognized entities" - so what about the class struggle between non-legally recognized classifications of people that have exactly the same rights on paper i.e. rich vs. poor?
Censorship is simply the act of erasing something that is deemed objectionable by someone else.
Yes, although that particular definition strips the word of all the implications of the other dictionary definitions, and goes against the way many interpret the word. That's bad use of the English language. Worse, it could still carry those implications and therefore reduce the chances of having an objective discussion of the situation. It's like the dissembling used by crooks and politicians - technically correct but nonetheless bullshit. Using words to play on people's fears while confusing the situation is a bad thing.
In the era that I grew up, no one would try to use copyright laws to censor wrongdoing.
Previously, there was no equivalent to websites publishing private documents, so you have no basis on which to show that copyright law wouldn't have been the chosen means in a previous era. Further, successful attempts to censor wrongdoing have gone on for time immemorial, so what difference does the DMCA make? The longstanding ability to censor wrongdoing has not led to worldwide Facsism, suggesting your argument is not sound. If the DCMA is the lynch pin to Fascism, how did Fascism come about many years before the DMCA, and in a completely different part of the world?
Hyperbolic rants rarely have any impact - if anything you only act to make the DMCA seem reasonable in comparison. Is that the intent?
Slashdot Mirror
OK, good reason generally but I don't think it applies here for two reasons. First, the small company is claiming to follow the law, which is a completely different kettle of fish. You say "apparently" but on what basis? It's pretty obvious SeeqPod is a music distribution business, not a search business, so does their Safe Harbor claim have any merit? Their motive is different to Google, their business model is different, their service is most definitely not "neutral" with regards to the content it finds, etc.
Second, I just don't like SeeqPod's apparent approach. If I ever manage to start a business in music distribution (I've given up on anyone ever liking my own music), I would hold it to be necessary that we find a way to pay the artists we profit from. SeeqPod appear to be simultaneously paying lawyers to avoid any such obligations, while asking other people to give them money because they've found a nifty way to getting free music, essentially shitting all over the artist. I think that attitude stinks and I've no problem with them being sued.
The fact that Warner Bros may not give artists a fair share of what comes in and generally needs to wake up and smell the coffee is irrelevant. If you want to avoid the majors for that reason, or simply because you've got good taste, that makes sense. But to support a company with an even more exploitative attitude to the individual just because they're a smaller company doesn't make sense to me.
On the other hand, I like having words available that have distinctly different meanings and implications. Price point means there are multiple competitive goods involved, and implies a different approach to pricing than simply margin-based calculation. In a conversation between two people that are not abusing language, then jargon makes things discussions move quicker.
Of course, when someone is simply trying to appear more intelligent or hip, then s/he's a tosser. But there's nothing you can do about that - they'll be a tosser even if you strip them of their buzzwords. For instance, in the Slashdot editor's post, saying the pricepoint is too high is bullshit. A pricepoint can't be too high because by definition an excessively high price is not competitive. But at least the misuse of jargon let's us know the editor is clueless and their judgement questionable.
Personally, I've been convinced that the MBA isn't for me because of the lack of 3G (which would be my definition of "Air") and it looks like the USB port is actually a bad piece of design, which ruins it for my usual "I pay extra for good looking designs" fetish.
:)
Overall, a good review - it's nice to see it acknowledged that thin, light and stylish is a feature some people will pay for. But there's one thing in particular that bugs me about all reviews of the MBA, namely the lack of replaceable battery. I simply don't believe the frequent flying people who can easily afford to buy the MBA (not geeks with a design fetish) carry around a spare battery. Many of the highly paid sales people and execs I've met struggle to carry around a spare brain cell, fer chrissakes. Expecting them to have a train of thought that lasts longer than a couple of hours is kinda pointless
You've not made your complaint clear. One business sues another - where's the problem?
That's a curious logic. You're basically saying that if something hasn't been done already then it's impossible. Don't you believe in innovation?
Not sure about your sense of architecture, either. How would you propose a website distributes those agents? A simpler approach would be to simply apply the filter at the central search engine.
It's because these sites are making money. Why go after the little guy when the key accomplice so conveniently sets up a company that is much easier to find?
It's not clear - are you agreeing, disagreeing, or building upon my point?
Filled with a sense of self-importance, aren't we?
You completely miss the point. Catching an individual P2P transfer may be tricky, but setting yourself up as a company, attracting investors, making press releases, and cutting deals with other service providers is bit of a fucking clue, isn't it?
Seems pretty simple to me - set up a business (e.g. SeeqPod) that explicitly aims to make money out of online content, and you'll either pay fees or get sued by the owners of that content.
No doubt there will be many and various cunning arguments in this thread as to why this is wrong e.g. if I can't get it for free, I'll take my money elsewhere; I've already got the CD so why should a service that also caters to people without the CD have to pay anything; technology may be a wonderful thing but strangely I also believe it is incapable of ever doing something I don't approve of; etc. While all of these points do actually have merit in various aspects of the whole brave new digital world discussion (please ignore my paraphrasing), they neglect a fundamental law of human nature:
When you seek to make money based upon other people's efforts or property, those other people will find a way to get some or all of your profits.
Corollary: When money is involved, you will never win an argument by stating that the property doesn't actually exist i.e. smart arse comments about "Imaginary Property" won't cut it.
Actually, I didn't even take mine out of the box. I know it was perfect the day Steve Jobs announced it, why sully it with the imperfect air which I breathe? Let it's perfection remain untarnished for ever more!
Is this the real standard line, or is it just the standard joke that, by definition, the adult industry went blue a long time ago?
That's always a bad assumption to make when rendering criticism. If it is obvious, then the designer will have been aware of it and has likely decided against it for a reason. This reason may be that the obvious or the received wisdom turns out in fact to be incorrect, so this is a particular risk for an acknowledged (and egotistical) leader is his field because assumptions make confirmation bias even easier. What is interesting is that that you make the easy point i.e. a larger thumbnail is a clearer thumbnail, and miss the question - does a mere line of extra pixels actually make a difference to the eye's ability to perceive a thumbnail? I'd argue not. You don't address the grey vs. white question, either. Building on your point that the eye could perceive the grid pattern anyway, and assuming that a line of pixels makes such a difference, why have any border at all? Explicitly recommending a border implies that separation makes it easier to scan a collection of thumbnails. Perhaps the increased separation of a 2-4 pixel border is preferable. Now we see that the "obvious" is a set of assumptions which may be reasonably questioned. Which leads directly to Tufte's own point - to clarify, add detail.
Thank you, that was exactly my point. This is why I was ridiculing the fact Tufte is so proud his graphs include thousands of data points. He's just bullshitting.
No they don't, and the fact you've failed to understand the actual data doesn't help your case! Those graphs cram six years worth of data from 1998 to 2004 into a single graph. Who wants to review six years worth of data on their phone? His graph obscures the magnitude of recent changes, obscures the recent past, and provides no interface to change the scale because Tufte doesn't understand interactive apps. Also, this is not "supplementary" - this is a suggested replacement for the stock app, and Tufte clearly thinks his version is superior. I argue it does not meet the use case, and is therefore basically crap.
No, he's a hypocrite for criticising someone else for doing the same thing as he does in his own designs - pretty classic definition of hypocrite, I would say!
You should parse the entire paragraph before making yourself look bad. I address the transparency issue separately a few sentences later. The point I am making here is in support of the 10% screen space decision, namely that these functions are essential and they need to be sufficiently large to be usable. Making them smaller e.g. using only 5% of the space would be a repeat of Tufte's preference for information, not interfaces.
Why, because you've seen it on e.g. video, photo or iPod interfaces? In those cases, a) tapping on the screen has no chance of hitting a hyperlink, and b) the user is mostly passive and for the vast majority of the time does not interact with the application. You're getting your use cases confused - a browser is an app where the user not only needs instant access to some key functions, but also has to be visually aware that e.g. book marking is available. Also, you miss my point about "condescending" compromise
Unless the contemporary takes it to mean "I'm being polite, but actually it fails on several counts". Real praise is when you say someone did a better job than you could do, or introduced new ideas and broke new ground or somesuch. At the very least you should judge a work on its own merits, and not apply your expertise (in data visualisation) to another's (in interface design). Tufte makes this mistake at least once when he says that the browser should overlay essential navigation icons on a web page's hyperlinks (rendering a user's actions ambiguous in their expected outcome), or not use them at all (preventing them from ever taking the action). This is either complacent thinking within his own comfort zone, or a simple lack of respect for another's work. Either way, it is not the highest praise he could give and both Tufte and Apple derive less benefit from his review as a result.
I'm being picky, though - I think I would be generally pleased on Apple's side once his more egregious nonsense is filtered out.
I get the distinct feeling that Tufte understands data visualisation, but not interface design. These are different things, and he's letting his expertise in one area make him think he can make pronouncements from on high in other areas and comes out with some real bullshit as a result.
His "to clarify, add detail" rule could be applied to his comment on the photo browser. He says they should be grey not white, and only one pixel wide, but gives no reason why. I'd like some detail to clarify why he says that! It would not fit more images onto the screen, it would add no information content, it's barely even an aesthetic change to the design. It's news to me that arranging images against a plain white background is a bad approach. I've met a lot of smart people that like to "show off" by making detailed comments like this, without any actual substance or empirical evidence to back up what is simply their own preference. Tufte seems to be doing so here.
He criticises the stock app for being "cartoony" and "PowerPoint" like, which seems again a mere preference rather than an objective comment, uses words designed to provoke an emotional reaction rather than an intellectual one. He claims his app has more detail - which of course it should when it only has three stocks, not six. But I don't see how x thousand points of data points in a tiny little graph is of use. First of all, if you fit thousands of data points into a single graph, it's going to need a damn big piece of paper before I'm capable of distinguishing them, combined with a ruler and a set square if I want to get the value for a specific data point. Second, why would I want this level of detail on a phone app? Personally, I find the iPhone's red light / green light view combined with percentage points useful - it jumps out at you when e.g. the market crashes as it did recently. In Tufte's example, it's impossible to tell what recent market changes have taken place, and there is no obvious way to quickly see data for e.g. the last week. The "modest data graphic cartoon" conveys just as much information to the viewer as his "image resolution" with thousands of data points, and is the kind of thing a portable stocker checker would be used for. Tufte is letting his expertise get in the way of understanding the use case - all his catchphrases are there for the converted, but his use of them here just annoys me.
Here's a nice little piece - take a look at his site at http://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00036T. He criticises the iPhone browswer for having 10% of the screen used for buttons, but in his own designs he comments "about 90% of the image is substance". Clearly he's happy with that 10% sacrifice when it's his own work. And if you look at the designs, you'll note that in each case there is a navigation bar of some form at the top or bottom of the page. What a hypocrite.
Finally, he's very keen on getting rid of computer admin debris. The problem is, he treats looking at a web page the same as looking at a picture. But when I'm looking at a picture, I don't want to bookmark it (it's already in my collection), and I don't want to make a webclip of it. I don't need the back button with photos, because I can navigate via the photo collection. But I do need those functions in the browser, and I need them large enough to easily hit with my finger. We're all used to scrolling down webpages, so having a mere 90% of the screen available, and an intuitive flick of a finger to scroll down, is perfect. Commenting that the button bar should at least be transparent strikes me as just one of those condescending little compromises some people like to make when they know they won't convince the other side of "the right answer". It would be bad interface design to have application buttons hovering over hyperlinks, making it distinctly ambiguous what would happen when you touched that bottom 10% of the screen.
In particula
What confuses me is that there are several references to people being sales specialists, who typically earn more than someone with equivalent knowledge doing an IT job, and get their variable pay as commission/bonus for results, not extra hours worked.
If that is the case across all the plaintiffs, then they're asking for two forms of additional payment over and above a high base pay, which at first glance seems unreasonable. And the job search could be difficult if the next employer realises that you sued your last employer for using the same sales compensation plan as every other company.
I'm guessing it's gonna look pretty similar to the current version. What does the guy expect, a complete re-write from a company that isn't known for making concessions and has the market share to mostly get their way?
No matter how many and how significant the changes made to OOXML as M$ forces it through the standards bodies, the situation then will be no different than now - OOXML is not yet supported by many applications, not many people are using it just yet, anyone on MS Office will be able to open it, there will be a spattering of converters out there for those that can be bothered to get hold of it.
To use the phrase "the riskiest thing you can do" (highlighted in bold in the centre of the page, no less) in reference to a format that - no matter how proprietary - consists of XML files and a zip container is basically just pathetic. Having no patience for FUD, I wonder if Sutor realises that posts like this simply inspire the hope (against my better instincts) that M$ get their way soon so I can stop reading pathetic whiney shite like this.
If you're working somewhere where a collection of art paintings like this is NSFW (and you're not paranoid), quit as soon as possible...
The big difference I see is that AT&T both owns the wires and charges for the service. Hence there is a clear basis for holding responsible for what is effectively on their property and (should they start to filter) within their control.
If you buy a Mac, you are the owner. Why should Apple be responsible for what you do with your equipment? Where is the logical leap from "we have taken steps to prevent the reverse-engineering of our software/we are protecting IP" to "we have got into the business of helping other people conduct reverse-engineering/we are copying IP"?
Take a look at the way they go after the science market (http://www.apple.com/science/).
Apple market OS X as a UNIX system and have done for a long time. They're just smart enough only to market it as a UNIX system to the markets that appreciate UNIX.
"Diagnostic tool that won't look at all processes is no tool at all."
That's logically comparable to "99.99999% is equal to 0%". If you went through all the use cases where DTrace is extremely useful, you would find very few cases where iTunes is part of the use case.
You'll have to explain to me how enforcing the same restrictions on both non-RIAA and RIAA tracks is a double standard. Seems consistent to me.
"Legally recognized entities" - so what about the class struggle between non-legally recognized classifications of people that have exactly the same rights on paper i.e. rich vs. poor?
Yes, although that particular definition strips the word of all the implications of the other dictionary definitions, and goes against the way many interpret the word. That's bad use of the English language. Worse, it could still carry those implications and therefore reduce the chances of having an objective discussion of the situation. It's like the dissembling used by crooks and politicians - technically correct but nonetheless bullshit. Using words to play on people's fears while confusing the situation is a bad thing.
Yes.
And your point was?
Previously, there was no equivalent to websites publishing private documents, so you have no basis on which to show that copyright law wouldn't have been the chosen means in a previous era. Further, successful attempts to censor wrongdoing have gone on for time immemorial, so what difference does the DMCA make? The longstanding ability to censor wrongdoing has not led to worldwide Facsism, suggesting your argument is not sound. If the DCMA is the lynch pin to Fascism, how did Fascism come about many years before the DMCA, and in a completely different part of the world?
Hyperbolic rants rarely have any impact - if anything you only act to make the DMCA seem reasonable in comparison. Is that the intent?