LOL! If you say so. Funny how easy it is to misread what someone else meant by what they wrote.
Personally, I don't think that Genisis 2 means that God made the animals on the spot from dirt and brought them to Adam, just that it's a way of saying that that was where they were originally from, and that God had made them. Again, as in Genisis 1, the order of events is from a human perspective: when we encounter something new, we are told about its creation. God is not a being bound by linear time. I would not expect his description of events that happened outside of human history to be strictly a linear narrative.
This is total flamebait. Verses taken out of context to try to suggest that the Bible teaches that God created man for bestiality.
For reference, here's the rest of the account in Genisis 2 (KJV):
20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
I entirely agree with your sentiment, however I would caution you:
I think it entirely likely that God created Adam as an adult, however, if I get to heaven and God shows me a replay of the actual events on his big screen TV, and it turns out that he took a member of an animal species, (which was, when you come down to it, simply dust + life), and in addition to life, he breathed a spirit into this particular individual, and he did that to a particular member of this species at the moment of his conception as opposed to as an adult, then I will not then turn my back on God and call him a liar.
Adam's failure to find a suitable mate for himself may have been more than simply a statement of biological compatibility, but a recognition of what God had done by making Man in God's image: body soul and spirit. There was truly none like him.
What we do know for certain is that there are details mentioned of Eve's creation that would make it very difficult to imagine it in any way other than a surgical rib removal. Then again, it doesn't say she was formed instantaniously as an adult from Adam's rib. It just says that God put Adam to sleep to remove the rib, and that later, he introduced him to her as his mate. She may have been formed by God in an embryonic state and placed within the womb of a compatible animal, grown to adulthood, and then introduced to him. It's not as if he had nothing to do in the meantime.
I find that this view of events is more in keeping with my view of God's involvment in my own life, and also in the universe in general: he isn't into small-scale theatrics, really. He works intentionally, but by subtle processes that we may not always notice at first. He doesn't do things the way we would do them: to him, the process is often just as important as the result, but when he presents the result, he doesn't want us to look at the process and assume he wasn't involved.
He is *intimately* involved in every detail of my life, yet someone could look at it and see it as a series of naturally-occuring processes. They would probably even overlook my rebirth and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, simply because it wasn't striking from their perspective. Does a baby born in an animal shed in Bethlehem strike you as significant? Angels thought it was, and looking back at what has come of it so far, I would tend to agree, but some would not. There will be a time, however, when everyone will know and recognize what God was doing.
When scholars study the exact meanings of words and phrases in the Bible, they do so in the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, not the languages that they have been subsequently translated into. Those languages and the cultures that they were written in do have limits on the particulars of expressability. Sometimes, as you say, we need to remember these limitations and take them into account, particularly when someone is trying to exclude a possible meaning based on linguistic distinctions that have emerged in the time after the text was written.
As a matter of nit-picking, I don't think "formless and void" in Genisis 1:2 refers to the entire universe (though I think it, too, went through a phase that would match that description). It is used to describe the Earth: the Earth had reached a state of formlessness and emptiness: "...darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."
While the account perhaps does not give all the details we would be interested in, it does give us a general picture of events, with certain specifics, that do allow us to say "yes, it is consistent with this" and "no, it is not consistent with that" description.
The word which is usually translated into the English "created" is used of the entire universe in Genisis 1:1, and is not used again until v.21, where it refers to animal life, and then v.27, where it refers to mankind.
In the interum, God decrees that a thing should happen, and a process is described by which that thing happens. When it says that God "made" two great lights (v.16), it is a different word than "created."
The word "created" in Genesis 1 can therefore be thought of as an instance in which God makes something which requires an input that did not exist before: the universe itself popped into existence from nothing, animals, in addition to previously existing matter require a "life"/"soul", and humans additionally require a "spirit".
I think that you a particular meaning of the word "made" in mind that is inconsistent with accurate interpretation of the story. Try something more like "ordained."
The terms "purpose" and "relevant purpose," as I have been using the word 'purpose' are redundant. If purpose is irrelevant, then it is something other than 'purpose'.
You seem to have interpreted my explanation of the difference between the "how" and the "why" as: [answer to "why?" == purpose]. I'm fine with that. It is the same definition that I would use for purpose. But then you say that such answers are the byproduct of intelligent life.
I would agree, as long as the intelligent life in question is God, but that's not what you're talking about. You're talking about the intelligent life within the universe retroactively applying its own meaning to the ultimate "why"s of the universe. You rightly conclude that before or without the intelligent life, the sort of meaning that you're talking about is irrelevant.
Obviously, you are excluding God from your list of intelligent life able to apply purpose to the universe. This seems to be due to your belief in a materialistic reality. I wanted you to be aware of the constraints illustrated in your thought processes in hopes that you would see that others were possible and consider them.
As a Christian, I believe that God could have created Earth with a green sky if he had wanted to.
What keeps me from this line of thinking is the fact that all evidence points to the sky being blue, which is not green. If there were a verse in the bible that said "God made the sky blue," I would also consider that relevant evidence to counter your suggestion otherwise.
Correct me if my assessment is wrong, but it seems like you respect Christians who are willing to consider an infinite past. If they were ignorant of (1) scientific research on the topic, and (2) the very first verse of the very first book in the Bible (which refers specifically to a "beginning"), then your line of reasoning has some merit: they would be open-minded people, an admirable trait.
Not all Christians believe that the universe was created 6000 years ago.
The word "irrelevant" in your post seems to be flamebait, since there is a verse in the Bible that has to do with the origin of the universe happening at a point in time, and that therefore your use of the word only makes sense as an indicator of your opinion of the Bible, or of each of its verses, regardless of their subject matter.
The reason that I, as a Christian, believe that God, who is outside the universe with its space/time/matter/etc., created the universe at a particular time in the finite past is (1) he told us that's what he did (in the Bible), and (2) it is what we observe scientifically.
Yes, God could have created the Earth with a green sky, but he didn't. He could have created a universe of infinite time, but he didn't (at least, he didn't do that with ours).
I consider your "useful calibration" to be irrelevant.
...there was nothing. Then, God said, "Let there be light".
And there was still nothing, but at least you could see it.
Very witty.:)
Did you ever notice that the Creation story in Genesis gets the order wrong? God creates light and dark, day and night, and then waits until the next day to create the sun, moon, and stars. Oops.
Perhaps Genesis' author was too busy coveting his neighbor's ass during astronomy class, because this sort of mistake is major lunch!
Oh, wait. God wrote it. God did it. And everyone knows that He, being omnipotent, can do it out of order if He wants to!
Did you ever notice that the creation story in Genesis is told, not from a spacecraft observer perspective, but from the perspective of the surface of the earth, where a human being (to whom the story is being communicated) would best understand it?
1. The universe popped into existence from nothing, or
2. A complex, intelligent, powerful creature (presumably with a beard) popped into existence from nothing, then one day decided to create the universe from nothing.
If you chose #2, it's turtles all the way down.........
I don't know of anyone who believes in a God who "popped into existence." That would imply that he exists in some sort of time continuum. I agree that your definition of #2 dictates turtles all the way down: congratulations on constructing a false dichotomy.
As a theist (specifically, as a Christian) here is my take on God as regards this discussion:
God is. He exists: this is the ultimate fact. The universe is not God, nor is God contained in the universe. It is perfectly consistent with the idea of God to say that the universe (time, space, matter/energy) popped into existence from nothing, in fact, this is what we have been saying for thousands of years. To assume that this is contrary to the idea of God is to misunderstand God: to confine him to the box that he has created.
Hawking is doing his best to describe what current evidence indicates about the nature of the universe: he is a scientist, and his goal is to discover *how* events happened: he is not so concerned with *why*, except as they constitute a cause-effect relationship, but then they again become an explanation of *how*. Science can never tell us the purpose of the universe: it is (rightly) not even interested in the topic.
Personally, I think that a society who follows those tenets because they believe them to be right, rather than because that's what their god supposedly wants, is a more enlightened society.
I've heard a rabbi comment on that... He said that following some principles because you believe them to be right is easy; following them just because your god commands you is hard. And that, he said, is why religious people have it harder and why their sacrifice is more worthy or something like that.
it seems to me that taking a published list of principles and altering it to arrive at your own set of principles that seem fairest to you is hard, while following it directly just because you're commanded to is easy. it may be that looking at the list and altering it based on your viewpoint doesn't bring you to a better or more generally fair set of rules (you may be factoring in your own bias and self-interest). but if you're really putting effort into thinking of the reasons behind those rules, that's got to be more work than just following without question doesn't it?
As a Christian, I do not consider God's statements of what is and is not contrary to his nature a challenge to put myself through some sort of ordeal. No, God's commandments do not "jive" with us sinful humans. They are hard; in fact, they are impossible to live up to, especially in principle. The difficulty of following them is not what makes them good. At all. There is no sense in which "more work"=="better".
Thrashing yourself against God's standard of morality, and then thinking that doing so somehow obligates God to recognize your effort is the height of arrogance.
When Abraham believed God, it was credited to his account as righteousness. So, what are thepromises of God? If we believe them because we trust God, we will be counted righteous.
Isn't anything entered into evidence in a civil or criminal proceeding automatically part of the public domain?
Public record, yes, at least by default. A judge can seal evidence. Public domain, no. Using copyrighted material as evidence in a trial does nothing to the copyright. Imagine the legal mayhem that this would cause if it were not so.
No; what there needs to be is a mainstream killer app for DVD ripping that falls under Fair Use. We don't have that yet. I don't think we ever will, but at least until we do, no number of products is going to have any effect on enough consumers to make the MPAA change their stance on DRM.
That ecosystem of products I was talking about is the same thing as your "mainstream killer app" idea, although seen from a slightly different angle. You apparently envision a single innovator blitzing the market; I envision a broader phenomenon. My statement erroniously assumed that product=market, which is not, in fact, the case. Good catch.
I never implied that it would be Apple that brings this about. I merely used their hardware products (computers, iPods, etc.) as an example of making a "device" into an "appliance" by making it simple enough for joe six-pack who doesn't need to know how it works to use. This is a requirement because as long as the only customers that won't accept DRM are a small portion of the total population, they can be ignored without cutting into the market too much. You cannot ignore Joe Six-pack, however.
The fact is that there are such products out there for pretty much every operating system. What I was suggesting is that there needs to be an ecosystem of products that make it so convenient to rip DVDs that it becomes a necessary feature to the everyday user. Once that happens, DMCA or not, the MPAA will have no choice but to stop trying to take this fair use right from their customers. It needs to become a selling-point.
Not to mention the fact that someone is going to realize there is going to be a _HUGE_ market for NON TPM boxes...
The problem will be that they stop releasing HD players for non-TPM boxes. They will simply drop support, and tell you that if you want to play HD movies, to "upgrade" your hardware to their satisfaction. The only thing that will stop them from doing so is if they realize that the customers are on to them, are specifically avoiding TPM hardware, and that there are enough of them out there that they are cutting into the bottom line in a way that significantly comprimises their long-term market position.
The record companies, for example, are taking the long view of DRM for music: they are willing to wait for the CD to become obsolete while forcing DRM on the next generation (digital distribution), even though forcing DRM on digital distribution severely hampers adoption of digital distribution. The only thing that will change their strategy is if they realize that the market will *never* go digital enough for them to not have to release their content on CD until they drop DRM.
I doubt that the market for non-TPM boxes will be "_HUGE_" enough for the MPAA to abandon their plan to require it unless every-day consumers feel the sting of DRM in their every-day use.
The best way for this to happen is for devices to proliferate the market wich take advantage of the crack-ability of CSS: players that take ripped DVDs, store and organize them, and are as simple and intuitive as Apple products: it has to be an appliance.
The Big Four don't have to keep the indie labels out of the record store: the economics of deploying their CDs to such a large number of shelves prohibits the indie labels from doing so.
No such economic barrier exists online. It's called The Long Tail. Google it.
I would be interested in knowing the average number of iTMS tracks owned^H^H^H^H^H lisenced by those with over a certain threshold, say, ten tracks, or perhaps an album's worth.
We all know Apple has this information, and I'm betting it's high. Probably over 50. There are a few different classes of iPod owners, and Jobs is intentionally lumping them all together in order to manipulate their meaining:
1) Those with zero: customers who like the iPod and iTunes, but do not want to be locked-in with DRM.
2) Those with very few: about an album's worth that they downloaded in order to try out the iTMS, but still wary of the lock-in.
3) Casual iTMS music buyers who own a few albums, plus some misc. tracks: they probably average around 50 tracks (a number that I just made up, but it seems reasonable).
4) iTMS feinds: they drank the Kool-Aid; they have an extensive collection of music bought from the iTMS store. The cost of a new iPod is less than the cost of re-purchasing all of their DRM'd tracks.
What I'm truly interested in is the individual statistical profiles of each of these classes of iTMS customers, as well as their prevalence. This is no doubt a closely guarded trade secret, but it's one for a very good reason: it tells Apple just how locked-in their customer base really is.
Isn't is much cheaper to just put an MP3 on your phone and assign it as your ringtone. Heck, you could even buy it on iTMS, do the whole burn & rip thing, and stick it on your phone and it would still be worth the trouble for the money you save, plus the audio quality you get from a phone is typically crap, so it doesn't matter that you're re-encoding a compressed track.
I think the reason that we all care about iTMS and not ringtones is that consumers are accepting iTMS as a viable replacement for the coasters. No one was ever fooled into thinking they were adding a track to their permanent music collection at a reasonable price by downloading it onto their phone. They were simply paying for the convenience. It's just an impulse buy: an easy way for a fool and her money to be parted.
They've already changed your toilet and your shower nozzle for more water-efficient (but less efficient at getting their job done) designs. Who's stopping them from doing the same with your eyes as they've done with your plumbing and your skin? This is why we have Republicans.
Slashdot Mirror
LOL! If you say so. Funny how easy it is to misread what someone else meant by what they wrote.
Personally, I don't think that Genisis 2 means that God made the animals on the spot from dirt and brought them to Adam, just that it's a way of saying that that was where they were originally from, and that God had made them. Again, as in Genisis 1, the order of events is from a human perspective: when we encounter something new, we are told about its creation. God is not a being bound by linear time. I would not expect his description of events that happened outside of human history to be strictly a linear narrative.
This is total flamebait. Verses taken out of context to try to suggest that the Bible teaches that God created man for bestiality.
For reference, here's the rest of the account in Genisis 2 (KJV):
20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
I entirely agree with your sentiment, however I would caution you:
I think it entirely likely that God created Adam as an adult, however, if I get to heaven and God shows me a replay of the actual events on his big screen TV, and it turns out that he took a member of an animal species, (which was, when you come down to it, simply dust + life), and in addition to life, he breathed a spirit into this particular individual, and he did that to a particular member of this species at the moment of his conception as opposed to as an adult, then I will not then turn my back on God and call him a liar.
Adam's failure to find a suitable mate for himself may have been more than simply a statement of biological compatibility, but a recognition of what God had done by making Man in God's image: body soul and spirit. There was truly none like him.
What we do know for certain is that there are details mentioned of Eve's creation that would make it very difficult to imagine it in any way other than a surgical rib removal. Then again, it doesn't say she was formed instantaniously as an adult from Adam's rib. It just says that God put Adam to sleep to remove the rib, and that later, he introduced him to her as his mate. She may have been formed by God in an embryonic state and placed within the womb of a compatible animal, grown to adulthood, and then introduced to him. It's not as if he had nothing to do in the meantime.
I find that this view of events is more in keeping with my view of God's involvment in my own life, and also in the universe in general: he isn't into small-scale theatrics, really. He works intentionally, but by subtle processes that we may not always notice at first. He doesn't do things the way we would do them: to him, the process is often just as important as the result, but when he presents the result, he doesn't want us to look at the process and assume he wasn't involved.
He is *intimately* involved in every detail of my life, yet someone could look at it and see it as a series of naturally-occuring processes. They would probably even overlook my rebirth and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, simply because it wasn't striking from their perspective. Does a baby born in an animal shed in Bethlehem strike you as significant? Angels thought it was, and looking back at what has come of it so far, I would tend to agree, but some would not. There will be a time, however, when everyone will know and recognize what God was doing.
When scholars study the exact meanings of words and phrases in the Bible, they do so in the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, not the languages that they have been subsequently translated into. Those languages and the cultures that they were written in do have limits on the particulars of expressability. Sometimes, as you say, we need to remember these limitations and take them into account, particularly when someone is trying to exclude a possible meaning based on linguistic distinctions that have emerged in the time after the text was written.
As a matter of nit-picking, I don't think "formless and void" in Genisis 1:2 refers to the entire universe (though I think it, too, went through a phase that would match that description). It is used to describe the Earth: the Earth had reached a state of formlessness and emptiness: "...darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."
While the account perhaps does not give all the details we would be interested in, it does give us a general picture of events, with certain specifics, that do allow us to say "yes, it is consistent with this" and "no, it is not consistent with that" description.
The word which is usually translated into the English "created" is used of the entire universe in Genisis 1:1, and is not used again until v.21, where it refers to animal life, and then v.27, where it refers to mankind.
In the interum, God decrees that a thing should happen, and a process is described by which that thing happens. When it says that God "made" two great lights (v.16), it is a different word than "created."
The word "created" in Genesis 1 can therefore be thought of as an instance in which God makes something which requires an input that did not exist before: the universe itself popped into existence from nothing, animals, in addition to previously existing matter require a "life"/"soul", and humans additionally require a "spirit".
I think that you a particular meaning of the word "made" in mind that is inconsistent with accurate interpretation of the story. Try something more like "ordained."
You may assume the former.
The terms "purpose" and "relevant purpose," as I have been using the word 'purpose' are redundant. If purpose is irrelevant, then it is something other than 'purpose'.
You seem to have interpreted my explanation of the difference between the "how" and the "why" as: [answer to "why?" == purpose]. I'm fine with that. It is the same definition that I would use for purpose. But then you say that such answers are the byproduct of intelligent life.
I would agree, as long as the intelligent life in question is God, but that's not what you're talking about. You're talking about the intelligent life within the universe retroactively applying its own meaning to the ultimate "why"s of the universe. You rightly conclude that before or without the intelligent life, the sort of meaning that you're talking about is irrelevant.
Obviously, you are excluding God from your list of intelligent life able to apply purpose to the universe. This seems to be due to your belief in a materialistic reality. I wanted you to be aware of the constraints illustrated in your thought processes in hopes that you would see that others were possible and consider them.
As a Christian, I believe that God could have created Earth with a green sky if he had wanted to.
What keeps me from this line of thinking is the fact that all evidence points to the sky being blue, which is not green. If there were a verse in the bible that said "God made the sky blue," I would also consider that relevant evidence to counter your suggestion otherwise.
Correct me if my assessment is wrong, but it seems like you respect Christians who are willing to consider an infinite past. If they were ignorant of (1) scientific research on the topic, and (2) the very first verse of the very first book in the Bible (which refers specifically to a "beginning"), then your line of reasoning has some merit: they would be open-minded people, an admirable trait.
Not all Christians believe that the universe was created 6000 years ago.
The word "irrelevant" in your post seems to be flamebait, since there is a verse in the Bible that has to do with the origin of the universe happening at a point in time, and that therefore your use of the word only makes sense as an indicator of your opinion of the Bible, or of each of its verses, regardless of their subject matter.
The reason that I, as a Christian, believe that God, who is outside the universe with its space/time/matter/etc., created the universe at a particular time in the finite past is (1) he told us that's what he did (in the Bible), and (2) it is what we observe scientifically.
Yes, God could have created the Earth with a green sky, but he didn't. He could have created a universe of infinite time, but he didn't (at least, he didn't do that with ours).
I consider your "useful calibration" to be irrelevant.
Your assumption that since it is out of science's scope it doesn't exist is no doubt based on your materialistic world view.
Did you ever notice that the creation story in Genesis is told, not from a spacecraft observer perspective, but from the perspective of the surface of the earth, where a human being (to whom the story is being communicated) would best understand it?
I don't know of anyone who believes in a God who "popped into existence." That would imply that he exists in some sort of time continuum. I agree that your definition of #2 dictates turtles all the way down: congratulations on constructing a false dichotomy.
As a theist (specifically, as a Christian) here is my take on God as regards this discussion:
God is. He exists: this is the ultimate fact. The universe is not God, nor is God contained in the universe. It is perfectly consistent with the idea of God to say that the universe (time, space, matter/energy) popped into existence from nothing, in fact, this is what we have been saying for thousands of years. To assume that this is contrary to the idea of God is to misunderstand God: to confine him to the box that he has created.
Hawking is doing his best to describe what current evidence indicates about the nature of the universe: he is a scientist, and his goal is to discover *how* events happened: he is not so concerned with *why*, except as they constitute a cause-effect relationship, but then they again become an explanation of *how*. Science can never tell us the purpose of the universe: it is (rightly) not even interested in the topic.
So, basically, just usenet in favor of torrents?
As a Christian, I do not consider God's statements of what is and is not contrary to his nature a challenge to put myself through some sort of ordeal. No, God's commandments do not "jive" with us sinful humans. They are hard; in fact, they are impossible to live up to, especially in principle. The difficulty of following them is not what makes them good. At all. There is no sense in which "more work"=="better".
Thrashing yourself against God's standard of morality, and then thinking that doing so somehow obligates God to recognize your effort is the height of arrogance.
When Abraham believed God, it was credited to his account as righteousness. So, what are the promises of God? If we believe them because we trust God, we will be counted righteous.
Public record, yes, at least by default. A judge can seal evidence. Public domain, no. Using copyrighted material as evidence in a trial does nothing to the copyright. Imagine the legal mayhem that this would cause if it were not so.
I think you missed the word "just."
That ecosystem of products I was talking about is the same thing as your "mainstream killer app" idea, although seen from a slightly different angle. You apparently envision a single innovator blitzing the market; I envision a broader phenomenon. My statement erroniously assumed that product=market, which is not, in fact, the case. Good catch.
I never implied that it would be Apple that brings this about. I merely used their hardware products (computers, iPods, etc.) as an example of making a "device" into an "appliance" by making it simple enough for joe six-pack who doesn't need to know how it works to use. This is a requirement because as long as the only customers that won't accept DRM are a small portion of the total population, they can be ignored without cutting into the market too much. You cannot ignore Joe Six-pack, however.
The fact is that there are such products out there for pretty much every operating system. What I was suggesting is that there needs to be an ecosystem of products that make it so convenient to rip DVDs that it becomes a necessary feature to the everyday user. Once that happens, DMCA or not, the MPAA will have no choice but to stop trying to take this fair use right from their customers. It needs to become a selling-point.
The problem will be that they stop releasing HD players for non-TPM boxes. They will simply drop support, and tell you that if you want to play HD movies, to "upgrade" your hardware to their satisfaction. The only thing that will stop them from doing so is if they realize that the customers are on to them, are specifically avoiding TPM hardware, and that there are enough of them out there that they are cutting into the bottom line in a way that significantly comprimises their long-term market position.
The record companies, for example, are taking the long view of DRM for music: they are willing to wait for the CD to become obsolete while forcing DRM on the next generation (digital distribution), even though forcing DRM on digital distribution severely hampers adoption of digital distribution. The only thing that will change their strategy is if they realize that the market will *never* go digital enough for them to not have to release their content on CD until they drop DRM.
I doubt that the market for non-TPM boxes will be "_HUGE_" enough for the MPAA to abandon their plan to require it unless every-day consumers feel the sting of DRM in their every-day use.
The best way for this to happen is for devices to proliferate the market wich take advantage of the crack-ability of CSS: players that take ripped DVDs, store and organize them, and are as simple and intuitive as Apple products: it has to be an appliance.
But I liked the Pets.com sock puppet commercials.
The Big Four don't have to keep the indie labels out of the record store: the economics of deploying their CDs to such a large number of shelves prohibits the indie labels from doing so.
No such economic barrier exists online. It's called The Long Tail. Google it.
I would be interested in knowing the average number of iTMS tracks owned^H^H^H^H^H lisenced by those with over a certain threshold, say, ten tracks, or perhaps an album's worth.
We all know Apple has this information, and I'm betting it's high. Probably over 50. There are a few different classes of iPod owners, and Jobs is intentionally lumping them all together in order to manipulate their meaining:
1) Those with zero: customers who like the iPod and iTunes, but do not want to be locked-in with DRM.
2) Those with very few: about an album's worth that they downloaded in order to try out the iTMS, but still wary of the lock-in.
3) Casual iTMS music buyers who own a few albums, plus some misc. tracks: they probably average around 50 tracks (a number that I just made up, but it seems reasonable).
4) iTMS feinds: they drank the Kool-Aid; they have an extensive collection of music bought from the iTMS store. The cost of a new iPod is less than the cost of re-purchasing all of their DRM'd tracks.
What I'm truly interested in is the individual statistical profiles of each of these classes of iTMS customers, as well as their prevalence. This is no doubt a closely guarded trade secret, but it's one for a very good reason: it tells Apple just how locked-in their customer base really is.
And who does this?
Isn't is much cheaper to just put an MP3 on your phone and assign it as your ringtone. Heck, you could even buy it on iTMS, do the whole burn & rip thing, and stick it on your phone and it would still be worth the trouble for the money you save, plus the audio quality you get from a phone is typically crap, so it doesn't matter that you're re-encoding a compressed track.
I think the reason that we all care about iTMS and not ringtones is that consumers are accepting iTMS as a viable replacement for the coasters. No one was ever fooled into thinking they were adding a track to their permanent music collection at a reasonable price by downloading it onto their phone. They were simply paying for the convenience. It's just an impulse buy: an easy way for a fool and her money to be parted.
Okay seriously, who the hell cares?
No, it was not an act of terrorism. It was an aweful thing to do, but it was not done in order to scare other natives into submission.
If we keep throwing around the word "terrorism" as if it could mean anything, it will come to mean nothing at all.
Most people who know what they're referring to pronounce LED as "el-ee-dee." I wouldn't assume he's doing otherwise.
They've already changed your toilet and your shower nozzle for more water-efficient (but less efficient at getting their job done) designs. Who's stopping them from doing the same with your eyes as they've done with your plumbing and your skin? This is why we have Republicans.