1. Because I do not know what you want to listen after a few songs.
So, why does that mean you need your entire collection with you at all times? Even "small" players by today's standards can play music continuously for several days without repeating the same song twice. You still have plenty of choice. And if you don't know what you want to listen to, again, why do you need your whole collection? Just let it play whatever comes up randomly.
2. Because syncing is a PITA,
Syncing is a pain? Seriously? It's a hassle to plug your player into your USB to charge the batteries and sync every once in a while? Don't you ever charge your player? The syncing is automatic when you plug it into the computer.
especially if I had to select what to listen "today".
But you don't have to. That's what smart playlists are for. Do you really have any idea about this stuff works? It sounds like your thinking is stuck in 1998.
Sure... i never said they didn't appeal to anybody. But it's not where the mass market is. And that's part of Microsoft's failure here. They released a fairly chunky hard drive based player right around the exact time that most people were moving to more compact flash-based players (as flash storage was increasing in density). Until very recently, the only Zune was the full-size hard drive model, while iPods came in a whole range of sizes.
Uhhh, what? Even the smallest players these days hold a lot more than 200 songs. And why would you have to listen to them over and over again? You can change the songs when you sync. Do you really not understand how these things work, and how people use them?
No, that's what they did. And their DRM scheme had much fewer restrictions than others available at the time. Do you have a problem with facts generally, or is it just Apple-related stuff? What you are saying is nothing but revisionist history.
Why don't you tell me why Apple would secretly plot to implement DRM? It's not in Apple's interest to implement a DRM scheme - that just costs them money. What reason do you have to believe that Jobs lied in his public statements, and statements in negotiation with music companies?
Versions of OS X that have been patched by Apple's updating procedures aren't retail copies either.
That's the most insane argument I've ever seen. Of course it is still the retail copy. modifications to something don't mean it is not based on the original. A Volkswagen Beetle is still a Volkswagen Beetle, even if you put aftermarket accessories on it.
The same applies to the hacks to get the OS to run on the generic hardware. You aren't significantly altering the software - you are just allowing the retail version to be installed.
So tell me, if I install a retail copy of Mac OS on my Mac, and then install some software that makes system modifications (not for "hacking") am I somehow not running the retail version of Mac OS? Suddenly that ceases to exist because I added software or changed settings?
You do make a point, though. This is because the majority of people who buy iPods are more interested in it as a fashion item than as an mp3 player.
Got any evidence of that? most people I encounter with iPods are listening to them on the bus or train - and have them buried away in their pockets. They are also usually trying to avoid contact with other people. If it were about a fashion statement, then wouldn't they be:
Not listening to them
Showing them off
Only using Apple-branded headphones, rather than swapping for better-sounding ones that aren't white
No, they actually seem to be using them to listen to music. I'm not sure how an iPod can even be a "fashion statement" these days, as so many people own them.
Flash-based mp3 players are "sexier," and the people who buy them don't need a lot of storage, as their collections generally consist of a few CD's worth of singles. Hard drive based mp3 players are more for enthusiasts who have been collecting albums their entire life.
Again, complete nonsense. How do you know what music is on people's flash-based players? I'm a big music enthusiast, and have been collecting all my life. My player holds only 4GB, despite the collection on my computer being around 100GB. There's no reason to carry all my music around with me everywhere I go. Every time I sync my player, a fresh selection of music is updated - and new episodes of podcasts are uploaded, and old podcast episodes deleted. Seriously, why do I have to carry my entire music collection around just for a couple of hours of commuting?
It's quite funny the ego and delusions that some people (typically self-described geeks) have over this simple issue of portable music. Yeah, anybody who has a smaller player than you must have terrible taste in music, oh elite collector.
Compared to the other DRM schemes being used or proposed for music at the time, Apple's Fairplay was actually a lot more customer-friendly. It was like a fluffy kitten compared to the vicious DRMs the studio execs wanted. And Apple had to fight to get that. Obviously, the music companies at the time would never allow their content to go out with no DRM - so Apple reached a compromise of having less-intrusive DRM. Later, when Apple had more clout as the market leader, Jobs aregued to the labels that they should get rid of the DRM altogether.
Now, do you think Apple would ever have had that kind of influence with record labels if they never made that initial compromise on DRM? What if Microsoft or Real had taken Apple's place in the music marketplace instead? I don't think we'd be able to buy DRM-free tracks on places like Amazon.com today if that had happened.
"Crippled" is debatable, but "popular" isn't. Just because a few people like something, doesn't mean it's popular. I'm sure there are people out there who would love to see naked pictures of Margaret Thatcher, but that doesn't make it a popular desire. The numbers speak for themselves... something that not many people are buying cannot, by definition, be popular.
Ahh, but that still doesn't determine "legitimacy". In many cases, it's perfectly legal to make a copy of some content for fair-use reasons, such as format-shifting and excerpts for academic use. But if those copies still have the watermark - then the player would shut them down. Despite what the studios want, and their bleating about illegitimate copies, there are plenty of legitimate and legal reasons to copy.
I'm pretty sure not. There are tons of players that out-sell the Zune. Really, how many people want large hard drive based players these days, anyway? It's the age of the Nano. Even full-size iPods sell nothing compared to the iPod Nano.
Ah, so when somebody says "republicans act this" it can refer to anybody who self-identifies as a republican, but when somebody else say "democrats act this way" it's scandalous and false because there's no evidence that the Democratic PARTY leadership directly did something?
No, I'm not saying anything like that. I'm saying that people should be accurate in what they say, and the original statement was intended to mislead for partisan purposes. I have no love for Democrats, just truth.
Come on, nobody is claiming that the Democratic party leadership created those fake documents,
The post by workingdev that I replied to said exactly that. Why do you think I am making these posts? Because somebody made a clearly false statement for political reasons.
I don't think that pointing out facts makes me partisan.
And if you can read the wikipedia article and come away saying "there is no forensic evidence of any forgery" I've got to conclude that you are being either due to your partisan nature or unconsciously being very intellectually dishonest.
Why? The article itself says there is no forensic evidence. What is partisan in any way about saying that? It's the truth.
(btw, try downloading the graphic of the letter, and type the same text into MS word. then overlay in photoshop/gimp/whatever. when I did this with office 2003, it was a 100% match.
And of course, that is not forensic evidence and doesn't actually prove anything.
Of courrse something suss was going on with that story - but there has been no legal investigation - just a bunch of speculation on blogs and by self-proclaimed type experts.
There has never been a real investigation into who committed the forgery and why. Yet people automatically say "The Democrats did it" - when it could have just as easily been a Republican that started it - or a mercenary, or somebody with a completely different motive outside of politics.
This whole stroy reeks, because it is all based on speculation, and everybody just sees what they want to see, nobody seems interested in seriously finding the truth.
Thus the need for a referee to prevent them from doing that. This referee generally shouldn't be a player (i.e. should not be buying to selling goods) and should not control the market other than the minimum necessary to ensure it continues to be a "free market".
OK, so how is that even possible? Everybody is involved in the buying and selling of goods, unless one lives outside of society, eating only the fruit that falls from trees that nobody owns, or something.
What's the point of discussing the "free market" when it is obviously such an unrealistic fantasy that will never exist?
The post I was replying to said it was "the Democrats" who forged the documents. The link you provide gives no evidence that the Democratic Party was responsible for any such forgery. Further, it also says that there is no forensic evidence of any forgery. So, where is the evidence that the Democratic Party forged these documents?
Re:Blizzard may be my favorite company, but please
on
Who Owns Software?
·
· Score: 1
So, how exactly do you have a level playing field in a large online multiplayer game like WoW? Those who have more free time to play will always be at an advantage. Or those who can afford to pay somebody to play their character while they are at work.
Re:Blizzard may be my favorite company, but please
on
Who Owns Software?
·
· Score: 1
Players would have easy access to large amounts of gold, honor point, and of course higher-leveled characters.
And so would every other character. So, the characters wouldn't actually be "higher leveled" because other characters would be equally high. And large amounts of gold wouldn't really be large, they'd just be standard. So what's the difference?
You could say the same thing about unemployed humans who play all the time, while others have to work or look after their family. Not to mention those who actually play for profit. How do you propose to eliminate this advantage? It's ultimately a flaw in the online games, that they tend to require a huge time investment. If players could have more fun without massive investments of time, then bots wouldn't be necessary, would they?
70 incidents per year means they were "almost nonexistent"? That's a crazy idea of existence that you have there. I suppose that you don't exist, because you are only one person among billions of humans? It doesn't really matter how many cups of coffee they served, McDonalds was aware of those incidents, and didn't do anything about them.
Should a bank that issues millions of loans per year get away with robbing 70 people per year, because 70 people getting robbed is almost nonexistent in comparision to the amount of loans they give out? To my knowledge, the law doesn't work that way.
No, it's not correct. You can install that retail copy, with appropriate hacking. Where the hell else are people who are installing this on their generic PCs getting the data from?
Please explain how one can simultaneously support the Republican Party, and also support free markets. It doesn't make any sense. If such people exist, then they are clearly insane.
Slashdot Mirror
So, why does that mean you need your entire collection with you at all times? Even "small" players by today's standards can play music continuously for several days without repeating the same song twice. You still have plenty of choice. And if you don't know what you want to listen to, again, why do you need your whole collection? Just let it play whatever comes up randomly.
2. Because syncing is a PITA,Syncing is a pain? Seriously? It's a hassle to plug your player into your USB to charge the batteries and sync every once in a while? Don't you ever charge your player? The syncing is automatic when you plug it into the computer.
especially if I had to select what to listen "today".But you don't have to. That's what smart playlists are for. Do you really have any idea about this stuff works? It sounds like your thinking is stuck in 1998.
Sure... i never said they didn't appeal to anybody. But it's not where the mass market is. And that's part of Microsoft's failure here. They released a fairly chunky hard drive based player right around the exact time that most people were moving to more compact flash-based players (as flash storage was increasing in density). Until very recently, the only Zune was the full-size hard drive model, while iPods came in a whole range of sizes.
Uhhh, what? Even the smallest players these days hold a lot more than 200 songs. And why would you have to listen to them over and over again? You can change the songs when you sync. Do you really not understand how these things work, and how people use them?
No, that's what they did. And their DRM scheme had much fewer restrictions than others available at the time. Do you have a problem with facts generally, or is it just Apple-related stuff? What you are saying is nothing but revisionist history.
Why don't you tell me why Apple would secretly plot to implement DRM? It's not in Apple's interest to implement a DRM scheme - that just costs them money. What reason do you have to believe that Jobs lied in his public statements, and statements in negotiation with music companies?
That's the most insane argument I've ever seen. Of course it is still the retail copy. modifications to something don't mean it is not based on the original. A Volkswagen Beetle is still a Volkswagen Beetle, even if you put aftermarket accessories on it.
The same applies to the hacks to get the OS to run on the generic hardware. You aren't significantly altering the software - you are just allowing the retail version to be installed.
So tell me, if I install a retail copy of Mac OS on my Mac, and then install some software that makes system modifications (not for "hacking") am I somehow not running the retail version of Mac OS? Suddenly that ceases to exist because I added software or changed settings?
But that's not an "extremely low" accident rate by any measure. That's the point. It's actually pretty alarmingly high.
Got any evidence of that? most people I encounter with iPods are listening to them on the bus or train - and have them buried away in their pockets. They are also usually trying to avoid contact with other people. If it were about a fashion statement, then wouldn't they be:
No, they actually seem to be using them to listen to music. I'm not sure how an iPod can even be a "fashion statement" these days, as so many people own them.
Flash-based mp3 players are "sexier," and the people who buy them don't need a lot of storage, as their collections generally consist of a few CD's worth of singles. Hard drive based mp3 players are more for enthusiasts who have been collecting albums their entire life.Again, complete nonsense. How do you know what music is on people's flash-based players? I'm a big music enthusiast, and have been collecting all my life. My player holds only 4GB, despite the collection on my computer being around 100GB. There's no reason to carry all my music around with me everywhere I go. Every time I sync my player, a fresh selection of music is updated - and new episodes of podcasts are uploaded, and old podcast episodes deleted. Seriously, why do I have to carry my entire music collection around just for a couple of hours of commuting?
It's quite funny the ego and delusions that some people (typically self-described geeks) have over this simple issue of portable music. Yeah, anybody who has a smaller player than you must have terrible taste in music, oh elite collector.
Compared to the other DRM schemes being used or proposed for music at the time, Apple's Fairplay was actually a lot more customer-friendly. It was like a fluffy kitten compared to the vicious DRMs the studio execs wanted. And Apple had to fight to get that. Obviously, the music companies at the time would never allow their content to go out with no DRM - so Apple reached a compromise of having less-intrusive DRM. Later, when Apple had more clout as the market leader, Jobs aregued to the labels that they should get rid of the DRM altogether.
Now, do you think Apple would ever have had that kind of influence with record labels if they never made that initial compromise on DRM? What if Microsoft or Real had taken Apple's place in the music marketplace instead? I don't think we'd be able to buy DRM-free tracks on places like Amazon.com today if that had happened.
Easy. You remove the ability to play video at all.
"Crippled" is debatable, but "popular" isn't. Just because a few people like something, doesn't mean it's popular. I'm sure there are people out there who would love to see naked pictures of Margaret Thatcher, but that doesn't make it a popular desire. The numbers speak for themselves... something that not many people are buying cannot, by definition, be popular.
Ahh, but that still doesn't determine "legitimacy". In many cases, it's perfectly legal to make a copy of some content for fair-use reasons, such as format-shifting and excerpts for academic use. But if those copies still have the watermark - then the player would shut them down. Despite what the studios want, and their bleating about illegitimate copies, there are plenty of legitimate and legal reasons to copy.
"Missing" radio? Seriously? Wow.
I'm pretty sure not. There are tons of players that out-sell the Zune. Really, how many people want large hard drive based players these days, anyway? It's the age of the Nano. Even full-size iPods sell nothing compared to the iPod Nano.
No, I'm not saying anything like that. I'm saying that people should be accurate in what they say, and the original statement was intended to mislead for partisan purposes. I have no love for Democrats, just truth.
Come on, nobody is claiming that the Democratic party leadership created those fake documents,The post by workingdev that I replied to said exactly that. Why do you think I am making these posts? Because somebody made a clearly false statement for political reasons.
I don't think that pointing out facts makes me partisan.
And if you can read the wikipedia article and come away saying "there is no forensic evidence of any forgery" I've got to conclude that you are being either due to your partisan nature or unconsciously being very intellectually dishonest.Why? The article itself says there is no forensic evidence. What is partisan in any way about saying that? It's the truth.
(btw, try downloading the graphic of the letter, and type the same text into MS word. then overlay in photoshop/gimp/whatever. when I did this with office 2003, it was a 100% match.And of course, that is not forensic evidence and doesn't actually prove anything.
Of courrse something suss was going on with that story - but there has been no legal investigation - just a bunch of speculation on blogs and by self-proclaimed type experts.
There has never been a real investigation into who committed the forgery and why. Yet people automatically say "The Democrats did it" - when it could have just as easily been a Republican that started it - or a mercenary, or somebody with a completely different motive outside of politics.
This whole stroy reeks, because it is all based on speculation, and everybody just sees what they want to see, nobody seems interested in seriously finding the truth.
OK, so how is that even possible? Everybody is involved in the buying and selling of goods, unless one lives outside of society, eating only the fruit that falls from trees that nobody owns, or something.
What's the point of discussing the "free market" when it is obviously such an unrealistic fantasy that will never exist?
The post I was replying to said it was "the Democrats" who forged the documents. The link you provide gives no evidence that the Democratic Party was responsible for any such forgery. Further, it also says that there is no forensic evidence of any forgery. So, where is the evidence that the Democratic Party forged these documents?
So, how exactly do you have a level playing field in a large online multiplayer game like WoW? Those who have more free time to play will always be at an advantage. Or those who can afford to pay somebody to play their character while they are at work.
And so would every other character. So, the characters wouldn't actually be "higher leveled" because other characters would be equally high. And large amounts of gold wouldn't really be large, they'd just be standard. So what's the difference?
You could say the same thing about unemployed humans who play all the time, while others have to work or look after their family. Not to mention those who actually play for profit. How do you propose to eliminate this advantage? It's ultimately a flaw in the online games, that they tend to require a huge time investment. If players could have more fun without massive investments of time, then bots wouldn't be necessary, would they?
70 incidents per year means they were "almost nonexistent"? That's a crazy idea of existence that you have there. I suppose that you don't exist, because you are only one person among billions of humans? It doesn't really matter how many cups of coffee they served, McDonalds was aware of those incidents, and didn't do anything about them.
Should a bank that issues millions of loans per year get away with robbing 70 people per year, because 70 people getting robbed is almost nonexistent in comparision to the amount of loans they give out? To my knowledge, the law doesn't work that way.
No, it's not correct. You can install that retail copy, with appropriate hacking. Where the hell else are people who are installing this on their generic PCs getting the data from?
So, if you believe all those things, what are you doing supporting the Republican party and standing in their name?
So, how does allowing gay marriage eliminate their right to be jerks?
Uhhh, since when did the BSA, MPAA or RIAA donate anything to progressive candidates?
Please explain how one can simultaneously support the Republican Party, and also support free markets. It doesn't make any sense. If such people exist, then they are clearly insane.
You expect us to believe that Ron Paul is a Republican? You've got to be kidding.