WalMart, remember, sells online music at $0.88/song, below Apple and Microsoft. And they're not going to raise their prices.
Does it matter? How many people download their music from WalMart's online store? It doesn't really matter how much their songs cost, if nobody is buying them.
They want Apple to license the tech for their ACC files so other players besides iPods can play the music. But Apple won't do that because it would hurt their hardware business.
That's ridiculous. If Apple was frightened of tracks being playable on other devices, and wanted to lock you into the iPod - then why have they started releasing DRM-free music that can be played on any device?
The distorted paranoid conspiracy theories that the ignorant have about Apple are getting unbelievable. Hey, I also heard that Steve Jobs is Hitler reincarnated. He eats babies and wants to enslave the human race. Why do you think iPods were only available in white for so long?
Here we have a store that requires you to download THEIR media player to play their songs and use THEIR mp3 player
Well, at least Apple's songs actually work on their own player. Microsoft's "Playsforsure" often doesn't play on devices designed to support it! Likewise, some people have problems playing songs from the Microsoft Zune store on their Microsoft Zunes! I think "doesn't work properly" is about as crippled as it gets.
But that's not what Kyoto's about; it's about sending billions of dollars from countries like Canada to 3rd world dictatorships to buy "credits".
Why would you have to do that to meet the targets? Why not spend the money on research in your own country to develop more efficient technology? It would also cost very little to have a social campaign that discourages energy waste. There's no need to buy credits to reduce emissions.
Finally, to get back to the OP's major point, the Kyoto scam will transfer billions of dollars from the developed world to the third world (and make Al Gore rich through his CO2 credit trading firm; gee, do you think he has a vested interest in hyping AGW?). Canada has one of the coldest climates of any developed country; of course we have to use more energy than, say, Gambia, just to stay alive. Why should we send them billions of dollars because we have snow and they don't?
Hang on, why would Kyoto require you to spend billions of dollars to other countries? I think you may misunderstand how the Kyoto protocols work.
will notice them and report large numbers of ducks suddenly showing up
I just love that phrase; "large numbers of ducks showing up." It is hilarious in so many contexts.
Dinner party: "Honey, a large number of ducks has suddenly shown up. Do we have enough canapes?" Help Desk: "Sir, I'm afraid we can't fix your network connection right now, because the system reports a large number of ducks." iPhone: "Large numbers of ducks are suddenly showing up at Apple stores so they can put the phone on their bill and see if it floats.
They would be pretty difficult to forge. If you RTFA, the ducks are fairly unique, because they are faded from being exposed to the environment for 15 years. They also have a brand identifier stamped on them, which they have probably ceased using in the same way, to keep the lost ducks more identifiable.
As for the moon and defense, if you don't have access to space or items and people in space, you've already lost.
Come again? What threat has landing men on the moon protected us from? I don't remember the invasion of moon men. Sure satellites have useful military purposes, but how has manned space travel or Mars probes helped us in Iraq? Can you cite any wars that we have won because of manned spaceflight?
So,
this is waht we from the Free world use to claim: closed source slows down inovation and locks you out.
Contradicts your following statement:
In a few weeks there will be some reverse engeneered software to synch IPhone with GNU/Linux.
So, it seems you can get the closed source stuff to work, and you aren't locked out. Further, if the free software world is so against closed source, then why are they so keen to spend time supporting closed-source software? Doesn't make much sense to me.
But people prefer to be trapped to a monoculture of badly writen code than "pioneering" very nice software.
My experience is the opposite. Usually the pioneering stuff, and the "nice" stuff is closed source. Much of the Open Source and Free Software is just an imitation of the Closed Source applications that have been around for much longer, and is much more mature. Often the Open Source stuff doesn't work so well, or is poorly written compared to the Closed stuff.
Don't get me wrong, I like the FOSS philosophy - it's just that in the real world, the software isn't as powerful, as usable, or as innovative of much of the closed stuff. It would be nice if that changed. Think of the real innovative and revolutionary software, like Photoshop. It didn't come from the FOSS world, and the equivalent FOSS software is years behind the proprietary software.
I think the problem is the huge gulf between FOSSy people who focus on tinkering, computers as a hobby and philosophy, and the end users who use their machines to get stuff done, often in a professional environment.
It was a hundred-dollar Jackson Pollock(sp?) machine,
Well, what do you expect from a machine designed by Jackson Pollock? He probably blasted it with the engine of a 747, before smearing his inked-up body all over it. Ink cartridges are probably filled with whatever random leftover paint he's got left sitting around the studio.
Your average Joe won't look beyond the initial printer sale.
I think "average joe" is getting smarter than you give him scredit for. Everybody knows ink cartridges are a scam, these days. Average Joe, or not. The companies are going to have to deal with this, because they won't be able to fool very many people for much longer.
That's wishfull thinking. You can easily make chips for a very small fraction of the price of these cartridges. So much so that any "piracy" that is being stamped out will mean more profit for the original manufacturer.
No, it won't. They aren't going to make any profit when people stop buying their printers altogether, and choose to buy their printers and cartridges from a company with less draconian policies.
If it has opinion, it's an editorial. If had has "Just the facts, ma'am," then it's a documentary.
Uhhh, no. You just invented that definition of "docuemntary" on your own. Moast documentaries express opinions, and we don't call them "editorials," nor is there any reason to do so.
What's your motivation in wanting only those films which show "just the facts" and no opinion to qualify as "documentary"? Is it because you want to somehow say there is less legitimacy to producing a film with an opinion than there is to producing one that doesn't say anything? Why do you want to do that?
Health care can also be viewed as a defense expenditure, and it makes a lot more sense than saying a trip to the moon has anything to do with defense. A healthier population is more able to defend itself. What the hell does taking a joyride to the moon have to do with defense? Shit, our biggest enemy is not terrorists or other countries, but our unhealthy lives and broken healthcare system. It's pretty much the most serious war America is involved in - so healthcare is naturally a part of defending the American people from peril.
My primary video camera is a Sony A1U, usually mounted on a Manfrotto tripod with fluid head. This is obviously "professional" gear.
The Sony A1? That tiny thing? It's a kid's camera with a few semi-pro features. Wouldn't you at least need a Z1 to nearly qualify for professional gear?
Good luck with that. If anything, a common public view is that the police don't have enough powers. The police departments and politicians will rally against anything that lessens police power, on dubious "security" grounds - and people will vote for it.
I think you miss the point. In the 50s, the idea of a robot making all our meals was seductive. It was seen as a good idea.
However, today, more and more people are moving away from pre-prepared meals, and getting back into traditional cooking methods. Just look at the popularity of cookbooks and TV cooking shows from the likes of Jamie Oliver and Nigella Lawson. What we know now is that cooking good food at home can be a rewarding experience in itself, as well as being healthy. The 50s mindset has become obsolete - we now even have a vast army of men who cook for their wives. Back then, cooking was seen as a woman's burden, and the idea of men taking it up for enjoyment wasn't taken very seriously.
Sure, there are people (idiots) who subsist of convenience food and junk food - but they are not considered smart, popular or influential. Quite the opposite. If you want to be taken seriously in the 21st Century, you should know traditional methods of cooking.
The odds are just way to low for all those broken Xboxes being manufacturing faults. Even if 10% of all Xboxes Microsoft ships are faulty (which they aren't) the odds of getting eleven in a row is 0.1^11 = some really extremely super-duper small number.
Just because statistically, the probability is low, doesn't mean it can't happen. Highly improbable things do occur. It's a logical fallacy to say it's impossible just because it's unlikely.
Slashdot Mirror
Does it matter? How many people download their music from WalMart's online store? It doesn't really matter how much their songs cost, if nobody is buying them.
That's ridiculous. If Apple was frightened of tracks being playable on other devices, and wanted to lock you into the iPod - then why have they started releasing DRM-free music that can be played on any device?
The distorted paranoid conspiracy theories that the ignorant have about Apple are getting unbelievable. Hey, I also heard that Steve Jobs is Hitler reincarnated. He eats babies and wants to enslave the human race. Why do you think iPods were only available in white for so long?
Well, at least Apple's songs actually work on their own player. Microsoft's "Playsforsure" often doesn't play on devices designed to support it! Likewise, some people have problems playing songs from the Microsoft Zune store on their Microsoft Zunes! I think "doesn't work properly" is about as crippled as it gets.
Why would you have to do that to meet the targets? Why not spend the money on research in your own country to develop more efficient technology? It would also cost very little to have a social campaign that discourages energy waste. There's no need to buy credits to reduce emissions.
Hang on, why would Kyoto require you to spend billions of dollars to other countries? I think you may misunderstand how the Kyoto protocols work.
I just love that phrase; "large numbers of ducks showing up." It is hilarious in so many contexts.
Dinner party: "Honey, a large number of ducks has suddenly shown up. Do we have enough canapes?"
Help Desk: "Sir, I'm afraid we can't fix your network connection right now, because the system reports a large number of ducks."
iPhone: "Large numbers of ducks are suddenly showing up at Apple stores so they can put the phone on their bill and see if it floats.
They would be pretty difficult to forge. If you RTFA, the ducks are fairly unique, because they are faded from being exposed to the environment for 15 years. They also have a brand identifier stamped on them, which they have probably ceased using in the same way, to keep the lost ducks more identifiable.
No. Yoda would say "Precious to science, they are."
Not true. The Kwik-E-Mart has Apu. Who wouldn't want to shop in a store run by Apu?
Also, for a time, the Kwik-E-Mart had Frostilicus on display. That's pretty cool. And who else is going to make you an all-syrup Squishee?
Come again? What threat has landing men on the moon protected us from? I don't remember the invasion of moon men. Sure satellites have useful military purposes, but how has manned space travel or Mars probes helped us in Iraq? Can you cite any wars that we have won because of manned spaceflight?
Actually, I think most people do. That's generally the defaul "consumer" attitude.
Your first statement:
So, this is waht we from the Free world use to claim: closed source slows down inovation and locks you out.Contradicts your following statement:
In a few weeks there will be some reverse engeneered software to synch IPhone with GNU/Linux.So, it seems you can get the closed source stuff to work, and you aren't locked out. Further, if the free software world is so against closed source, then why are they so keen to spend time supporting closed-source software? Doesn't make much sense to me.
But people prefer to be trapped to a monoculture of badly writen code than "pioneering" very nice software.My experience is the opposite. Usually the pioneering stuff, and the "nice" stuff is closed source. Much of the Open Source and Free Software is just an imitation of the Closed Source applications that have been around for much longer, and is much more mature. Often the Open Source stuff doesn't work so well, or is poorly written compared to the Closed stuff.
Don't get me wrong, I like the FOSS philosophy - it's just that in the real world, the software isn't as powerful, as usable, or as innovative of much of the closed stuff. It would be nice if that changed. Think of the real innovative and revolutionary software, like Photoshop. It didn't come from the FOSS world, and the equivalent FOSS software is years behind the proprietary software.
I think the problem is the huge gulf between FOSSy people who focus on tinkering, computers as a hobby and philosophy, and the end users who use their machines to get stuff done, often in a professional environment.
Chutney Squishees?
The cartidges have crack in them? Now that explains why they are so expensive!
Well, what do you expect from a machine designed by Jackson Pollock? He probably blasted it with the engine of a 747, before smearing his inked-up body all over it. Ink cartridges are probably filled with whatever random leftover paint he's got left sitting around the studio.
I think "average joe" is getting smarter than you give him scredit for. Everybody knows ink cartridges are a scam, these days. Average Joe, or not. The companies are going to have to deal with this, because they won't be able to fool very many people for much longer.
No, it won't. They aren't going to make any profit when people stop buying their printers altogether, and choose to buy their printers and cartridges from a company with less draconian policies.
Uhhh, no. You just invented that definition of "docuemntary" on your own. Moast documentaries express opinions, and we don't call them "editorials," nor is there any reason to do so.
What's your motivation in wanting only those films which show "just the facts" and no opinion to qualify as "documentary"? Is it because you want to somehow say there is less legitimacy to producing a film with an opinion than there is to producing one that doesn't say anything? Why do you want to do that?
Health care can also be viewed as a defense expenditure, and it makes a lot more sense than saying a trip to the moon has anything to do with defense. A healthier population is more able to defend itself. What the hell does taking a joyride to the moon have to do with defense? Shit, our biggest enemy is not terrorists or other countries, but our unhealthy lives and broken healthcare system. It's pretty much the most serious war America is involved in - so healthcare is naturally a part of defending the American people from peril.
The Sony A1? That tiny thing? It's a kid's camera with a few semi-pro features. Wouldn't you at least need a Z1 to nearly qualify for professional gear?
Good luck with that. If anything, a common public view is that the police don't have enough powers. The police departments and politicians will rally against anything that lessens police power, on dubious "security" grounds - and people will vote for it.
I think you miss the point. In the 50s, the idea of a robot making all our meals was seductive. It was seen as a good idea.
However, today, more and more people are moving away from pre-prepared meals, and getting back into traditional cooking methods. Just look at the popularity of cookbooks and TV cooking shows from the likes of Jamie Oliver and Nigella Lawson. What we know now is that cooking good food at home can be a rewarding experience in itself, as well as being healthy. The 50s mindset has become obsolete - we now even have a vast army of men who cook for their wives. Back then, cooking was seen as a woman's burden, and the idea of men taking it up for enjoyment wasn't taken very seriously.
Sure, there are people (idiots) who subsist of convenience food and junk food - but they are not considered smart, popular or influential. Quite the opposite. If you want to be taken seriously in the 21st Century, you should know traditional methods of cooking.
Other artists like Prince??? I don't think such a thing exists.
Don't you mean mindBoogling®?
Just because statistically, the probability is low, doesn't mean it can't happen. Highly improbable things do occur. It's a logical fallacy to say it's impossible just because it's unlikely.