By build, I mean "provide the funding for, and authorize the construction of." Like when people say "I'm building a new house," they usually don't mean they are personally building it, but having it built for them.
For your house to get searched, you have to *choose* to buy a house. It's the exact same argument you are making.
No, it's not. My argument is equivalent to choosing to buy a product with your name engraved on it. Where is Apple searching anyone's house or computer?
Unless, of course, they're located in China, India, et al. where any interference by us is considered "meddling in their internal economics". So we let them eat our lunches while ruining their own kids. Those that don't get sold into the international sex trade, that is.
Right, this highlights the problems of an unrestrained "free market." Of course, there's nothing to stop the US government raising awareness of this, and discouraging dealing with unethical overseas companies. If the politicians had any balls, that is.
I didn't talk about the social responsibility of a government, only about the economic influence.
How can you possibly separate the two? Having social responsibility means having an economic impact. Enforcing laws against slave labor affects the economy, and means that companies aren't free to compete by using slavery. Enforcing consumer safety laws to protect people means there are a bunch of products that companies can't make.
And what about the other aspect I mentioned - public roads? They have a huge impact on the economy. Do you think companies would be able to compete as well without roads to ship goods and materials on? Do you propose that all road building become privately-operated?
Also, where does the land that companies "own" come from? Isn't that ownership granted by the government, and dfoesn't the land come from conquest of lands by the armies of people? I fail to see how these companies, and the economy itself would exist, without governments and people creating it in the first place. It didn't just magically appear. One of the reasons that the US economy is so powerful, is that the government once protected social rights and freedoms.
You're just regurgitating the age-old "Why should I worry about this draconian law? I'm not a criminal." argument.
How so? This itunes thing is not a law, it's a product. And it can hardly be considered draconian.
Buying a music file means that you buy a music file. Not a music file with extra unwanted information that might violate my privacy.
No, buying a music file means buying the music file you are offered. Sometimes that means DRM, sometimes that means a watermark. You don't have to buy it if you don't want to.
I certainly won't do business with Apple is any way, shape, or form.
Good for you. But what's wrong with people choosing to buy this, knowing what they are getting? How does that harm you? How is it draconian? It's just business. If the market rejects it, then Apple will fail. Not to mention that software companies have been doing this and much worse for years, including such things as "dongles" for protection - and in some cases, licenses that include a clause that allows the company to audit your business. Yet you don't hear much outrage over that. But for some reason, a simple of ownership on an almost disposable audio file is more heinous than all of those software protection methods. Even though it won't suddenly break your audio file like DRM can, or cost your business thousands of dollars if it fails, like dongles or audits can.
"The government should be allowed to search people's home on a whim, because if they are law abiding citizens, they shouldn't mind the government searching through their stuff."
"People should not be allowed to take the fifth because if they are law abiding citizens, they should have not reason to hide information."
I've considered those, and they have nothing to do with this story. You voluntarily choose to buy songs from the iTunes store. Nobody is forcing you to do it. Having your house searched unconstitutionally, is not a voluntary act. Likewise, your second example is a constitutionally-enshrined right. Having songs you choose to buy online free of watermarks is not a constitutional right.
Not to be a troll, but this is sort of like the argument I always hear about the cameras the gubment puts up at intersections and along roads. If you're not breaking the law, no need to worry about these cameras, right?
So, tell me, what is the problem with those cameras? they are in public places, so you don't have the expectation of privacy. And if they are used for public safety, then what's the problem? Do you think that taking photos in public should be banned? That would be pretty draconian if you couldn't take snapshots in public.
A sense of humour is the ability to experience humour, a quality which all people share, although the extent to which an individual will personally find something humorous depends on a host of absolute and relative variables, including geographical location, culture, maturity, level of education, and context. For example, young children (of any background) particularly favour slapstick, such as Punch and Judy puppet shows. Satire may rely more on understanding the target of the humour, and thus tends to appeal to more mature audiences.
In a free market economy, the governments ONLY job is to make sure that competition thrives. They got NO other business in the economy.
If that's true, then free market economies should be avoided at all costs.
But I don't think it is. Why shouldn't a government not be able to participate in a free market economy? I suppose you think that the government should not build roads or hospitals. By your logic, a government should also not look out for the rights and well-being of citizens. Its only role should be to support private competition. So, why have a government at all if that's the case?
I think government should be there for more reasons than to benefit business. It is there to serve its citizens' needs, not profits.
How many Hobbits does it take to change a light globe?
Re:Same with the ipods back when they hit 1 mil.
on
A Million Zunes Sold
·
· Score: 1
Because, in the quantities we are talking about, the headphones probably cost about 20 cents to make. I'm not going to care about 20 cents. It also gives me a backup, in case I leave my good headphones at work or something. And it's perfect for beginners and cheapskates in the mass-market. Without the free pair, they'd probably have to pay at least a couple of bucks to buy retail headphones - which isn't going to make them happy. But the 20 cents doesn't make a difference to anybody else.
Ease of use and form factor are features. Come on... Oh, you were thinking of specific features?
Uhhh, that's why I put it in quotation marks. Of course, I believe that those are features. I said as much in other posts. The problem is that much of the Slashdot readership do not think like that. Especially ones who don't understand why the iPod is successful.
Basically, in order to communicate with people who are on that level, you have to explain that. Which is why I used "features" in scare-quotes, do denote what it means to many nerds - a bullet-point list of items like processor speed or memory capacity, rather than the features which are in an integral part of the, but not easily specified technically.
You might be surprised how many slashdotter refuse to consider ease-of-use as having anything to do with features or functionality - even though it's obvious to almost everybody else who has ever used a product in their lives.
Hang on, your analogy seems off. We're talking about the iPod here, which is the "winner." But it was technically superior to all the other players offered at the time. So, how does the Betamax analogy hold? Shit, when the iPod was released, other HD players used USB1.1 for transfer, and were extremely bulky. the iPod caused a stir because it was so much more advanced than what was on the market. What are the players that were technically superior at the time of the iPod's release? Hell, what are the players that are technically superior today?
so they buy a middle-of-the-road product that will satisfy the majority, even if it is lacking in specific capabilities the actual end user might like to have.
So, what are these specific capabilities that are in demand among end users that are met by other players? And why would you describe the iPod as "middle of the road"? What are the products that are more "high end"? The iPod has almost always been ahead on the aspects that most users want - particularly form-factor and eas-of-use. And when other companies catch up, Apple typically leaps ahead and improves the iPod even more.
and was only innovative in terms of its syling/interface, not its function.
Only in terms of its interface? You say this like it is something trivial. Surely, the interface is a critical aspect of a personal music player that one interacts with? And how does the interface not affect functionality? A good interface makes a device more functional than a device with the same features but a poor interface to access them. As for "styling," I don't think that had much to do with the success of the iPod. Unless by "styling" you mean "form factor." The iPod was smaller and thinner than other devices with equivalent storage. That's very important. It's not just "style." It's part of the function. The whole idea of these players is that they're portable. I don't think many (especially early adopters) bought it because it was stylish - but rather than it wasn't like a brick to carry around. Look at how people laugh at old-fashioned mobile phones that are too big to carry comfortably in your pocket.
There is also the slight problem that the original ipod sounded terrible, it took several models to catch up with the nomad sound quality.
Got any evidence for that one, or are you just making stuff up?
The ones in my building are Otis. As are the majority of the ones I encountered as a delivery boy. After all, Otis massively dominates the worldwide elevator market. Their repairmen are practically full-time employees at our company. It almost smells like a scam. They also produced our escalators, and they are just as unreliable as the elevators, or more so. Both escalators and elevators are totally FUBAR most of the time, and Otis don't seem to be able to fix them. Or they don't want to, because they enjoy the constant income.
Re:Same with the ipods back when they hit 1 mil.
on
A Million Zunes Sold
·
· Score: 1
I use Sennheiser headphones with my iPod, because the iPod's earbuds are crap, and I hate in-ear headphones in general. I own an iPod to listen to music, not so people see me listening to an iPod. That's pretty pointless - nearly everybody has one, so it's not a way to impress people. I'd estimate that nearly half of the iPod-using population are using 3rd party headphones. Remember those reports of iPod muggings and theft? Many people like to hide the fact they are using an iPod as a security measure.
I'm not sure why you think people own iPods just to be seen using iPods. could you explain that one?
How often do traffic lights fail? Elevators? Medical equipment?
Are you kidding?
In the building I work in, the elevators fail almost every day,/b>. And it's not just my building. I worked as a delivery boy when I was a teenager, it was my job to go up and down elevators all over the city every day. Part of that job involved getting stuck in an elevator about three times a week on average, often for over half an hour at a time. Medical equipment? I don't work with it, but I'm sure it fails sometimes. But it also costs a hell of a lot to buy, because it is designed to not fail so much. If elevators and traffic lights were designed not to fail as often, we probably couldn't afford to use them.
You see, people are stupid (while a person can be intelligent) and when they go shopping for something to play music on they don't go looking for an MP3 player, they go looking for an ipod. Also it help that it's one of the prettiest units out there, one cannot deny that its design it's clean and attractive (but you can dislike it too).
So, people who choose a different product than the one you like are stupid?
But feature-wise? It didn't seem the best when I looked for one.
"Features" aren't really the main selling point here. Ease of use and form factor are much more important. Most people just want to listen to music. How is the iPod lacking in that respect? It plays music, and works well. Much of the attraction is in the iTunnes software, not the device itself.
Why didn't more people do like me and buy something similar? Because we don't like to think much, I spent about 3 months deciding on which one to buy.
Maybe they did. you seem rather arrogant to suggest that if they choose an iPod, they weren't thinking about their purchase. I know plenty of people who took more than 3 months to think about their decision, and still chose an iPod as the best player. I guess they are just inferior to you.
Ogg vorbis and linux connection capabilities considered a plus, gapless playback a necessity.
Those things don't matter that much to most people. Of those items, gapless playback would be the most popular, but of course, the iPod offers gapless playback, so it's not a differentiating feature. Just because you want those things, doesn't mean it matters to others. Especially Linux and Ogg Vorbis. That is an insignificant question to 99% (or more) of the market.
The thing about paylists is almost opposite to how most people work. Not very many people want to create playlists on the go - that's when they are listening to music. but they enjoy making playlists on their computer, and iTunes features like "Smart Playlists." But most of all they enjoy that they just plug the thing in, and iTunes does the rest.
Perhaps they are thinking about their needs more than you give them credit for?
The reason I originally brought it up is that back when I bought my DVD writer (early 2003), my camera had a 256 MB card. It took quite a bit longer to fill a DVD with that,
Still doesn't make any sense. You take more pictures merely because of the size of the media? Shouldn't you be taking the amount of pictures you want to take, regardless of media? This implies that you are either taking too many photos now, or you weren't taking enough photos back then.
They're merely suffering consequences for breaking [mostly unfair] laws.
How did you know they broke any laws? if you look at the actual story, it seems that the RIAA is still trying to determine who to sue. This doesn't give a lot of conifdence in the idea that they know exactly who is guilty.
What this story is actually about, is the University giving out private information that they should not be giving out. The people that the RIAA accuses may be completely innocent. Why should innocent students have their private information given out by the University?
Slashdot Mirror
By build, I mean "provide the funding for, and authorize the construction of." Like when people say "I'm building a new house," they usually don't mean they are personally building it, but having it built for them.
No, it's not. My argument is equivalent to choosing to buy a product with your name engraved on it. Where is Apple searching anyone's house or computer?
Right, this highlights the problems of an unrestrained "free market." Of course, there's nothing to stop the US government raising awareness of this, and discouraging dealing with unethical overseas companies. If the politicians had any balls, that is.
How can you possibly separate the two? Having social responsibility means having an economic impact. Enforcing laws against slave labor affects the economy, and means that companies aren't free to compete by using slavery. Enforcing consumer safety laws to protect people means there are a bunch of products that companies can't make.
And what about the other aspect I mentioned - public roads? They have a huge impact on the economy. Do you think companies would be able to compete as well without roads to ship goods and materials on? Do you propose that all road building become privately-operated?
Also, where does the land that companies "own" come from? Isn't that ownership granted by the government, and dfoesn't the land come from conquest of lands by the armies of people? I fail to see how these companies, and the economy itself would exist, without governments and people creating it in the first place. It didn't just magically appear. One of the reasons that the US economy is so powerful, is that the government once protected social rights and freedoms.
How so? This itunes thing is not a law, it's a product. And it can hardly be considered draconian.
Buying a music file means that you buy a music file. Not a music file with extra unwanted information that might violate my privacy.No, buying a music file means buying the music file you are offered. Sometimes that means DRM, sometimes that means a watermark. You don't have to buy it if you don't want to.
I certainly won't do business with Apple is any way, shape, or form.Good for you. But what's wrong with people choosing to buy this, knowing what they are getting? How does that harm you? How is it draconian? It's just business. If the market rejects it, then Apple will fail. Not to mention that software companies have been doing this and much worse for years, including such things as "dongles" for protection - and in some cases, licenses that include a clause that allows the company to audit your business. Yet you don't hear much outrage over that. But for some reason, a simple of ownership on an almost disposable audio file is more heinous than all of those software protection methods. Even though it won't suddenly break your audio file like DRM can, or cost your business thousands of dollars if it fails, like dongles or audits can.
I've considered those, and they have nothing to do with this story. You voluntarily choose to buy songs from the iTunes store. Nobody is forcing you to do it. Having your house searched unconstitutionally, is not a voluntary act. Likewise, your second example is a constitutionally-enshrined right. Having songs you choose to buy online free of watermarks is not a constitutional right.
In other words, you are using strawmen to argue.
So, tell me, what is the problem with those cameras? they are in public places, so you don't have the expectation of privacy. And if they are used for public safety, then what's the problem? Do you think that taking photos in public should be banned? That would be pretty draconian if you couldn't take snapshots in public.
Who would be "outraged" by this, regardless of who does it? It seems perfectly reasonable.
This is your Senator John McCain
This is your Senator John McCain on drugs.
According to Wikipedia:
A sense of humour is the ability to experience humour, a quality which all people share, although the extent to which an individual will personally find something humorous depends on a host of absolute and relative variables, including geographical location, culture, maturity, level of education, and context. For example, young children (of any background) particularly favour slapstick, such as Punch and Judy puppet shows. Satire may rely more on understanding the target of the humour, and thus tends to appeal to more mature audiences.See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humor
If that's true, then free market economies should be avoided at all costs.
But I don't think it is. Why shouldn't a government not be able to participate in a free market economy? I suppose you think that the government should not build roads or hospitals. By your logic, a government should also not look out for the rights and well-being of citizens. Its only role should be to support private competition. So, why have a government at all if that's the case?
I think government should be there for more reasons than to benefit business. It is there to serve its citizens' needs, not profits.
Isn't gold mined from ore, not farmed?
How many Hobbits does it take to change a light globe?
Because, in the quantities we are talking about, the headphones probably cost about 20 cents to make. I'm not going to care about 20 cents. It also gives me a backup, in case I leave my good headphones at work or something. And it's perfect for beginners and cheapskates in the mass-market. Without the free pair, they'd probably have to pay at least a couple of bucks to buy retail headphones - which isn't going to make them happy. But the 20 cents doesn't make a difference to anybody else.
Uhhh, that's why I put it in quotation marks. Of course, I believe that those are features. I said as much in other posts. The problem is that much of the Slashdot readership do not think like that. Especially ones who don't understand why the iPod is successful.
Basically, in order to communicate with people who are on that level, you have to explain that. Which is why I used "features" in scare-quotes, do denote what it means to many nerds - a bullet-point list of items like processor speed or memory capacity, rather than the features which are in an integral part of the, but not easily specified technically.
You might be surprised how many slashdotter refuse to consider ease-of-use as having anything to do with features or functionality - even though it's obvious to almost everybody else who has ever used a product in their lives.
Hang on, your analogy seems off. We're talking about the iPod here, which is the "winner." But it was technically superior to all the other players offered at the time. So, how does the Betamax analogy hold? Shit, when the iPod was released, other HD players used USB1.1 for transfer, and were extremely bulky. the iPod caused a stir because it was so much more advanced than what was on the market. What are the players that were technically superior at the time of the iPod's release? Hell, what are the players that are technically superior today?
So, what are these specific capabilities that are in demand among end users that are met by other players? And why would you describe the iPod as "middle of the road"? What are the products that are more "high end"? The iPod has almost always been ahead on the aspects that most users want - particularly form-factor and eas-of-use. And when other companies catch up, Apple typically leaps ahead and improves the iPod even more.
Only in terms of its interface? You say this like it is something trivial. Surely, the interface is a critical aspect of a personal music player that one interacts with? And how does the interface not affect functionality? A good interface makes a device more functional than a device with the same features but a poor interface to access them. As for "styling," I don't think that had much to do with the success of the iPod. Unless by "styling" you mean "form factor." The iPod was smaller and thinner than other devices with equivalent storage. That's very important. It's not just "style." It's part of the function. The whole idea of these players is that they're portable. I don't think many (especially early adopters) bought it because it was stylish - but rather than it wasn't like a brick to carry around. Look at how people laugh at old-fashioned mobile phones that are too big to carry comfortably in your pocket.
There is also the slight problem that the original ipod sounded terrible, it took several models to catch up with the nomad sound quality.Got any evidence for that one, or are you just making stuff up?
The ones in my building are Otis. As are the majority of the ones I encountered as a delivery boy. After all, Otis massively dominates the worldwide elevator market. Their repairmen are practically full-time employees at our company. It almost smells like a scam. They also produced our escalators, and they are just as unreliable as the elevators, or more so. Both escalators and elevators are totally FUBAR most of the time, and Otis don't seem to be able to fix them. Or they don't want to, because they enjoy the constant income.
I use Sennheiser headphones with my iPod, because the iPod's earbuds are crap, and I hate in-ear headphones in general. I own an iPod to listen to music, not so people see me listening to an iPod. That's pretty pointless - nearly everybody has one, so it's not a way to impress people. I'd estimate that nearly half of the iPod-using population are using 3rd party headphones. Remember those reports of iPod muggings and theft? Many people like to hide the fact they are using an iPod as a security measure.
I'm not sure why you think people own iPods just to be seen using iPods. could you explain that one?
Are you kidding?
In the building I work in, the elevators fail almost every day,/b>. And it's not just my building. I worked as a delivery boy when I was a teenager, it was my job to go up and down elevators all over the city every day. Part of that job involved getting stuck in an elevator about three times a week on average, often for over half an hour at a time. Medical equipment? I don't work with it, but I'm sure it fails sometimes. But it also costs a hell of a lot to buy, because it is designed to not fail so much. If elevators and traffic lights were designed not to fail as often, we probably couldn't afford to use them.
So, people who choose a different product than the one you like are stupid?
But feature-wise? It didn't seem the best when I looked for one."Features" aren't really the main selling point here. Ease of use and form factor are much more important. Most people just want to listen to music. How is the iPod lacking in that respect? It plays music, and works well. Much of the attraction is in the iTunnes software, not the device itself.
Why didn't more people do like me and buy something similar? Because we don't like to think much, I spent about 3 months deciding on which one to buy.Maybe they did. you seem rather arrogant to suggest that if they choose an iPod, they weren't thinking about their purchase. I know plenty of people who took more than 3 months to think about their decision, and still chose an iPod as the best player. I guess they are just inferior to you.
Ogg vorbis and linux connection capabilities considered a plus, gapless playback a necessity.Those things don't matter that much to most people. Of those items, gapless playback would be the most popular, but of course, the iPod offers gapless playback, so it's not a differentiating feature. Just because you want those things, doesn't mean it matters to others. Especially Linux and Ogg Vorbis. That is an insignificant question to 99% (or more) of the market.
The thing about paylists is almost opposite to how most people work. Not very many people want to create playlists on the go - that's when they are listening to music. but they enjoy making playlists on their computer, and iTunes features like "Smart Playlists." But most of all they enjoy that they just plug the thing in, and iTunes does the rest.
Perhaps they are thinking about their needs more than you give them credit for?
Still doesn't make any sense. You take more pictures merely because of the size of the media? Shouldn't you be taking the amount of pictures you want to take, regardless of media? This implies that you are either taking too many photos now, or you weren't taking enough photos back then.
How did you know they broke any laws? if you look at the actual story, it seems that the RIAA is still trying to determine who to sue. This doesn't give a lot of conifdence in the idea that they know exactly who is guilty.
What this story is actually about, is the University giving out private information that they should not be giving out. The people that the RIAA accuses may be completely innocent. Why should innocent students have their private information given out by the University?
Well, my penis is named "Charles," but people keep calling it "Charlie." Unfortunately, there's not much I can do about it.