STFU already! How many times do we have to hear this quote, when it's irrelevant to the story, anyway? Sheesh, anyone would think people who read slashdot are morons... oh, wait.
So this takes WASTE and turns it into USABLE ELECTRICITY!!?!?! If true, this shit could save the planet a lot of pain.
Not on a large scale, I think. This is likely to be a very polluting energy source. Hence it being described as "tactical." Good for emergency use - or for a desperately poor village that doesn't have any electricity to meet basic needs. But not to power your Plasma TV or Playstation.
I wish people would stop with the "criminal" bullshit. We have been around for almost sixty years.
And Scientologists have been lying to people and taking their money for just as long. It might be technically legal, it might not be. I don't really care. The lying is so immoral that it's as good as criminal. After all, there are some things which are illegal which should not be (drug use, consensual sexual acts) while there are other things which are legal, but are worse than "criminal" acts. Lying to influence people, especially when it involves radical lifestyle changes and money, is one of these things.
It might not be technically criminal, but it's despicable and immoral.
If our activities were truly illegal, we would have gone the way of Enron.
Huh? Many criminals and criminal organizations last forever, and get government and police protection. Why is the mafia still around? Why is Dick Cheney not in jail?
Just because you cannot stretch your head to see how someone could believe something you don't, don't immediately label them as criminal.
That's not what I'm doing. Believe whatever you want. But Scientology lies to vulnerable people, takes their money, and often forces them to cut themselves off from their non-Scientologist families.
But, since confusion and lack of knowledge and mystery can be physically painful sometimes ("I just have to know what's behind that door!) he or she will just pick up an easy-sounding answer, like, say, "God hates me," or "those people are nuts, anyway", rather than confront it and find out the real truth.
Or "Scientology can solve my problems."
You do not always know that you have them. Scientology can help you find them and discover the real truth.
And herein lies the real problem. As you have just stated, Scientology takes advantage of confused and vulnerable people, offering them "truth" - but they do not. They are offering a lie. Otherwise, why do they have to hide their recruiting behind "personality tests"?
It's the oldest trick in the book. Religion preys on the weak and vulnerable, offering easy answers, and then trying to control their lives.
That's enough. You have already made up your mind. You have the attitude that this is a cult, and I am brainwashed, and all the Church is in it for is the money.
But you really need to show some evidence that they aren't all about the money. If it isn't about money - why won't they tell you all the teachings free of charge? You can believe all you want. You can accuse me of having a closed mind, but it really seems you are the one who has a closed mind, and thinks just believing something makes it true. Are you open to the idea that you may be being exploited?
Idealism's one motivation. He's a pretty idealistic guy (especially for a CEO), although he has become much more pragmatic and cynical over the years. It probably would also be more profitable, but that doesn't rule out idealism. It's an idea that just makes sense
It's not like Apple is hemorrhaging $$$ because of DRM.
Are you sure about that? I'd say it's almost certain that Apple would make a lot more money and sell more tracks without DRM. After all, DRM doesn't work. Jobs really understands this. He knows that DRM sucks, and doesn't have any illusions about it preventing piracy.
So, what does DRM mean for Apple and iTunes? Basically it's just another added overhead cost - it takes developers to develop, it would be fairly complex to administer, and causes all kinds of headaches. I would think that DRM could only be a burden for Apple.
No, but I read and watch almost nothing he says either. I bet I could find something if I tried.
So, if you read and watch almost nothing he says - then how do you have any idea whether he is likely to be lying or not? You obviously just don't understand his personality, and his style as a CEO. Which makes your pronouncements on his statements totally uninformed and irrelevant.
You said in your previous post "When [Gates] says he opposes DRM, he probably means he opposes DRM that Microsoft doesn't control." Again, how's that different from Jobs wanting to control FairPlay?
Because Gates and Jobs are very different people. Gates just wants to dominate the world. His daddy was a lawyer, and he made is living with shady business deals and flogging products to business. He's all about money and power. Gates is a very insincere person - and he doesn't really care about the experience of computing, as long as he is selling the most and dominating the market.
Jobs is different, he cares more about making cool products and thumbing his nose at the button-down lawyer types like Bill Gates. The whole premise of the Mac was to make computing easy and enjoyable for anybody to do. The premise of Windows was to dominate business computing.
Jobs believes in his company's products. When he talks about his products, you can see how much he cares about them, and that he is intimiately familiar with them. He likes to personally inspect every project at Apple to make sure it meets his standards.
Gates doesn't really give a shit about his products. When he goes on TV to sell his products, you can see that he is just spouting a bunch of buzzwords that he thinks people wants to hear. You can tell that he probably hasn't used half of the features he talks about. This is evident in the way he talks about them - he doesn't talk about them like a real user or enthusiast. He talks like somebody reading a list of features written by the marketing department. Let's not also forget that Bill Gates was videotaped lying in a court testimony. So, he doesn't just lie to his customers, he lies to the United States.
Jobs has been against DRM from day 1. He put a lot of effort into trying to get the labels to back off on the DRM. In fact, before the iTunes store negotiations, he was targeted by the labels because of his company's advertising of DRM-free CD ripping - and basically called evil by the RIAA. He has always put forth a very articulate and well-thought-out position against DRM, that really shows he knows what he is talking about.
Gates, on the other hand, is just an opportunist. Like with the buzzword-repeating and lying-under-oath, he will say and do whatever gets him the best publicity. He will avoid controversy at all costs. Again, you can tell he doesn't really mean it. Unlike jobs, he has acted directly opposite to his words too many times to count.
How? By not locking iTunes customers into iPods?
By making DRM suck for everybody. Did you not read where I explained that? At the moment, iPod users are spared the rubbish and bugs of PlaysforSure. Licensing to a bunch of different hardware platforms would likely screw that up for everybody.
In any case, iTunes users are NOT locked into the iPod. You don't need an iPod to play iTunes purchases, and you can convert the tracks to MP3 to play on other devices, or burn a CD. Meanwhile, every other DRM scheme DOES lock you into WIndows - Apple's is the only cross-platform DRM.
And the MPAA would have demanded some degree of DRM for next-gen DVDs to play on Windows.
Yes, and what's your point? You do realize that Microsoft was a major player in one of the High-Def standards, right?
Hmm, Norway (which ruled FairPlay illegal in that country),
Incorrect. Fairplay was never declared illegal in Norway.
sure, there's a chance, but the likelihood is pretty slim assuming he's not licensing it to vendors such as "joe schmoe's media players".
But if Apple didn't license to Joe Schmoe, they'd probably get prosecuted for anti-trust violations. Also, saying that the likelihood is "slim" is being pretty unrealistic. Apple runs a VERY tight ship on secrecy, they are able to keep secrets better than almost any other computer/software company, and secrets still get leaked. Now, imagine those secrets in the hands of one of these other companies, who basically have no secrecy and little security compared to Apple. Keys would be leaked all ovcer the place within minutes. Do you really think those companies are suddenly going to spend a lot of money on secrecy? Are they suddenly going to reform their company culture overnight to maintain this secrecy? Employees at Apple know that if you leak company secrets, you will be hunted down like a dog. And they mean it. The same cannot be said for most of the other companies in the industry.
Comvenient cop-out? The record labels are to blame. Why is it wrong to blame the people whose fault it is? In case you have a short memory, Jobs is about the only person yielding any significant power within the industry to seriously fight DRM. He spent months trying to get the studios to back away from draconian DRM when he was in negotiation with the record labels for the iTunes Music Store Launch. He really did not want it, and negotiated the best compromise he could at the time.
Don't you even remember those days? If it was all about lock-in to the music store, why did Apple start with the "Rip, Mix, Burn" iTunes ads? Don't you remember how Apple was a major target of the RIAA and labels for that campaign? Jobs was demonised for encouraging music piracy - and it was reported in many places as if Apple was the new Napster for encouraging people to "rip" their CDs. Under the pressure, they added "please don't steal music" stickers to the iPod. Other companies would probably simply have removed the ability to rip CDS from their product - or put DRM on the ripped files like Microsoft is wont to do.
You whiners should remove your heads from your asses. Without Jobs, we wouldn't have any high-profile people with the power to influence DRM and the labels in a positive way. We'd still be in the dark ages, with the labels denying it was even possible to make money selling music online, and your only choices would be CDs or bittorrent. Now Apple is in a position to fight for the repeal of DRM on music altogether. But you just want to undermine it. Fucking idiots! You whine all the time about how DRM is evil - then someone comes along with the capacity to get rid of some of it, and you just diss him? You don;t even know what's good for you.
Seriously, which tactic is going to work - whining all the time and running lame "defective by design" campaigns with the FSF - or having an ally who is successful and influential, with contacts within the actual record labels? Someone who actually makes the labels money and has revolutionized their business? Yeah, I'm sure they are going to listen to some FSF protestor who says he won't buy music online anyway, over someone who makes them millions of dollars.
Either Jobs is totally clueless or he wants to keep the lock in since apple is a hardware company
Or the much more likely reality: you have no idea the position that Jobs is in, or the complexities of licensing from multiple labels, and licensing DRM to multiple companies, with a multitude of different contractual relationships in play. How many multinational technology companies have you been CEO of?
Seriously, do you think that Jobs can just wave a magic wand and have everybody using Fairplay for their players, and:
a) Have it all work technically, without a nightmare of support issues b) Not violate any agreements or contracts c) Not violate the laws of any country or anti-trust laws d) stop the DRM from being cracked daily, or having the IP leaked
In addition to all of this, what if Apple does manage to get the studios to drop DRM for the iTunes store? Apple would be stuck supporting a DRM scheme that they never wanted, for the benefit of third parties who want to keep using it. If Apple's goal actually is to get rid of DRM eventually, licensing Fairplay makes this much more difficult to do.
why should it be easier to be a pirate than to be a honest man?
'Tis just the way 'tis matey. The seas are an alluring wench. Plunderin' makes many a scurvy dog's heart race. You better watch yeself though, Jim-lad. It may seem easy at first, but all that easy booty weighs heavily on the heart. Eventually ye'll be drawn to the darker side, and before ye known it ye be headed for Davy Jones' locker like a dinghy fitted with a galley.
Being an honest man was never easy, 'tis easier to be an honorable swine.
The problem here is that Steve is lying -- again (*sigh*).
Again? What are the previous examples of Jobs lying that you are referring to?
If Apple was really having their arm twisted by the record companies into using DRM, even though Steve doesn't like it, Apple would either use a DRM that operates with other music players, or would license their DRM to others.
Why? Licensing DRM is a totally different issue to no DRM. I think it would make the DRM suck more, which would ultimately kill the appeal of the product. Look how much PlaysForSure sucks. If Apple had to deal with a bunch of shitty companies making crappy players like PlaysForSure does, Fairplay would probably suck a lot more.
even though they could be *much* friendlier to their customers.
Licensing Fairplay would probably end up having the opposite effect. Rather than being a seamless, almost transparent solution that users hardly notice, it would become a bug-infested pile of junk, that involves tons of technical support. Most likely, it would be compromised more often, so it would need constant updating and firmware revisions. That's not exactly consumer-friendly.
And I should believe Jobs, the guy who's fighting tooth and nail to keep other people from licensing the iTunes/iPod DRM?
Jobs is an arrogant control-freak, and he often exaggerates when talking about the coolness of Apple products or their potential - but he doesn't strike me as a liar. In fact, he is quite earnest in his own way. Do you have any evidence of him lying?
I don't see what refusing to license Fairplay has to do with wanting to be DRM-free. Licensing Fairplay would make the DRM even worse. I believe that Jobs sincerely wants the DRM to intrude as little as possible on the consumer. After all, his entire ethos of computing has always been about m aking things that "just work" and don't intrude on the user.
So, Jobs has to include DRM, as the deals with the RIAA and labels demanded it. But he did fight strongly to make Fairplay much less restrictive than other forms of DRM, like Microsoft's PlaysforSure. I think it's pretty obvious that he never wanted DRM in the first place - but at the time, he was at the limit of his bargaining power, as iTunes was unproven as a success. Now that Apple has more power, he wants to leverage that to remove the DRM, or find an alternative. But that has nothing to do with licensing Fairplay - which brings in a whole slew of other problems and issues.
It's strange that you say he "fought tooth and nail" to keep other people from licensing iTunes. Who was he fighting? Who was in a position to force Apple to license Fairplay? From what I can see, Apple simply said "No, we aren't going to license iTunes. End of story." No fighting involved. After all, it's Apple's property, they have no obligation to license it to anybody. So, why would there be a tooth and nail fight?
Bill Gates has gone on the record opposing DRM, at least as it's present form.
But Gates is a big fat liar and bullshit artist. When he says he opposes DRM, he probably means he opposes DRM that Microsoft doesn't control. He's probably also annoyed that it's easy to break, he would want it to be uncrackable. Don't be fooled by his misleading BS. All Gates cares about is control over the market, not consumer rights.
And to that the fact that MS is *already* hurting from recent pressures of Apple
That's the crux of it. The majority of DRMed online music is being sold with non-MS DRM, in non-Windows Media format.
Read the following books, all available from Amazon:
Scientology: A New Slant on Life.
No, I asked what you believe, not what some books say. Reading the Bible doesn't tell me anything about what a particular Christian believes. Just like reading recruiting material doesn't tell me what you believe.
So to have the "teachings revealed" will cost you about $35 if you buy all of the above, or about $7 if you buy only one.
But we all know those aren't all "the teachings" - they are just the introduction.
Yet, somehow, we are secretive.
No shit. If you aren't secretive, then why does the Church sue over having other teachings revealed? If you are not secretive - then why is it that when I am approached by Scientology recruiters, they claim they are doing a "Personality test" and don't tell me that they are actually trying to convert me to Scientology?
Have you read any books on the subject? You have not.
Yes, I have.
You criticize, but have not even looked at what it is?
I have seen what it is. I have had personal experience with your recruiters and their recruiting centers and techniques.
As for stats on crime, etc., read Scientology's web site. The demographics are there, and in the book "What is Scientology?"
I mean statistics from a credible source. How would Scientology obtain such statistics, anyway?
Don't believe it? Drop by a church and count how many drugged out gang bangers you see.
Not all criminals are "drugged out gang bangers." In fact, the vast majority of criminals do not fit this stereotype. Many criminals are respectable-looking bankers, or religious preachers. Given the way that Scientologists mislead people for profit, I'd say that Scientology itself is bordlerline criminal, and in many cases probably crosses the line into outright criminality.
Traffic cones are placed there officially, and are usually marked as property of the city. These signs had no permits to be there, and they had been abandoned by their owners - with no markings to indicate who it was owned by.
Even if you were standing still, from that distance, you would not see wires, and you wouldn't see a "bulge." In fact, from close-up pictures, the battery stick hardly looks like a "bulge" anyway. Regardless of the reporting issue - couldn't the authorities have simply investigated it and declared it harmless, rather than causing panic and shutting down half a city? What justifies the reaction that happened?
Based on your clearly expert opinion based on all of your experience surrounding IEDs, what specifically should someone see before they say "hey, that don't look right, maybe we should do something".
Well, I think that someone should at least stop and take a closer look, rather than driving by at 30mph and observing it through their windshield. If everybody reported every blurry object they see from their car, then Homeland Security would be constantly called out for bugs that get squashed onto somebody's car.
How is it stealing if someone leaves their shit lying around on the street unattended, and someone picks it up? It's more like somebody cleaning up litter.
If you were driving buy an object as small as those signs at 30mph, you would barely be able to make out what it was. At a typical distance, at that speed, the stick of D-sized batteries would not appear to be "bulging" and wires would not even be visible.
Shit, there's more likelihood that the innocent looking garbage can on the street is a bomb. I guess that people should go around reporting those sinsiter-looking cylindrical objects to the authorities.
The French are more "sore" about the Internet being in English (and software being American) than most people realize.
So, how would encouraging kids to use computers be anti-American? Do these USB sticks somehow make the internet "less English" and software "less American"? Also, I do think software is written in other places than America, contrary to your assertion.
Slashdot Mirror
STFU already! How many times do we have to hear this quote, when it's irrelevant to the story, anyway? Sheesh, anyone would think people who read slashdot are morons... oh, wait.
No, it gives out 1.9x the energy consumed. If it gave 0.9x, that would be costing you energy to run it, not generating it.
Not on a large scale, I think. This is likely to be a very polluting energy source. Hence it being described as "tactical." Good for emergency use - or for a desperately poor village that doesn't have any electricity to meet basic needs. But not to power your Plasma TV or Playstation.
And Scientologists have been lying to people and taking their money for just as long. It might be technically legal, it might not be. I don't really care. The lying is so immoral that it's as good as criminal. After all, there are some things which are illegal which should not be (drug use, consensual sexual acts) while there are other things which are legal, but are worse than "criminal" acts. Lying to influence people, especially when it involves radical lifestyle changes and money, is one of these things.
It might not be technically criminal, but it's despicable and immoral.
If our activities were truly illegal, we would have gone the way of Enron.Huh? Many criminals and criminal organizations last forever, and get government and police protection. Why is the mafia still around? Why is Dick Cheney not in jail?
Just because you cannot stretch your head to see how someone could believe something you don't, don't immediately label them as criminal.That's not what I'm doing. Believe whatever you want. But Scientology lies to vulnerable people, takes their money, and often forces them to cut themselves off from their non-Scientologist families.
But, since confusion and lack of knowledge and mystery can be physically painful sometimes ("I just have to know what's behind that door!) he or she will just pick up an easy-sounding answer, like, say, "God hates me," or "those people are nuts, anyway", rather than confront it and find out the real truth.Or "Scientology can solve my problems."
You do not always know that you have them. Scientology can help you find them and discover the real truth.And herein lies the real problem. As you have just stated, Scientology takes advantage of confused and vulnerable people, offering them "truth" - but they do not. They are offering a lie. Otherwise, why do they have to hide their recruiting behind "personality tests"?
It's the oldest trick in the book. Religion preys on the weak and vulnerable, offering easy answers, and then trying to control their lives.
That's enough. You have already made up your mind. You have the attitude that this is a cult, and I am brainwashed, and all the Church is in it for is the money.But you really need to show some evidence that they aren't all about the money. If it isn't about money - why won't they tell you all the teachings free of charge? You can believe all you want. You can accuse me of having a closed mind, but it really seems you are the one who has a closed mind, and thinks just believing something makes it true. Are you open to the idea that you may be being exploited?
Are you sure about that? I'd say it's almost certain that Apple would make a lot more money and sell more tracks without DRM. After all, DRM doesn't work. Jobs really understands this. He knows that DRM sucks, and doesn't have any illusions about it preventing piracy.
So, what does DRM mean for Apple and iTunes? Basically it's just another added overhead cost - it takes developers to develop, it would be fairly complex to administer, and causes all kinds of headaches. I would think that DRM could only be a burden for Apple.
Can you tell me how Apple benefits from DRM?
No, but I read and watch almost nothing he says either. I bet I could find something if I tried.
So, if you read and watch almost nothing he says - then how do you have any idea whether he is likely to be lying or not? You obviously just don't understand his personality, and his style as a CEO. Which makes your pronouncements on his statements totally uninformed and irrelevant.
You said in your previous post "When [Gates] says he opposes DRM, he probably means he opposes DRM that Microsoft doesn't control." Again, how's that different from Jobs wanting to control FairPlay?
Because Gates and Jobs are very different people. Gates just wants to dominate the world. His daddy was a lawyer, and he made is living with shady business deals and flogging products to business. He's all about money and power. Gates is a very insincere person - and he doesn't really care about the experience of computing, as long as he is selling the most and dominating the market.
Jobs is different, he cares more about making cool products and thumbing his nose at the button-down lawyer types like Bill Gates. The whole premise of the Mac was to make computing easy and enjoyable for anybody to do. The premise of Windows was to dominate business computing.
Jobs believes in his company's products. When he talks about his products, you can see how much he cares about them, and that he is intimiately familiar with them. He likes to personally inspect every project at Apple to make sure it meets his standards.
Gates doesn't really give a shit about his products. When he goes on TV to sell his products, you can see that he is just spouting a bunch of buzzwords that he thinks people wants to hear. You can tell that he probably hasn't used half of the features he talks about. This is evident in the way he talks about them - he doesn't talk about them like a real user or enthusiast. He talks like somebody reading a list of features written by the marketing department. Let's not also forget that Bill Gates was videotaped lying in a court testimony. So, he doesn't just lie to his customers, he lies to the United States.
Jobs has been against DRM from day 1. He put a lot of effort into trying to get the labels to back off on the DRM. In fact, before the iTunes store negotiations, he was targeted by the labels because of his company's advertising of DRM-free CD ripping - and basically called evil by the RIAA. He has always put forth a very articulate and well-thought-out position against DRM, that really shows he knows what he is talking about.
Gates, on the other hand, is just an opportunist. Like with the buzzword-repeating and lying-under-oath, he will say and do whatever gets him the best publicity. He will avoid controversy at all costs. Again, you can tell he doesn't really mean it. Unlike jobs, he has acted directly opposite to his words too many times to count.
How? By not locking iTunes customers into iPods?
By making DRM suck for everybody. Did you not read where I explained that? At the moment, iPod users are spared the rubbish and bugs of PlaysforSure. Licensing to a bunch of different hardware platforms would likely screw that up for everybody.
In any case, iTunes users are NOT locked into the iPod. You don't need an iPod to play iTunes purchases, and you can convert the tracks to MP3 to play on other devices, or burn a CD. Meanwhile, every other DRM scheme DOES lock you into WIndows - Apple's is the only cross-platform DRM.
And the MPAA would have demanded some degree of DRM for next-gen DVDs to play on Windows.
Yes, and what's your point? You do realize that Microsoft was a major player in one of the High-Def standards, right?
Hmm, Norway (which ruled FairPlay illegal in that country),
Incorrect. Fairplay was never declared illegal in Norway.
France (
But if Apple didn't license to Joe Schmoe, they'd probably get prosecuted for anti-trust violations. Also, saying that the likelihood is "slim" is being pretty unrealistic. Apple runs a VERY tight ship on secrecy, they are able to keep secrets better than almost any other computer/software company, and secrets still get leaked. Now, imagine those secrets in the hands of one of these other companies, who basically have no secrecy and little security compared to Apple. Keys would be leaked all ovcer the place within minutes. Do you really think those companies are suddenly going to spend a lot of money on secrecy? Are they suddenly going to reform their company culture overnight to maintain this secrecy? Employees at Apple know that if you leak company secrets, you will be hunted down like a dog. And they mean it. The same cannot be said for most of the other companies in the industry.
Don't you even remember those days? If it was all about lock-in to the music store, why did Apple start with the "Rip, Mix, Burn" iTunes ads? Don't you remember how Apple was a major target of the RIAA and labels for that campaign? Jobs was demonised for encouraging music piracy - and it was reported in many places as if Apple was the new Napster for encouraging people to "rip" their CDs. Under the pressure, they added "please don't steal music" stickers to the iPod. Other companies would probably simply have removed the ability to rip CDS from their product - or put DRM on the ripped files like Microsoft is wont to do.
You whiners should remove your heads from your asses. Without Jobs, we wouldn't have any high-profile people with the power to influence DRM and the labels in a positive way. We'd still be in the dark ages, with the labels denying it was even possible to make money selling music online, and your only choices would be CDs or bittorrent. Now Apple is in a position to fight for the repeal of DRM on music altogether. But you just want to undermine it. Fucking idiots! You whine all the time about how DRM is evil - then someone comes along with the capacity to get rid of some of it, and you just diss him? You don;t even know what's good for you.
Seriously, which tactic is going to work - whining all the time and running lame "defective by design" campaigns with the FSF - or having an ally who is successful and influential, with contacts within the actual record labels? Someone who actually makes the labels money and has revolutionized their business? Yeah, I'm sure they are going to listen to some FSF protestor who says he won't buy music online anyway, over someone who makes them millions of dollars.
Or the much more likely reality: you have no idea the position that Jobs is in, or the complexities of licensing from multiple labels, and licensing DRM to multiple companies, with a multitude of different contractual relationships in play. How many multinational technology companies have you been CEO of?
Seriously, do you think that Jobs can just wave a magic wand and have everybody using Fairplay for their players, and:
a) Have it all work technically, without a nightmare of support issues
b) Not violate any agreements or contracts
c) Not violate the laws of any country or anti-trust laws
d) stop the DRM from being cracked daily, or having the IP leaked
In addition to all of this, what if Apple does manage to get the studios to drop DRM for the iTunes store? Apple would be stuck supporting a DRM scheme that they never wanted, for the benefit of third parties who want to keep using it. If Apple's goal actually is to get rid of DRM eventually, licensing Fairplay makes this much more difficult to do.
'Tis just the way 'tis matey. The seas are an alluring wench. Plunderin' makes many a scurvy dog's heart race. You better watch yeself though, Jim-lad. It may seem easy at first, but all that easy booty weighs heavily on the heart. Eventually ye'll be drawn to the darker side, and before ye known it ye be headed for Davy Jones' locker like a dinghy fitted with a galley.
Being an honest man was never easy, 'tis easier to be an honorable swine.
Again? What are the previous examples of Jobs lying that you are referring to?
If Apple was really having their arm twisted by the record companies into using DRM, even though Steve doesn't like it, Apple would either use a DRM that operates with other music players, or would license their DRM to others.Why? Licensing DRM is a totally different issue to no DRM. I think it would make the DRM suck more, which would ultimately kill the appeal of the product. Look how much PlaysForSure sucks. If Apple had to deal with a bunch of shitty companies making crappy players like PlaysForSure does, Fairplay would probably suck a lot more.
even though they could be *much* friendlier to their customers.Licensing Fairplay would probably end up having the opposite effect. Rather than being a seamless, almost transparent solution that users hardly notice, it would become a bug-infested pile of junk, that involves tons of technical support. Most likely, it would be compromised more often, so it would need constant updating and firmware revisions. That's not exactly consumer-friendly.
Jobs is an arrogant control-freak, and he often exaggerates when talking about the coolness of Apple products or their potential - but he doesn't strike me as a liar. In fact, he is quite earnest in his own way. Do you have any evidence of him lying?
I don't see what refusing to license Fairplay has to do with wanting to be DRM-free. Licensing Fairplay would make the DRM even worse. I believe that Jobs sincerely wants the DRM to intrude as little as possible on the consumer. After all, his entire ethos of computing has always been about m aking things that "just work" and don't intrude on the user.
So, Jobs has to include DRM, as the deals with the RIAA and labels demanded it. But he did fight strongly to make Fairplay much less restrictive than other forms of DRM, like Microsoft's PlaysforSure. I think it's pretty obvious that he never wanted DRM in the first place - but at the time, he was at the limit of his bargaining power, as iTunes was unproven as a success. Now that Apple has more power, he wants to leverage that to remove the DRM, or find an alternative. But that has nothing to do with licensing Fairplay - which brings in a whole slew of other problems and issues.
It's strange that you say he "fought tooth and nail" to keep other people from licensing iTunes. Who was he fighting? Who was in a position to force Apple to license Fairplay? From what I can see, Apple simply said "No, we aren't going to license iTunes. End of story." No fighting involved. After all, it's Apple's property, they have no obligation to license it to anybody. So, why would there be a tooth and nail fight?
But Gates is a big fat liar and bullshit artist. When he says he opposes DRM, he probably means he opposes DRM that Microsoft doesn't control. He's probably also annoyed that it's easy to break, he would want it to be uncrackable. Don't be fooled by his misleading BS. All Gates cares about is control over the market, not consumer rights.
And to that the fact that MS is *already* hurting from recent pressures of AppleThat's the crux of it. The majority of DRMed online music is being sold with non-MS DRM, in non-Windows Media format.
No, I asked what you believe, not what some books say. Reading the Bible doesn't tell me anything about what a particular Christian believes. Just like reading recruiting material doesn't tell me what you believe.
So to have the "teachings revealed" will cost you about $35 if you buy all of the above, or about $7 if you buy only one.But we all know those aren't all "the teachings" - they are just the introduction.
Yet, somehow, we are secretive.No shit. If you aren't secretive, then why does the Church sue over having other teachings revealed? If you are not secretive - then why is it that when I am approached by Scientology recruiters, they claim they are doing a "Personality test" and don't tell me that they are actually trying to convert me to Scientology?
Have you read any books on the subject? You have not.Yes, I have.
You criticize, but have not even looked at what it is?I have seen what it is. I have had personal experience with your recruiters and their recruiting centers and techniques.
As for stats on crime, etc., read Scientology's web site. The demographics are there, and in the book "What is Scientology?"I mean statistics from a credible source. How would Scientology obtain such statistics, anyway?
Don't believe it? Drop by a church and count how many drugged out gang bangers you see.Not all criminals are "drugged out gang bangers." In fact, the vast majority of criminals do not fit this stereotype. Many criminals are respectable-looking bankers, or religious preachers. Given the way that Scientologists mislead people for profit, I'd say that Scientology itself is bordlerline criminal, and in many cases probably crosses the line into outright criminality.
Traffic cones are placed there officially, and are usually marked as property of the city. These signs had no permits to be there, and they had been abandoned by their owners - with no markings to indicate who it was owned by.
Even if you were standing still, from that distance, you would not see wires, and you wouldn't see a "bulge." In fact, from close-up pictures, the battery stick hardly looks like a "bulge" anyway. Regardless of the reporting issue - couldn't the authorities have simply investigated it and declared it harmless, rather than causing panic and shutting down half a city? What justifies the reaction that happened?
Well, I think that someone should at least stop and take a closer look, rather than driving by at 30mph and observing it through their windshield. If everybody reported every blurry object they see from their car, then Homeland Security would be constantly called out for bugs that get squashed onto somebody's car.
Bridge maintenance crew?
How is it stealing if someone leaves their shit lying around on the street unattended, and someone picks it up? It's more like somebody cleaning up litter.
Shit, there's more likelihood that the innocent looking garbage can on the street is a bomb. I guess that people should go around reporting those sinsiter-looking cylindrical objects to the authorities.
No, you're thinking of gaffa tape. Duct tape sucks.
Mmmmm... steakout.
Speak for yourself. Algorithms totally get me hard.
Duh. They run Aqua.
So, how would encouraging kids to use computers be anti-American? Do these USB sticks somehow make the internet "less English" and software "less American"? Also, I do think software is written in other places than America, contrary to your assertion.