So? It still means you aren't locked in. It's far superior to those other stores that don't let you burn a CD at all. Wouldn't you rather be able to burn a lossy copy to CD, than have no option whatsoever?
If you don't like the quality, don't use it. But don't claim people are locked in, when they aren't.
And remember that competition from the zune is part of the reason the ipod prices have dropped.
Got any evidence for that? Apple's prices have been consistently dropping every generation. I didn't see an Apple price drop on the day the Zune was launched.
It doesn't even seem possible - the last Apple price drop was well before the Zune was released - and how can an unreleased product be providing "competition"?
Ah. The way you wrote it the first time, it looked like "the iPod already does it this way" referred to the entire preceeding paragraph, not just the final sentence of that paragraph. If your post was structured in a different way, it would have been clearer that you were just referring to the scaling, not to the CSS decryption as well.
Also would have been clearer if slashdot had not hidden your first post, yet shown the subsequent reply, but I digress.
How is it 'extremely condescending and arrogant'? The author used the term 'these people' to refer to a group of people.
In a very condescending way. Combined with a bunch of other stereotypes and misrepresentations. The whole idea that there are no poor people who could make use of a laptop is extremely ignorant. He assumes that anybody receiving these will not have electricity, and lives in some sort of primitive mud hut.
Again, what would you have preferred they say instead? What term would not be arrogant and condescending to you?
Well, I'd prefer that he actually think about the composition of the world's poor population, and who is likely to be getting these laptops, and not just assume that they are ignorant hut-dwellers. that's why "these people" is condescending. He thinks "poor people" and immediately has a bunch of stereotypical xenophobic images fill his head. He uses "these people" to refer to this internal image, because he has not fully thought it through, and is scared to explicitly refer to his assumptions.
I mean, you might have a case if this was someone actually speaking instead of writing; you can pick those sorts of implications from body language and tone. But this is a writer who used two innocuous words to reference a group of people. I'm just not seeing the arrogance.
Not true. You can infer plenty from wiritng. Dvorak is supposed to be a professional writer. he shouldn't be so careless. He's also referring to a group of people that only exists inside his head - which is, again, why some people feel it has racist undercurrents. Personally, I would say it is borne out of ignorance and xenophobia, not explicit racism. But racism and xenophobia often go hand-in-hand with racism, so it's easy to see how people get that impression.
Neocons and ultra-Libertarians that I've heard speak of their views are generally not racist. This is, they just don't like anything they view as a 'hand-out', whether that be food for starving Africans, or welfare, or sports scholarships, or any number of things. I'm not saying this view is 'right', I'm saying it's not 'racist'.
I never said it was racist. In my comment, I was referring to the "lazy" part. Many people of that political persuasion seem to think that anybody who is not wealthy is lazy or stupid. It doesn't matter whether they are black, white or purple - they have a general disdain for poverty and people who try to fix it, without making a profit from it.
But one author using two words to describe a group of people without even any racist context is not. I just don't see it.
I have to disagree that it lacks xenophobic context. Viewed in the context of the article, and the position of privilege it is written from, the "undercurrent" stands out pretty blatantly to my eyes.
Again, you are arguing with the wrong person about racism. I have said several times that I don't think he is being racist - just xenophobic and ignorant. And I can see how someone might see that as racism, even if I don't. I just don't think it's a big deal that someone might speculate about perceived racist undertones, because of the condescending tone.
It's advocating giving food and electricity to starving black people
Yeah, well that's an interesting way to put it. You pretty much unveil the whole racial undercurrent right there. This laptop programme is not just for black people. But that's probably the exact image that Dvorak has in his mind. Instead of realizing that this is for Brazilians, Amercians, Asians and lots of other people besides starving Africans. You really hit the nail on the head there. Nowhere does the OLPC mission statement say it is for black people.
Also, there are plenty of racist people who adocate feeding starving black people with good intentions. It's not a defense against charges of racism. For example, many missionaries really wanted to help indigenous people in various countries, and even devoted their lives to it, but they did so in thoroughly racist ways.
The next Ipod better support Wi-Fi and have greater file type support, like FLAC. Otherwise Zune 2.0 will leapfrog it.
Only if the majority of consumers care about FLAC and wireless features. There's no evidence yet that this is the case. Perhaps those things are important to the target market, perhaps not. There's certainly no rush of consumers from the iPod to players with FLAC support. How many people even use FLAC at all, or know what it is?
Where they could work to help their home country, and do things like draw attention to the corruption that is keeping people down. I'm not sure why you think it is such a bad thing that some people will emigrate to the West. Better that they do nothing, than to try something that might fail?
Computers can be extremely useful in providing general education. They aren't just for teaching programming. Most computer users in the world are not programmers.
In a world that uses computers for so many functions, educating people without some use or knowledge of them is mis-education. As so many activities are easier or more efficient with a computer, not teaching them the benefits of technology is actually a way of holding them back.
Well said. I think the OLPC programme has actually increased mindshare of these issues. I don't understand why people think it will cause less attention for other causes. After all, we are capable of thinking about more than one problem at a time. And this might get attention from people who might not ordinarily think about world poverty issues.
I heard a guy complaining about the Product (RED) campaign the other day. He was pissed off, because it was all about big corporations, shopping and consumerism. Well, wouldn't you rather those big corporations at least give something to fight AIDS? People are going to consume products and go shopping whether he likes it or not. I don't think anybody ever said "No wait, I won't buy that iPod I really wanted, because people have AIDS in Africa." But plenty of people are saying "I want an iPod - hey I can get that red one, and give some money to fight AIDS."
Again, this targets a different audience. Those people buying (RED) products probably wouldn't have been about to give money otherwise.
I should also add that the grandparent post only notes "an undercurrent" of racism, and goes on to elaborate about the condescending attitude. Hardly the "shouting racism from the highest peak" that you claim.
But assuming that the article is racist on the basis of the term 'these people'? How is that racist?
It's not racist per se. But it is extremely condescending and arrogant. It most likely is rooted in some form of xenophobia or ignorance.
I don't think I've ever heard anyone say, "Well, if those goddamned Africans would just get off their lazy butts and make some food, there wouldn't even be a problem!"
You obviously haven't heard many neoconservatives or Economic ultra-Libertarians talk about their world-view.
It sounds to me like you're some hyper-PC, ultrasensative bozo who leaps at any opportunity to shout "Racism!" from the highest peak.
Actually, you sound rather ultrasensitive about this. Just because someone questions a choice of words, they are a "PC bozo"? As I said before, I don't think the intent was directly racist, but there's nothing wrong with speculating about why he chose to use that phrase. It is patronizing, at the very least.
And, in the end, they still can't eat the laptop, and it still won't cure HIV, and it still won't make clean water, and it still isn't a hospital or a school or electricity
It might teach people how to make cleaner water. Or, put in a Sony battery, and it could boil water or cook a meal!
Do you really think that Microsoft can keep getting away with that strategy? Don't you think consumers might be losing their patience with Microsoft?
That might have worked with computer software, which has historically been pretty crappy and full of bugs, with few choices. People expect computers to suck. Or, at least they did when Microsoft made their monopoly. We expect our computers to be a lot easier and less buggy today than we did in 1994.
Will Microsoft's strategy work in a more mature, consumer-based market? Imagine if Microsoft wanted to make cars. Would car buyers tolerate the first couple of generations being shitty and buggy? Or would Microsoft's name in cars become dirt? After all, you can get Toyotas and Hondas and BMWs that work perfectly. Why would car buyers trust a third-generation Microsoft car, after the first ones turned out to be bombs?
Similar with the iPod. It has never been "shitty," or had more than minor bugs. It was perfection compared to most of the other shit on the market. People put up with Windows, because they were basically stuck with it, or forced to use it in the workplace. Nobody is stuck with a Zune or forced to use one.
That's a bad comparison. Microsoft's core business was already Operating Systems. Windows already had a massive installed base. The nature of portable computers and PDAs is that compatibility is a good thing. Even though Microsoft's OS is pretty shitty, at least people could use their Windows stuff on their portable.
This is a totally different market - the music consumer. As far as "compatibility" goes, Microsoft has no advantage, because the iPod and iTunes is what you need to be compatible with. Basically, the PDA market was an easy "embrace, extend, extinguish" a classic Microsoft move. That won't work here.
The second-generation zune will come in a new color, Golden Shower, which is sure to be much more popular with fans of watersports. New catchphrase: Do I Hear Rain?
To make the copy, the company has to use the material, and it is doing so in a commercial manner. How do you make a copy, without making use of the material?
No, I mean, there is no circumvention going on; the VOB files on the iPod are CSS encoded; the program, like Apple's DVD player, would read the encrypted VOB, apply the CSS key, decrypt it, and on the fly convert the MPEG2 stream into a 320x240 MPEG2 stream that the iPod can play back on it's screen. That is what already happens when you play a 640x480 MPEG2 video on the iPod.
You say that iPods already do this. Where is the evidence?
WTF? What evidence do you have that the original poster didn't say "Company develops an iPod compatible program that plays DVDs"?
Plenty. The post I replied to said this:
No, I mean, there is no circumvention going on; the VOB files on the iPod are CSS encoded; the program, like Apple's DVD player, would read the encrypted VOB, apply the CSS key, decrypt it, and on the fly convert the MPEG2 stream into a 320x240 MPEG2 stream that the iPod can play back on it's screen.
That is what already happens when you play a 640x480 MPEG2 video on the iPod.
No shit, Sherlock -- that's exactly what I'm complaining about!
It certainly didn't sound like it. I mean, there was no real sarcasm evident in your post. No reference to legality versus rationality. It sounded like you were seriously arguing that a sane argument would be legally sound.
I agree that the situation is pretty ridiculous. What I don't agree with is the approach that most slashdotters appear to take - trying to argue that all this copying is perfectly OK under existing laws, because they want it to be. What people should be doing is trying to change the stupid laws. If people think what they are doing is legal, but it is not, it will come back to bite them on the ass. Even worse, it just perpetuates the bad laws.
Law is what it is, it's not what you want it to be. The media companies can make the laws what they want them to be, because they spend a lot of effort and money making it that way. Meanwhile, people sit back believing they are fine because of mythical interpretations of the law.
It really is quite strange. People on the one hand complain about draconian copyright laws, but then turn around and claim that they have all these rights - which implies that the laws aren't draconian. So, which is it? Are we being screwed by copyright law, or does it guarantee us all these rights?
This company isn't selling copies! It's selling the original, and coincidentally also transferring the backups that it made, exactly as the law requires.
Are you sure about that, from a legal perspective? It certainly sounds like they are selling copies. The argument was that they were exercising their fair-use rights, because they were the temporary owner. So, if the owner sells the items, including the copy, with a generous mark-up - what is the mark-up for? Could it be they are selling the copy?
If anything, the "copy made while temporary owner" loophole seems to make this more legally problematic, not less. After all, if the business was the owner when the copy was made, they can't have been performing a service on behalf of the end-consumer, but are instead distributing copies for profit.
Why would they do that? News Corp is a huge company that has great stakes in copyright laws. They wouldn't want an anarchic system. They want to sue people over copies of The Simpsons as much as the music companies want to sue over copies of Britney.
Furthermore, being a US-based (formerly Australian) company, moving the servers to Russia would probably not limit their legal liability.
What about Apple? Looking at Apple's hardware (especially after the Intel switch) one sees that you could get the same hardware for a lower price when ordering from Dell.
Actually, in many cases the equivalent hardware from Apple is cheaper than buying it from Dell these days.
The fact that Apple's software is better doesn't help all that much when you need to make a large upfront investment in hardware to get some potential benefit from the software.
But it makes a big difference in making judgements about Apple vs. Microsoft. I'm not sure how you're argument is relevant to the topic of discussion. Whether Apple is more or less expensive makes no difference to whether Apple or Microsoft is the more "evil" company, or about who makes the best software.
Slashdot Mirror
So? It still means you aren't locked in. It's far superior to those other stores that don't let you burn a CD at all. Wouldn't you rather be able to burn a lossy copy to CD, than have no option whatsoever?
If you don't like the quality, don't use it. But don't claim people are locked in, when they aren't.
Got any evidence for that? Apple's prices have been consistently dropping every generation. I didn't see an Apple price drop on the day the Zune was launched.
It doesn't even seem possible - the last Apple price drop was well before the Zune was released - and how can an unreleased product be providing "competition"?
Like Phil Collins, for example?
Also would have been clearer if slashdot had not hidden your first post, yet shown the subsequent reply, but I digress.
In a very condescending way. Combined with a bunch of other stereotypes and misrepresentations. The whole idea that there are no poor people who could make use of a laptop is extremely ignorant. He assumes that anybody receiving these will not have electricity, and lives in some sort of primitive mud hut.
Again, what would you have preferred they say instead? What term would not be arrogant and condescending to you?
Well, I'd prefer that he actually think about the composition of the world's poor population, and who is likely to be getting these laptops, and not just assume that they are ignorant hut-dwellers. that's why "these people" is condescending. He thinks "poor people" and immediately has a bunch of stereotypical xenophobic images fill his head. He uses "these people" to refer to this internal image, because he has not fully thought it through, and is scared to explicitly refer to his assumptions.
I mean, you might have a case if this was someone actually speaking instead of writing; you can pick those sorts of implications from body language and tone. But this is a writer who used two innocuous words to reference a group of people. I'm just not seeing the arrogance.
Not true. You can infer plenty from wiritng. Dvorak is supposed to be a professional writer. he shouldn't be so careless. He's also referring to a group of people that only exists inside his head - which is, again, why some people feel it has racist undercurrents. Personally, I would say it is borne out of ignorance and xenophobia, not explicit racism. But racism and xenophobia often go hand-in-hand with racism, so it's easy to see how people get that impression.
Neocons and ultra-Libertarians that I've heard speak of their views are generally not racist. This is, they just don't like anything they view as a 'hand-out', whether that be food for starving Africans, or welfare, or sports scholarships, or any number of things. I'm not saying this view is 'right', I'm saying it's not 'racist'.
I never said it was racist. In my comment, I was referring to the "lazy" part. Many people of that political persuasion seem to think that anybody who is not wealthy is lazy or stupid. It doesn't matter whether they are black, white or purple - they have a general disdain for poverty and people who try to fix it, without making a profit from it.
But one author using two words to describe a group of people without even any racist context is not. I just don't see it.
I have to disagree that it lacks xenophobic context. Viewed in the context of the article, and the position of privilege it is written from, the "undercurrent" stands out pretty blatantly to my eyes.
Again, you are arguing with the wrong person about racism. I have said several times that I don't think he is being racist - just xenophobic and ignorant. And I can see how someone might see that as racism, even if I don't. I just don't think it's a big deal that someone might speculate about perceived racist undertones, because of the condescending tone.
It's advocating giving food and electricity to starving black people
Yeah, well that's an interesting way to put it. You pretty much unveil the whole racial undercurrent right there. This laptop programme is not just for black people. But that's probably the exact image that Dvorak has in his mind. Instead of realizing that this is for Brazilians, Amercians, Asians and lots of other people besides starving Africans. You really hit the nail on the head there. Nowhere does the OLPC mission statement say it is for black people.
Also, there are plenty of racist people who adocate feeding starving black people with good intentions. It's not a defense against charges of racism. For example, many missionaries really wanted to help indigenous people in various countries, and even devoted their lives to it, but they did so in thoroughly racist ways.
Only if the majority of consumers care about FLAC and wireless features. There's no evidence yet that this is the case. Perhaps those things are important to the target market, perhaps not. There's certainly no rush of consumers from the iPod to players with FLAC support. How many people even use FLAC at all, or know what it is?
Ballmer: "Hey, at least this model isn't a turd!"
Sad is defnitely the appropriate adjective to apply to anything John C. Dvorak writes.
Where they could work to help their home country, and do things like draw attention to the corruption that is keeping people down. I'm not sure why you think it is such a bad thing that some people will emigrate to the West. Better that they do nothing, than to try something that might fail?
In a world that uses computers for so many functions, educating people without some use or knowledge of them is mis-education. As so many activities are easier or more efficient with a computer, not teaching them the benefits of technology is actually a way of holding them back.
I heard a guy complaining about the Product (RED) campaign the other day. He was pissed off, because it was all about big corporations, shopping and consumerism. Well, wouldn't you rather those big corporations at least give something to fight AIDS? People are going to consume products and go shopping whether he likes it or not. I don't think anybody ever said "No wait, I won't buy that iPod I really wanted, because people have AIDS in Africa." But plenty of people are saying "I want an iPod - hey I can get that red one, and give some money to fight AIDS."
Again, this targets a different audience. Those people buying (RED) products probably wouldn't have been about to give money otherwise.
I should also add that the grandparent post only notes "an undercurrent" of racism, and goes on to elaborate about the condescending attitude. Hardly the "shouting racism from the highest peak" that you claim.
It's not racist per se. But it is extremely condescending and arrogant. It most likely is rooted in some form of xenophobia or ignorance.
I don't think I've ever heard anyone say, "Well, if those goddamned Africans would just get off their lazy butts and make some food, there wouldn't even be a problem!"
You obviously haven't heard many neoconservatives or Economic ultra-Libertarians talk about their world-view.
It sounds to me like you're some hyper-PC, ultrasensative bozo who leaps at any opportunity to shout "Racism!" from the highest peak.
Actually, you sound rather ultrasensitive about this. Just because someone questions a choice of words, they are a "PC bozo"? As I said before, I don't think the intent was directly racist, but there's nothing wrong with speculating about why he chose to use that phrase. It is patronizing, at the very least.
It might teach people how to make cleaner water. Or, put in a Sony battery, and it could boil water or cook a meal!
That might have worked with computer software, which has historically been pretty crappy and full of bugs, with few choices. People expect computers to suck. Or, at least they did when Microsoft made their monopoly. We expect our computers to be a lot easier and less buggy today than we did in 1994.
Will Microsoft's strategy work in a more mature, consumer-based market? Imagine if Microsoft wanted to make cars. Would car buyers tolerate the first couple of generations being shitty and buggy? Or would Microsoft's name in cars become dirt? After all, you can get Toyotas and Hondas and BMWs that work perfectly. Why would car buyers trust a third-generation Microsoft car, after the first ones turned out to be bombs?
Similar with the iPod. It has never been "shitty," or had more than minor bugs. It was perfection compared to most of the other shit on the market. People put up with Windows, because they were basically stuck with it, or forced to use it in the workplace. Nobody is stuck with a Zune or forced to use one.
Because it doesn't lock you in.
This is a totally different market - the music consumer. As far as "compatibility" goes, Microsoft has no advantage, because the iPod and iTunes is what you need to be compatible with. Basically, the PDA market was an easy "embrace, extend, extinguish" a classic Microsoft move. That won't work here.
The second-generation zune will come in a new color, Golden Shower, which is sure to be much more popular with fans of watersports. New catchphrase: Do I Hear Rain?
To make the copy, the company has to use the material, and it is doing so in a commercial manner. How do you make a copy, without making use of the material?
You say that iPods already do this. Where is the evidence?
Plenty. The post I replied to said this:
It certainly didn't sound like it. I mean, there was no real sarcasm evident in your post. No reference to legality versus rationality. It sounded like you were seriously arguing that a sane argument would be legally sound.
I agree that the situation is pretty ridiculous. What I don't agree with is the approach that most slashdotters appear to take - trying to argue that all this copying is perfectly OK under existing laws, because they want it to be. What people should be doing is trying to change the stupid laws. If people think what they are doing is legal, but it is not, it will come back to bite them on the ass. Even worse, it just perpetuates the bad laws.
Law is what it is, it's not what you want it to be. The media companies can make the laws what they want them to be, because they spend a lot of effort and money making it that way. Meanwhile, people sit back believing they are fine because of mythical interpretations of the law.
It really is quite strange. People on the one hand complain about draconian copyright laws, but then turn around and claim that they have all these rights - which implies that the laws aren't draconian. So, which is it? Are we being screwed by copyright law, or does it guarantee us all these rights?
Are you sure about that, from a legal perspective? It certainly sounds like they are selling copies. The argument was that they were exercising their fair-use rights, because they were the temporary owner. So, if the owner sells the items, including the copy, with a generous mark-up - what is the mark-up for? Could it be they are selling the copy?
If anything, the "copy made while temporary owner" loophole seems to make this more legally problematic, not less. After all, if the business was the owner when the copy was made, they can't have been performing a service on behalf of the end-consumer, but are instead distributing copies for profit.
Furthermore, being a US-based (formerly Australian) company, moving the servers to Russia would probably not limit their legal liability.
Actually, in many cases the equivalent hardware from Apple is cheaper than buying it from Dell these days.
The fact that Apple's software is better doesn't help all that much when you need to make a large upfront investment in hardware to get some potential benefit from the software.
But it makes a big difference in making judgements about Apple vs. Microsoft. I'm not sure how you're argument is relevant to the topic of discussion. Whether Apple is more or less expensive makes no difference to whether Apple or Microsoft is the more "evil" company, or about who makes the best software.