I understand the sentiment, but can you then tell me why Avid workstations run $100k?
Because Avid are rip-off merchants who were the first with their back against the wall when the revolution came. Why do you think so many production companies use Final Cut Pro these days?
You may as well ask "why is Quark XPress so expensive?" Same story. They are too backwards to compete with Adobe's better, but lower priced offerings.
For example. using multimedia within a disfunctional IT environment can be *very* tricky and it often becomes our problem when it is really an IT issue, but we still have to allocate a lot of time and resources to resolve these issues if we want happy customers. We also have to factor in the costs of production: explaining microphone issues, proper production practices, and so on.
It still sounds ridiculous. Even in a dysfunctional IT environment, how hard is it to use the multitude of cheap recording software, and podcast upload applications on something like a Mac mini? Answer: it's not hard at all. If somebody wants to "broadcast," they should at least spend minimal effort on the very simple training required. Otherwise, it's hardly worth it. I don't mind not hearing the broadcasts of people who don't have the ability or motivation to spend a single day doing a little research online.
In a way, this is even worse. You seem to be encouraging "dysfunctional" environments, rather than motivating people to ask why their system is dysfunctional and trying to change it. The situation where IT staff or specialist vendors do all the work, because they have made it difficult for users is damn stupid, and we should be seeing less of this, not more.
Make things more elegant and intelligent, not "dumbed down." Power and ease of use are not opposites. User friendliness, and users educating themselves are not opposites either.
Yeah, they're analog, but still a lot higher quality than a DVD. It's hard to equate directly to pixel resolution, but a well-shot film must have many millions of "pixel equivalents" - tons of detail, basically. A 720x480 DVD has a mere 345,600 pixels, plus is compressed with MPEG-2, which often introduces artifacts. Yet you don't hear slashdotters saying "how could anyone watch a compressed movie?" the way you hear them saying "how can anyone listen to compressed audio"?
Incorrect. If the CODEC (not format) you are recompressing with is lossy, you will lose quality compared to the original file. If the CODEC is not lossy, you will get the same quality as the original file.
By "original" of course, we are talking about the compressed file - such as the MPEG-2 on a DVD, or the AAC-encoded song. Because, if that is your "original" the quality has already been lost in encoding. Your DVD is not the same as the 35mm film that it was made from. But you do not have access to that original. Likewise, you don't have access to the studio master audio files.
So, a lossy-compressed master file compressed to a lossless format results in a file of the same perceptible quality as the file it was copied from.
Another thing - isn't it interesting how people complain about lossy music files from download services, but are just fine with the lossy, low-resolution video that comes on a DVD? I mean, how can you stand to watch that, rather than a 35mm print from the original?
That's nice. I don't use lossless compression audio formats, because they aren't supported by any of my mp3 players, and even if they were, they'd take up too much space.
So, why not store them on your hard drive in a lossless format, and have your player software convert them to a smaller form at when you sync your player? When listenoing portably, it's usually very difficult to hear the dikfference, because of the typical noisy environment. Even in a quiet environment, it's difficult to tell the difference between an original 128kbps file that has been recompressed at, say 256kbps. Even at 128kbps it's usually fine for general listening. Nothing at all like an analog copy.
We call this logical fallacy a "straw man". With a DVD you have the option to keep full quality. Most of us don't do it because you need to use dual-layer media and it's expensive. This is a bullshit argument.
That's exactly the argument you used above for not using lossless. You DO have the option of legally retaining full copies from the iTunes store. You just choose not to. It is not legally possible to do this with a DVD. It is possible to do it with gray-market software, as I previously mentioned. But that is also possible with iTunes tracks and gray-m,arket software.
So, if we are talking about possibilities then iTunes purchases.actually gives you more choices than DVD.
It's hilarious that you lecture me on logic, and then immediately contradict your own logic.
And when Apple updates FairPlay again, which cannot be done with CSS, then once again there will be no tool that does this for a time.
Then maybe it will be broken. You don't know what will happen in the future. I'm talking about what the reality is now. Apple can't force you to update your files. So, if you hear about an update that breaks those tools - don't buy any more tracks, or crack the ones you already have before you update. Exactly as you would with DVD. If somebody starts shipping DVDs with additional copy protection, don't buy them. It doesn't affect your existing DVD purchases.
Thus fairplay is serious DRM, and CSS is a joke of DRM. It's still DRM but again, not worth discussing outside of examinations of the concept of DRM.
So, it's not worth discussing, just because you think so? It doesn't help your argument, so you choose to ignore it.
Also, you imply by your argument that DRM can work, and it won't inevitably be broken. I take it that you argue against those who make such arguments, and never use it as a reason to oppose DRM?
Sorry I didn't make this clear, I keep forgetting there's a million accounts on slashdot today and it's not news for nerds any more, it's noobs with nerve.
Wow, that's arrogant. Someone is a "noob" because they question hypocrisy in an argument? Sorry buddy, I'm anything but a noob. I've been around since the BBS and usenet days.
I don't like DRM myself. Buit what I can't stand more is hypocrisy and lack of logical consistency.
Would you like to get a film for $15 and resell it used for $8 when you are done, or pay $13 and have it die with your hard drive?
Talk about a strawman false dichotomy. Have you never heard of backups? Do you only use software that comes in physical form? Do you print out all your email? Watch out man, you'll lose it when your hard drive dies!!!
How about an equally (in)valid argument: Buy downloaded films/software, or have them die when the physical media gets damaged!
Oh sure, you can burn the song to a CD, then re-rip it, losing quality in the process - this does not circumvent the DRM.
If I re-ripped it in a lossless format, how would I lose quality? It would sound exactly like the original file.
Again, this is something that doesn't seem to bother people when it comes to DVDs. Even though you can rip an exact copy with deCSS, a great number of users then go and recompress the DVD in order to create a smaller file.
Once again, a double-standard when it comes to iTunes vs. DVDs. You also have the option of losslessly removing the DRM from iTunes purchases, but that would be "illegal" and be done with gray-market software, exactly as it is for DVDs. At least you get some authorized option for converting your files with iTunes. And it doesn't have to involve loss of quality.
How does that make it not DRM? Fairplay is also easy to break. So, I guess that means Apple doesn't use DRM? Hell, Apple even allows you to convert the files to a non-DRM format with their own software. The studios who sell DVDs don't give permission to do that, you have to break the (stupid) law to do that, but iTunes allows you to do it legally.
It's rather pathetic how people will rant about DRM, and then claim that DVDs are not DRMed because the DRM is easy to break. It doesn't matter how easy it is to break. Even more sad/hilarious, the same people will often say "DRM can never work" in their arguments, but then point to broken DRM as a justification for their using DRMed products. Hang on - didn't you just argue that all DRM is broken? So, if it's OK to use broken DRM, then it must be OK to use any DRM, as it is by definition broken, right?
On your previous comment, I would use Applescript, as I use MacOS. I'm sure there are alternatives for other OSes.
they just plain don't want to do it that way and wouldn't have to were it not for Job's obsession with dumbing down an interface to the absolute lowest common denominator.
That's ridiculous. Just because iTunes is easy to use, doesn't mean it is "dumbed down." It contains many very powerful features for advanced users. In fact, there are very few alternatives which offer the same breadth of features. And you can always script it to make it behave differently, but this is rarely necessary.
The only reason this is an issue is, for whatever reason, the iPod doesn't support organizing your music in directories.
Do you mean iTunes, or the iPod? I thought we were talking about iTunes. Which does allow you to organize your collection by folders. As for the iPod, you can simulate directories by using playlists - which appear in the same way as a directory does on a desktop machine. So, you could create a script that creates playlists of your directories, to browse them the same way on the iPod.
It is entirely possible to use iTunes without using ANY tags, and to keep your directory structure.
That was from my original post. I have no interest in "smart playlists". I know what I want to hear and how I want to hear it. What part of that do you not understand?
But that conflicts with your desire for more control over how artist information is handled. And just because you don't like using certain features, doesn't mean they are stupid. Most people don't listen to music on shuffle all the time, or manage their music in directories. So tell me, what makes Smart Playlists "algorithmically stupid"? Why is it stupid to be able to create your own rules about what gets played, bsed on hundreds of available attribute combinations?
...takes days depending on the size of the collection.
That seems like a massive exagerration. If you are ripping CDs, all the basic tags are already filled in by the CDDB. So, it's just a matter of adding any additional tags you want to use. How do you do this any quicker manually? After all, you would have to enter the same "remixed by" information in the file name, or create directories with that information. My time is valuable too, which is why I don't bother with directories and use meta-data and automated/batch tagging instead.
And furthermore, what are you going to do with your mashups that have more than one primary artist but for whatever reason you want it classified with a particular artist so you leave it in that folder though you want the filename and id3 tag to represent both artist's names. So when you play your music by artist, you won't hear your mashups and remixes with the artists you normally associate them with. That's just a clusterfuck.
You simply add the original artist to "Composer" or "notes," or whatever other field takes your fancy, and the remixer to "Artist" (or the other way around, depending on preference). Then you create Smart Playlists to look for strings in both the Artist and the Composer or Notes. You make rules on how this is handled. Heck, you could even add both the artist name and remixer name to the Artist tag, and have it look at those. You can even add text to the notes, like "remixed by" or "written by" to help refine the system, and add information.
How is this easier when manually managed by directories? Do you make alias folders with the songs represented in two places? Seriously, that's one of the big disadvantages of manual file-system management, when something falls under multiple categories. Tags and "smart" rules make it easier. Perhaps you can explain what your simple manual solution to this is. That's a serious question, because I can't imagine an easy way to do that manually, without having a clusterfuck of music folders. I'm sure it can be done, but it doesn't sound particularly painless.
I don't need Jobs and cos. iTMS crapware algorithmically mis-predicting what I want to listen to.
You don't seem to know what Smart Playlists are. YOU decide what you want to listen to via rules that you create. Jobs or iTunes does not decide for you.
I don't know about you people but I find it to be much faster and simpler to just dump all of my Snoop Dogg into a folder and play out of that than to have to go file by file editing id3 tags.
Why not do both at once? Create a folder action that tags all files dropped into that folder with the name of the folder. Then at least you get to browse by artist on your portable player, and have song information display a bit better than raw filenames.
No, it's much more likely that the nearest Christian will chastise you for using the word "Xmas" instead of "Christmas" - after all, that's "Taking the Christ out of Christmas." I doubt that most atheists give a shit about the name.
most of the libraries i've been to don't loan the kind of music that the 'average american listener' wants.
Well, you aren't the orginal poster, yet you seem to assume that he is from America. What do you base that on?
Other than that, what you're saying is that, yes, libraries do loan music.
but you don't so much find the latest popular releases there.
There are plenty at the University libraries I frequent.
as far as thirty-second previews,
So, go listen to the whole thing at a record store.
what if (god forbid in this day and age) you actually think an artist can put out a whole album of good music, and that an album might even be greater than the sum of its parts?
Then I buy the whole album. Pretty obvious, really. But if I happen to like an individual song, but not the rest of the album, I have that option with downloaded music, too.
if that's the kind of music you listen to, most of the albums you're downloading probably aren't released on RIAA labels anyway, so maybe it's less of an issue.
The seems like a knee-jerk stereotype. Many artists on mainstream labels release whole albums of goodness. The RIAA labels don't just cover top-40 pop, they publish music across the whole spectrum. I'm not defending the RIAA, but get a grip on reality. Most artists want to be on a major label, whether the artist is brilliant or mediocre.
Saying "far higher violent crime rates" is meaningless. What is the nature and severity of those crimes? How often are they reported in America vs. the US? I suspect that a lot more crime goes unreported in the US, because it is often futile to do so. So, perhaps the difference ius that Britons are more likely to report minor violent crimes than the US?
Imagine a country with almost no police force and enforcement. On paper, that would look great, there would be hardly any "reported crimes" - but there would be crime everywhere. In contrast, imagine a country with an efficient police force, where every minor infract6ion is reported. That would look like there was a really high crime rate, though in reality, most of the crimes would be pretty harmless.
These are extreme examples, but hopefully you can see where I'm coming from. Statistics based on reported crime don't give the full picture. For a long time, rapes were rarely reported by women, because they were often shamed and humiliated by society for being raped. I see many similar issues today with things like school bullying and victimization, where kids will put up with violent crime, because it's too humiliating to report, oir their attackers are too well socially connected to take on.
Who wants to walk out of a record store with a card with which to buy music later, rather than a physical copy of an album?
Plenty of people. For example, those who want to take ther time to decide what music to buy, and not be pressured into deciding on the spot based on what is physically in-stock at the store. Also, people buying for others - such as parents for the teens in question, or as birthday gifts. Would you rather have your parents decide what music to buy you, or would you raather choose yourself?
Of course, there are also those who are budgeting their music, and maybedon't want to buy a whole album. If I buy a music card or gift certificate, I can go and buy those songs I'm interested in. This leaves money aside for buying future items, I don't have to pay for a whole album if I don't want all the songs. So, I can manage my budget by buying $X per month in music cards. If I don't find anything I like that month, I still have the money in the "account" for when stuff does come out, but I am still sticking to my $X per month budget.
DRM isn't just evil, it's stupid. Nerds don't usually put up with stupid.
So, how do you explain things like Star Trek: Enterprise or Microsoft Windows? Both very popular among nerds. Heck, have you seen fan fiction written by nerds? Sheesh.
No, Coca Cola is sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup, not real sugar. But more to the point, who puts that much sugar in their tea? That's not even counting the artificial colorings, and other chemicals added to sodas - especially the "diet" ones with their augar substitutes. Many people don't even add sugar to their tea. Those that do, tend to add just a little. Coke is more like sugar with added water than "sweetened water."
Slashdot Mirror
So, the goal is to keep users uneducated?
Because Avid are rip-off merchants who were the first with their back against the wall when the revolution came. Why do you think so many production companies use Final Cut Pro these days?
You may as well ask "why is Quark XPress so expensive?" Same story. They are too backwards to compete with Adobe's better, but lower priced offerings.
For example. using multimedia within a disfunctional IT environment can be *very* tricky and it often becomes our problem when it is really an IT issue, but we still have to allocate a lot of time and resources to resolve these issues if we want happy customers. We also have to factor in the costs of production: explaining microphone issues, proper production practices, and so on.
It still sounds ridiculous. Even in a dysfunctional IT environment, how hard is it to use the multitude of cheap recording software, and podcast upload applications on something like a Mac mini? Answer: it's not hard at all. If somebody wants to "broadcast," they should at least spend minimal effort on the very simple training required. Otherwise, it's hardly worth it. I don't mind not hearing the broadcasts of people who don't have the ability or motivation to spend a single day doing a little research online.
In a way, this is even worse. You seem to be encouraging "dysfunctional" environments, rather than motivating people to ask why their system is dysfunctional and trying to change it. The situation where IT staff or specialist vendors do all the work, because they have made it difficult for users is damn stupid, and we should be seeing less of this, not more.
Make things more elegant and intelligent, not "dumbed down." Power and ease of use are not opposites. User friendliness, and users educating themselves are not opposites either.
Yeah, they're analog, but still a lot higher quality than a DVD. It's hard to equate directly to pixel resolution, but a well-shot film must have many millions of "pixel equivalents" - tons of detail, basically. A 720x480 DVD has a mere 345,600 pixels, plus is compressed with MPEG-2, which often introduces artifacts. Yet you don't hear slashdotters saying "how could anyone watch a compressed movie?" the way you hear them saying "how can anyone listen to compressed audio"?
What if Johnny, in distributing the video online, says that the video is free to use for any purpose?
Incorrect. If the CODEC (not format) you are recompressing with is lossy, you will lose quality compared to the original file. If the CODEC is not lossy, you will get the same quality as the original file.
By "original" of course, we are talking about the compressed file - such as the MPEG-2 on a DVD, or the AAC-encoded song. Because, if that is your "original" the quality has already been lost in encoding. Your DVD is not the same as the 35mm film that it was made from. But you do not have access to that original. Likewise, you don't have access to the studio master audio files.
So, a lossy-compressed master file compressed to a lossless format results in a file of the same perceptible quality as the file it was copied from.
Another thing - isn't it interesting how people complain about lossy music files from download services, but are just fine with the lossy, low-resolution video that comes on a DVD? I mean, how can you stand to watch that, rather than a 35mm print from the original?
So, why not store them on your hard drive in a lossless format, and have your player software convert them to a smaller form at when you sync your player? When listenoing portably, it's usually very difficult to hear the dikfference, because of the typical noisy environment. Even in a quiet environment, it's difficult to tell the difference between an original 128kbps file that has been recompressed at, say 256kbps. Even at 128kbps it's usually fine for general listening. Nothing at all like an analog copy.
We call this logical fallacy a "straw man". With a DVD you have the option to keep full quality. Most of us don't do it because you need to use dual-layer media and it's expensive. This is a bullshit argument.
That's exactly the argument you used above for not using lossless. You DO have the option of legally retaining full copies from the iTunes store. You just choose not to. It is not legally possible to do this with a DVD. It is possible to do it with gray-market software, as I previously mentioned. But that is also possible with iTunes tracks and gray-m,arket software.
So, if we are talking about possibilities then iTunes purchases.actually gives you more choices than DVD.
It's hilarious that you lecture me on logic, and then immediately contradict your own logic.
And when Apple updates FairPlay again, which cannot be done with CSS, then once again there will be no tool that does this for a time.
Then maybe it will be broken. You don't know what will happen in the future. I'm talking about what the reality is now. Apple can't force you to update your files. So, if you hear about an update that breaks those tools - don't buy any more tracks, or crack the ones you already have before you update. Exactly as you would with DVD. If somebody starts shipping DVDs with additional copy protection, don't buy them. It doesn't affect your existing DVD purchases.
So, it's not worth discussing, just because you think so? It doesn't help your argument, so you choose to ignore it.
Also, you imply by your argument that DRM can work, and it won't inevitably be broken. I take it that you argue against those who make such arguments, and never use it as a reason to oppose DRM?
Sorry I didn't make this clear, I keep forgetting there's a million accounts on slashdot today and it's not news for nerds any more, it's noobs with nerve.
Wow, that's arrogant. Someone is a "noob" because they question hypocrisy in an argument? Sorry buddy, I'm anything but a noob. I've been around since the BBS and usenet days.
I don't like DRM myself. Buit what I can't stand more is hypocrisy and lack of logical consistency.
Talk about a strawman false dichotomy. Have you never heard of backups? Do you only use software that comes in physical form? Do you print out all your email? Watch out man, you'll lose it when your hard drive dies!!!
How about an equally (in)valid argument: Buy downloaded films/software, or have them die when the physical media gets damaged!
If I re-ripped it in a lossless format, how would I lose quality? It would sound exactly like the original file.
Again, this is something that doesn't seem to bother people when it comes to DVDs. Even though you can rip an exact copy with deCSS, a great number of users then go and recompress the DVD in order to create a smaller file.
Once again, a double-standard when it comes to iTunes vs. DVDs. You also have the option of losslessly removing the DRM from iTunes purchases, but that would be "illegal" and be done with gray-market software, exactly as it is for DVDs. At least you get some authorized option for converting your files with iTunes. And it doesn't have to involve loss of quality.
How does that make it not DRM? Fairplay is also easy to break. So, I guess that means Apple doesn't use DRM? Hell, Apple even allows you to convert the files to a non-DRM format with their own software. The studios who sell DVDs don't give permission to do that, you have to break the (stupid) law to do that, but iTunes allows you to do it legally.
It's rather pathetic how people will rant about DRM, and then claim that DVDs are not DRMed because the DRM is easy to break. It doesn't matter how easy it is to break. Even more sad/hilarious, the same people will often say "DRM can never work" in their arguments, but then point to broken DRM as a justification for their using DRMed products. Hang on - didn't you just argue that all DRM is broken? So, if it's OK to use broken DRM, then it must be OK to use any DRM, as it is by definition broken, right?
they just plain don't want to do it that way and wouldn't have to were it not for Job's obsession with dumbing down an interface to the absolute lowest common denominator.
That's ridiculous. Just because iTunes is easy to use, doesn't mean it is "dumbed down." It contains many very powerful features for advanced users. In fact, there are very few alternatives which offer the same breadth of features. And you can always script it to make it behave differently, but this is rarely necessary.
The only reason this is an issue is, for whatever reason, the iPod doesn't support organizing your music in directories.
Do you mean iTunes, or the iPod? I thought we were talking about iTunes. Which does allow you to organize your collection by folders. As for the iPod, you can simulate directories by using playlists - which appear in the same way as a directory does on a desktop machine. So, you could create a script that creates playlists of your directories, to browse them the same way on the iPod.
It is entirely possible to use iTunes without using ANY tags, and to keep your directory structure.
But that conflicts with your desire for more control over how artist information is handled. And just because you don't like using certain features, doesn't mean they are stupid. Most people don't listen to music on shuffle all the time, or manage their music in directories. So tell me, what makes Smart Playlists "algorithmically stupid"? Why is it stupid to be able to create your own rules about what gets played, bsed on hundreds of available attribute combinations?
That seems like a massive exagerration. If you are ripping CDs, all the basic tags are already filled in by the CDDB. So, it's just a matter of adding any additional tags you want to use. How do you do this any quicker manually? After all, you would have to enter the same "remixed by" information in the file name, or create directories with that information. My time is valuable too, which is why I don't bother with directories and use meta-data and automated/batch tagging instead.
You simply add the original artist to "Composer" or "notes," or whatever other field takes your fancy, and the remixer to "Artist" (or the other way around, depending on preference). Then you create Smart Playlists to look for strings in both the Artist and the Composer or Notes. You make rules on how this is handled. Heck, you could even add both the artist name and remixer name to the Artist tag, and have it look at those. You can even add text to the notes, like "remixed by" or "written by" to help refine the system, and add information.
How is this easier when manually managed by directories? Do you make alias folders with the songs represented in two places? Seriously, that's one of the big disadvantages of manual file-system management, when something falls under multiple categories. Tags and "smart" rules make it easier. Perhaps you can explain what your simple manual solution to this is. That's a serious question, because I can't imagine an easy way to do that manually, without having a clusterfuck of music folders. I'm sure it can be done, but it doesn't sound particularly painless.
You don't seem to know what Smart Playlists are. YOU decide what you want to listen to via rules that you create. Jobs or iTunes does not decide for you.
Why not do both at once? Create a folder action that tags all files dropped into that folder with the name of the folder. Then at least you get to browse by artist on your portable player, and have song information display a bit better than raw filenames.
No, it's much more likely that the nearest Christian will chastise you for using the word "Xmas" instead of "Christmas" - after all, that's "Taking the Christ out of Christmas." I doubt that most atheists give a shit about the name.
How much for William Shatner?
Well, you aren't the orginal poster, yet you seem to assume that he is from America. What do you base that on?
Other than that, what you're saying is that, yes, libraries do loan music.
but you don't so much find the latest popular releases there.
There are plenty at the University libraries I frequent.
as far as thirty-second previews,
So, go listen to the whole thing at a record store.
what if (god forbid in this day and age) you actually think an artist can put out a whole album of good music, and that an album might even be greater than the sum of its parts?
Then I buy the whole album. Pretty obvious, really. But if I happen to like an individual song, but not the rest of the album, I have that option with downloaded music, too.
if that's the kind of music you listen to, most of the albums you're downloading probably aren't released on RIAA labels anyway, so maybe it's less of an issue.
The seems like a knee-jerk stereotype. Many artists on mainstream labels release whole albums of goodness. The RIAA labels don't just cover top-40 pop, they publish music across the whole spectrum. I'm not defending the RIAA, but get a grip on reality. Most artists want to be on a major label, whether the artist is brilliant or mediocre.
You forgot one thing: Max Headroom!
"We made Amiga, Commodore fucked it up."
Imagine a country with almost no police force and enforcement. On paper, that would look great, there would be hardly any "reported crimes" - but there would be crime everywhere. In contrast, imagine a country with an efficient police force, where every minor infract6ion is reported. That would look like there was a really high crime rate, though in reality, most of the crimes would be pretty harmless.
These are extreme examples, but hopefully you can see where I'm coming from. Statistics based on reported crime don't give the full picture. For a long time, rapes were rarely reported by women, because they were often shamed and humiliated by society for being raped. I see many similar issues today with things like school bullying and victimization, where kids will put up with violent crime, because it's too humiliating to report, oir their attackers are too well socially connected to take on.
Plenty of people. For example, those who want to take ther time to decide what music to buy, and not be pressured into deciding on the spot based on what is physically in-stock at the store. Also, people buying for others - such as parents for the teens in question, or as birthday gifts. Would you rather have your parents decide what music to buy you, or would you raather choose yourself?
Of course, there are also those who are budgeting their music, and maybedon't want to buy a whole album. If I buy a music card or gift certificate, I can go and buy those songs I'm interested in. This leaves money aside for buying future items, I don't have to pay for a whole album if I don't want all the songs. So, I can manage my budget by buying $X per month in music cards. If I don't find anything I like that month, I still have the money in the "account" for when stuff does come out, but I am still sticking to my $X per month budget.
So, how do you explain things like Star Trek: Enterprise or Microsoft Windows? Both very popular among nerds. Heck, have you seen fan fiction written by nerds? Sheesh.
No, Coca Cola is sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup, not real sugar. But more to the point, who puts that much sugar in their tea? That's not even counting the artificial colorings, and other chemicals added to sodas - especially the "diet" ones with their augar substitutes. Many people don't even add sugar to their tea. Those that do, tend to add just a little. Coke is more like sugar with added water than "sweetened water."