I think they are interpreting the figures wrong. There may have been 400,000 sales, but that does not necessarily mean that there are 400,000 new users. It could have been just one really big Windows user who switched.
By definition, if this "wasteful product" finds a market, it is not wasteful to the society that produces it.
"By definition"? That doesn't make any sense. Just because someone buys something, doesn't mean it is not wasteful, and not environmentally damaging. How is it not wasteful to be wasting energy and natural resources on this, which has little necessity, when we are running out of energy and resources to make things that can improve our society greatly, or cure diseases?
It might make me happy to buy food and throw it in the garbage, but I'm still being wasteful.
The light light still gets through the clouds. Have you noticed that on overcast days, you can still see stuff? That's because light is reaching the earth through the clouds. You must have a pretty crappy solar panel if it doesn't work on overcast days. And it only has to power a wireless router! That's no big deal at all.
Also, there is this wonderful technology that stores energy generated by solar cells. They are called batteries, so, you could even use the system at night.
I can't help but wonder how well this would work if it rained during your whole weekend camping trip? Since that would seem like the time you'd want to use it.;)
Huh? Solar panels are waterproof and powered by light. They aren't powered by heat or dryness. Repeat after me: photovoltaic.
Yeah, like Africa. Sure, much less problems with STDs and teen pregnancy.
WTF? Many parts of Africa are very conservative and religious, and have many superstitions and taboos about sex. I'd say Africa is the LAST place I would think of that is "open" about sex in the way we know it. France, Sweden, and Australia would be better examples.
The constant argument that anti-sex bible thumping fundamentalists are censoring boobies is not the total story.
There are legitimate reasons why you might not want your kids to be exposed to this.
Why? I can't think of a single valid reason why children should not see breasts. They are a natural part of the body, and they are used for feeding infants. Any healthily-raised child has been breastfed and exposed to breasts. They aren't necessarily sexual. Treating them as something to be covered, and a taboo, creates more perversion and sexual problems than just treating them like the fatty mammary glands that they are.
It is irresponsible to misinform children by teaching them this fear of bodies.
All you Apple idiots who run around with your little rainbow apple stickers on the back of your cars, you're just not cool any more. You're the status quo.
Right, because someone's "coolness" or status is dependent on them reflexively rebelling against anything popular. Jesus fucking christ. If most people want to be healthy, then I guess that means you aren't cool unless you shoot heroin into your eyeball while eating at McDonalds and strapping a mobile phone to your crotch.
Apple wants us to think getting 10,000 songs for free is worth untold millions of dollars
Where did Apple say that?
but the marginal cost to apple, or the record companies is near $0.00.
No, it certainly is not. Apple still has to pay the record companies for the songs. The record companies are profiting, Apple is paying.
And you may like to win a house, but what obligates Apple to give one away. How does it not being a house reduce the value of the prize they are giving away? Sheesh, people enter competitions just to get free candy bars or t-shirts with advertising on them.
Therefore, the post that you're replying to becomes correct if you take out "are mp3 files which is" and "(16bit, 44.1)".
So, the post is correct if you remove the totally wrong stuff. The original post implied that AAC and MP3 audio was NOT 44.1 KHz, and NOT 16 bit. This shows an utter misunderstanding of how compression works. So it shows the poster isn't very informed, and probably doesn't understand how much compression affects audio quality (usually not much).
The problem is that (in an information theory sense) what you download is much sparser than what you get on the CD.
So then, why the fuck did you write that 14.11 Kilohertz sample rate, was actually 1411 Kbps? That's totally wrong and misinformed. Compressed files are "sparse"? That's bullshit. It's the opposite. Uncompressed CD audio contains tons of blank data that you don't hear. The compression mostly removes data that isn't needed anyway.
is not as high quality as what you get from the CDs, because of the lossy encoding that results in most of the information being discarded according the psychoacoustic model that the AAC codec employs.
Yes, it is slightly lower quality. Most people can't hear it. Most of the discarded "data" is not even needed for good reproduction. Sheesh. Do you insist your DVD video is encoded losslessly, or do you accept the lossy files? And, as I said before, AAC supports higher sample rates than CD. So, at a high enough bitrate and sample rate, and AAC could probably perform better than a CD.
Not if you have a DVD player [theinquirer.net] capable of playing DivX files. I have the DVP-642 myself - has played every DivX file I've tried except the Qpel ones. Great bang for the buck.
That's not a standard feature. Am I supposed to ask all my friends to buy DivX players so I can take DVDs over to their place? Why the hell should I buy a special DVD player to play a non-standard format, when I can easily use MPEG-2 with my existing tools? (which are better than the DivX ones)
question of bandwidth. I have a divx rip of a 4.5gb dvd that's 1gb and looks just as good to my eyes.
So what? I can use the Compressor VBR MPEG-2 CODEC to compress a 4.5GB DVD to 1GB, and it looks fine. (well, good enough for most people, as good as most DivX I've seen.) Difference is that it is a standard format, and I can burn it to DVD without any hassles or re-conversion.
Besides, I'm not talking about 4.5GB DVDs. I'm talking about TV shows captured on HDTV. By compressing directly to MPEG-2, you get much the same thing as DivX, plus a DVD without hassles.
Dear Dean,
I am writing from Dell corporation to offer you an exciting business proposal. If you give us lots of money, we'll give you some servers. If you give us even more money, we'll allow you to fill those servers with music from Napster, which serves no educational purpose whatsoever!
How can you go wrong with a deal like this? You give us money, we give you worthless crap. The real beauty of this plan is that not only do you get worthless crap, you can use it to displace some of that pesky "educational material" and research resources that gets in the way of consuming our products. If all goes well, even the professors will see decreased productivity.
Decreased productivity among professors, means fewer students will be exposed to that "critical thinking" nonsense which destroys good consumers.
I look forward to your reply,
Dell Marketing
Most people don't realize that itunes downloads are mp3 files which is nowhere near the quality of a CD (16bit, 44.1).
No. iTunes downloads are AAC (Advanced Audio CODEC) and have the exact same bitrate and bit-depth as a CD (16bit, 44.1). Actually it supports bitrates higher than 44,1.
I've been screaming about this for years.. let me download a movie, in divx or xvid, without the damned drm for $5 and I'll be the first in line.
DivX may look OK, but it sucks in many other ways. It is difficult to get professional-level encoding and decoding software that supports it. Worse, they are often bundled with frickin' WMA Audio tracks. Again, many good tools don't like WMA.
The worst part is that it's basically only useful on a computer. This annoys me about Bittorrent. I have to convert all of the DivX files to MPEG-2 before burning to a DVD to watch on TV or share with others. This means I have to recompress an already lossy stream. Seeing as DVDs are so widespread, why not just distribute MPEG on Bittorrent, so we can just burn a DVD and watch it?
Even crazier - many of the DivX files on BT are actually sourced from DVD. Meaning that they were already professionally compressed in MPEG-2, and ready for burning. Why re-encode in DivX with amateur tools, when you can just extract the original MPEG-2 file and remove the Macrovision and CSS?
A long time. At current levels, MS would need to settle a case like that once every 28 days before they start dipping into unprofitability
Shareholders typically don't wait until a company is actually unprofitable before dumping their holdings. All you need is a downturn in revenue, and they will start screaming.
Heck, you don't even need a revenue downturn. Many companies are downgraded and dumped, simply for not growing profits, even if their profits are remaining stable.
First off, unless you're using some acrylic or high-urethane clear-coat or stain, that "wood" shouldn't have such a plastic gloss, nor should it look perfecly reflecting.
Well, perhaps he used an acrylic or high-urethane clear-coat? Surely that's a lot more plausible than it being Photoshopped.
That stuff looks just like the crap installed in "wood-grained" Cadillacs, when it's a thin wood veneer coated with plastic, not actual burnished and polished wood.
So, you think it looks crap. How does that indicate that it is Photoshopped. Why don't you tell me what makes it look Photoshopped rather than how crappy you think the carpentry is?
Furthermore, the lighting used for the photography can create lots of reflection and glare. Use the right light, and you can make just about anything with a slight gloss reflect. Do you have any actual details about why you think the shadows don't match?
Slashdot Mirror
I think they are interpreting the figures wrong. There may have been 400,000 sales, but that does not necessarily mean that there are 400,000 new users. It could have been just one really big Windows user who switched.
Geee, I'm really glad that Microsoft made a GUI version of the Mac operating system, because it got so frustrating using those command-line only Macs.
140 degrees is the temperature the beverage warms to, isn't it? Wouldn't the actual reaction be hotter than that?
"By definition"? That doesn't make any sense. Just because someone buys something, doesn't mean it is not wasteful, and not environmentally damaging. How is it not wasteful to be wasting energy and natural resources on this, which has little necessity, when we are running out of energy and resources to make things that can improve our society greatly, or cure diseases?
It might make me happy to buy food and throw it in the garbage, but I'm still being wasteful.
The light light still gets through the clouds. Have you noticed that on overcast days, you can still see stuff? That's because light is reaching the earth through the clouds. You must have a pretty crappy solar panel if it doesn't work on overcast days. And it only has to power a wireless router! That's no big deal at all.
Also, there is this wonderful technology that stores energy generated by solar cells. They are called batteries, so, you could even use the system at night.
Huh? Solar panels are waterproof and powered by light. They aren't powered by heat or dryness. Repeat after me: photovoltaic.
WTF? Many parts of Africa are very conservative and religious, and have many superstitions and taboos about sex. I'd say Africa is the LAST place I would think of that is "open" about sex in the way we know it. France, Sweden, and Australia would be better examples.
Why? I can't think of a single valid reason why children should not see breasts. They are a natural part of the body, and they are used for feeding infants. Any healthily-raised child has been breastfed and exposed to breasts. They aren't necessarily sexual. Treating them as something to be covered, and a taboo, creates more perversion and sexual problems than just treating them like the fatty mammary glands that they are.
It is irresponsible to misinform children by teaching them this fear of bodies.
Right, because someone's "coolness" or status is dependent on them reflexively rebelling against anything popular. Jesus fucking christ. If most people want to be healthy, then I guess that means you aren't cool unless you shoot heroin into your eyeball while eating at McDonalds and strapping a mobile phone to your crotch.
More popular? No.
Annoying form-factor preferred by those who like to show off their phone by flipping it open and closed? Yes.
Where did Apple say that?
but the marginal cost to apple, or the record companies is near $0.00.
No, it certainly is not. Apple still has to pay the record companies for the songs. The record companies are profiting, Apple is paying.
And you may like to win a house, but what obligates Apple to give one away. How does it not being a house reduce the value of the prize they are giving away? Sheesh, people enter competitions just to get free candy bars or t-shirts with advertising on them.
So, the post is correct if you remove the totally wrong stuff. The original post implied that AAC and MP3 audio was NOT 44.1 KHz, and NOT 16 bit. This shows an utter misunderstanding of how compression works. So it shows the poster isn't very informed, and probably doesn't understand how much compression affects audio quality (usually not much).
So then, why the fuck did you write that 14.11 Kilohertz sample rate, was actually 1411 Kbps? That's totally wrong and misinformed. Compressed files are "sparse"? That's bullshit. It's the opposite. Uncompressed CD audio contains tons of blank data that you don't hear. The compression mostly removes data that isn't needed anyway.
is not as high quality as what you get from the CDs, because of the lossy encoding that results in most of the information being discarded according the psychoacoustic model that the AAC codec employs.
Yes, it is slightly lower quality. Most people can't hear it. Most of the discarded "data" is not even needed for good reproduction. Sheesh. Do you insist your DVD video is encoded losslessly, or do you accept the lossy files? And, as I said before, AAC supports higher sample rates than CD. So, at a high enough bitrate and sample rate, and AAC could probably perform better than a CD.
That's not a standard feature. Am I supposed to ask all my friends to buy DivX players so I can take DVDs over to their place? Why the hell should I buy a special DVD player to play a non-standard format, when I can easily use MPEG-2 with my existing tools? (which are better than the DivX ones)
So what? I can use the Compressor VBR MPEG-2 CODEC to compress a 4.5GB DVD to 1GB, and it looks fine. (well, good enough for most people, as good as most DivX I've seen.) Difference is that it is a standard format, and I can burn it to DVD without any hassles or re-conversion.
Besides, I'm not talking about 4.5GB DVDs. I'm talking about TV shows captured on HDTV. By compressing directly to MPEG-2, you get much the same thing as DivX, plus a DVD without hassles.
It's 14.11 Kilohertz, not kilobits-per-second. Apple's AACs use the exact same sample rate. Sheesh. Do some research.
And the downside is??
Dear Dean, I am writing from Dell corporation to offer you an exciting business proposal. If you give us lots of money, we'll give you some servers. If you give us even more money, we'll allow you to fill those servers with music from Napster, which serves no educational purpose whatsoever! How can you go wrong with a deal like this? You give us money, we give you worthless crap. The real beauty of this plan is that not only do you get worthless crap, you can use it to displace some of that pesky "educational material" and research resources that gets in the way of consuming our products. If all goes well, even the professors will see decreased productivity. Decreased productivity among professors, means fewer students will be exposed to that "critical thinking" nonsense which destroys good consumers. I look forward to your reply, Dell Marketing
No. iTunes downloads are AAC (Advanced Audio CODEC) and have the exact same bitrate and bit-depth as a CD (16bit, 44.1). Actually it supports bitrates higher than 44,1.
Do your research.
DivX may look OK, but it sucks in many other ways. It is difficult to get professional-level encoding and decoding software that supports it. Worse, they are often bundled with frickin' WMA Audio tracks. Again, many good tools don't like WMA.
The worst part is that it's basically only useful on a computer. This annoys me about Bittorrent. I have to convert all of the DivX files to MPEG-2 before burning to a DVD to watch on TV or share with others. This means I have to recompress an already lossy stream. Seeing as DVDs are so widespread, why not just distribute MPEG on Bittorrent, so we can just burn a DVD and watch it?
Even crazier - many of the DivX files on BT are actually sourced from DVD. Meaning that they were already professionally compressed in MPEG-2, and ready for burning. Why re-encode in DivX with amateur tools, when you can just extract the original MPEG-2 file and remove the Macrovision and CSS?
Shareholders typically don't wait until a company is actually unprofitable before dumping their holdings. All you need is a downturn in revenue, and they will start screaming.
Heck, you don't even need a revenue downturn. Many companies are downgraded and dumped, simply for not growing profits, even if their profits are remaining stable.
Why? I have plenty of girlfriends and lovers.
To try to understand women better?
Don't seem to have many problems doing that. I'm rarely around males, and the women think I'm as good as a lesbian.
To fulfill your fantasy of Yuna kissing Tidus more early in the game?
Eh?
Well DUH. I mean really, do you think I'm witty enough to write my own material?
Well, perhaps he used an acrylic or high-urethane clear-coat? Surely that's a lot more plausible than it being Photoshopped.
That stuff looks just like the crap installed in "wood-grained" Cadillacs, when it's a thin wood veneer coated with plastic, not actual burnished and polished wood.
So, you think it looks crap. How does that indicate that it is Photoshopped. Why don't you tell me what makes it look Photoshopped rather than how crappy you think the carpentry is?
Furthermore, the lighting used for the photography can create lots of reflection and glare. Use the right light, and you can make just about anything with a slight gloss reflect. Do you have any actual details about why you think the shadows don't match?
Player: I came here for a good argument.
AI: No you didn't, you came here for an argument.
Player: Well, an argument's not the same as contradiction.
AI: It can be.
Player: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a definite proposition.
AI: No it isn't.
Player: Yes it is. It isn't just contradiction.
AI: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
Player: But it isn't just saying "No it isn't".
AI: Yes it is.
Player: No it isn't, an argument is an intellectual process... contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.
AI: No it isn't.