Maybe it's the other way around, and the news has become a dupe of slashdot?
Wait. Forget I said that. I don't want to see the New York Times running "First Article!" headlines on the front page. And I definitely don't want to see a Beowulf cluster of Washington Posts in Soviet Russian.
I think that a time-shifting function would be a great feature for people who listen to NPR, talk radio, or the late-night lunatic fringe. Of course, it would also need an AM tuner. (And yes, I've seen the Radio Shark, but it's not portable!)
Firstly, you are not going to get a decent AM tuner in a portable MP3 player. The antenna required is just too large. Even the FM reception in portable radios is usually shitty.
Secondly - why do you need it to be portable? This could cause problems with your recordings, as the reception quality will change as you move it around - or even drop out entirely when you pass under a bridge or enter a building. I only want quality reception with a decent antenna for my radio recordings.
Thirdly, the RadioShark actually is quite portable - as it needs no power brick and can be powered by a laptop.
Fourthly, you will often want to be using your MP3 player for playing MP3 at the same time as one of your radio shows is recording. I doubt the processors and hard drives in the portable players are capable of multi-tasking recording and playback at the same time. This would render your portable player useless while recording.
Note: I use an inductive loop, connected to my external antennae, to get perfect reception with my RadioShark. Especially on AM, the inbuilt antenna is not adequate for my needs. I highly recommend building an inductive loop and external antenna for any RadioShark users, and also for users of other radio receivers - especially portable ones that don't have decent antenna inputs. It will markedly improve the quality of your reception while you walk around the house, or if you live somewhere with a tin roof, or other RF interference or reception problems.
They are not saying an online store is a bad thing, rather they suggest avoiding products that lock you into ONE online store.
So, why don't they just come out and say that up-front, rather than in the ambiguous way it's written? Why don't they provide links to these online stores where you can buy "obscure" stuff?
Why do people think this is directly targetting the ipod?
because it obviously is. What other reason would Microsoft have for writing this article? The iPod is about the only player not compatible with their Windows Media format and DRM.
Hard-disk based player != ipod
It isn't just targeting HD-based players. Notice the bit where it talks about how you have to have a screen? Now, which popular flash-based player does not have a screen?
Bueller? Bueller??
Also notice how such a statement is quite specific, and is nonsensical for a general audience of consumers. Many people don't care about having the screen. In fact, if you use your player for sports or jogging, then looking at a screen could cause distraction, and an accident. Microsoft doesn't mention these issues, and just says "screens are good!" without considering all users.
Notice how the article doesn't mention the importance of having good software, and a good user interface to organize your music before transferring to your portable player? I wonder why that is...
Also, notice the way Microsoft touts FM radio, as an attack on "playlists." now, which player and desktop software is famous for the creation of "Smart Playlists" and the sharing of user playlists online? Hmmmm...
Maybe you can afford to spend $100-$200 on a phone but I really cant. This is basic technology im talking about, you got it, but why isnt it in every phone or at least the basics of it like tranfers pictures and sounds!?
No, I got the phone for free with a very modest calling plan, here in Australia. Seeing as Australians earn less than Americans - you are probably richer. And it's an old phone, not the latest thing.
I'll say it again. I have personally taught more than 10,000 people how to use a mouse.
That's a massive waste of your time and theirs, not something to be proud of. Wouldn't it be better if they never had to "learn" anything in the first place? people don't like learning - they like to get things done with a minimum of fuss.
Why do you want to make things more difficult and complex than they have to be?
The only market for Apple equipment is in the fields where dollar value added to the work created by a personal computer greatly exceeds the higher cost of the computer equipment itself (including software). For everyone else, the Windows/Linux OS solution is good enough. The benefits of an Apple system are not worth the extra cost, either the lower cost of the CPU and peripheral and the cost of using the more expensive Apple application software.
That may be true, if your statements were factually correct in any way. However, they aren't.
Some Apple computers cost slightly more than the equivalent PC. However, much of Apple's current line is much better value than any PC equivalents. See the iBook, Mac mini, and iMac for examples of where you get better value for money on hardware.
Also, the peripherals argument is nonsense. Macs can use most standard PC components and peripherals. they use industry standards like Firewire, USB, and PCI.
Also, a lot of Mac software is far cheaper than Windows equivalents. Most major packages (Photoshop, etc.) cost the same for Mac or Windows. There is a lot of quality shareware and freeware.
Not only that, but you get free software included with every Mac that surpasses a lot of Windows software that costs hundreds of dollars. You get iMovie, Garageband, iDVD and more - FOR FREE! it's hard to even find consumer software this good on Windows, for any price. And all of this software can be expanded with a huge array of third-party plug-ins and helper software.
Most consumer users will have to buy very little or no additional software for their Macs, other than what Apple has provided with the iLife suite.
The phone companies wont let people do what we want with our phones until we stop letting them rape our wallets! $1.50 for a 32x32 pixel background image! Why cant i just send myself a custom made BG for free?
Well, why don't you just get a decent phone? My Nokia 6600 allows me to transfer any digital image to use as a background. I can also convert music to WAV format (and usually convert it to Mono, 22.050 sample rate to save space) - and make any ring-tone I want, without the limitations of MIDI. it's great being able to rip the audio from a DVD and use movie quotes for for different callers and messages, instead of annoying ringtones.
Just use bluetooth and a decent phone, then you can do pretty much anything you would want to do with a phone.
there's a fair amount of degradation between the digital bits on your hard-drive and the analog going into your brain on that "line out".
When the original Napster was released, that didn't stop millions of people downgrading their listening experience to low-quality MP3s, even though they were used to much higher quality CD audio. And this was in an age of really pathetic MP3 encoders and software. Very few people noticed how bad their MP3s sounded.
When tiny "micro" hi-fi systems came out, that didn't stop tens of millions of people buying these crappy sounding mini-boomboxes, and throwing away their much better sounding Hi-Fi speakers and amplifiers from the 70s.
Most people don't care about quality as much as they do about convenience. The DVD was not a success because of the higher picture quality, it was a success because you don't have to rewind the tape or fast-forward!
There is always a very small fraction of "audiophiles" who care about quality. We are an insignificant minority, and a minority that is shrinking every day. Look at DVD-audio. No-one is buying it. Almost no technology has ever succeeded simply because it offers a higher quality audio-visual experience. Almost all that have succeeded, have done so due to convenience, availability, and low cost.
So, people will still get their music analog rips, and will never even notice the quality difference. Only the insignificant audiophile popoulation will ever care about direct digital conversions. Analog is fine for the majority of the market.
This is the most classic display of public 'Disobeyance of Authority'. DVD-jon is like an evangelist or something. iTunes, I dont believe is the target, nor were the MPAA when he cracked DeCSS. Its more of classic CIVIL DISOBEDIANCE.
Well, I just wish he would come out and say it: be honest up-front. Jon claimed in defense of DeCSS that he was just an innocent teen, wanting nothing but to play a DVD on his Linux machine. In light of this iTunes hack, and his previous experience with DeCSS - that excuse does not seem credible anymore.
I find this trait common amongst the anti-IP crusaders. They portray themselves to Slashdot and their anti-IP friends as being all about "fighting the power" and how they are can beat the big corporations - but then when they get busted, that goes out the window, and all of a sudden they become innocent teens who didn't really know what they were doling.
I don't have any problems with stupid teens, nor with anti-IP avengers - but at least be honest about it. If you're a 133+ hacker, then you can hardly be innocent of what you are doing at the same time. If you're a stupid teen, then you can hardly be an elite hacker.
What you're saying is true, but it's a poor example. It costs more for you and I to copy a book than to buy a second copy.
It does? it doesn't cost me anything except time to scan books and save them in PDF, bitmap or text format.
Don't believe the hype, it smells like Teen Spirit
on
iTunes DRM Hole Closed
·
· Score: 0
WTF? Last time I checked, all Jon (there's no 'h' in his name) wants to do is watch dvds and listen to music purchased via iTunes on his Linux box
That's pure bullshit. If you believe that, then I have a bridge in Manhattan to sell you.
This is excuse may have seemed valid when he was younger, and just wanting to watch DVDs under Linux.
It just doesn't seem believable now. If all he wanted to do was listen, then why is he participating in starting up a service to allow others direct access to the iTunes servers?
The disingenuousness of this arguments seriously casts doubts over DeCSS, and whether he really was just an "innocent teen" who wanted to watch a movie. After all, there are pre-existing tools available for him to strip the DRM from iTunes-purchased tracks. So, why did he bother to write this application, when he could have easily listened to his iTunes music via other methods? Apple even provides the means to play iTMS tracks on Linux - burn the tracks to a CD!
Australia doesn't have a bill of rights. The government can do as it pleases.
America does have a Bill of Rights. The government still does what it pleases, and ignores the Bill of Rights.
Millions of people have been imprisoned in the US for non-violent drug charges. yet the government ignores "the pursuit of happiness" and laws against unreasonable search & seizure to imprison them. So, how does this Bill of Rights protect you in modern America?
The US government does what it wants. Who's going to stop them?
What makes you think that is deserving of a patent? Are companies going to stop trying to make their interfaces better just because they can't stop others from taking their UI ideas?
Basically, yes. Why innovate, when you can just "borrow" ideas that others have worked hard on, and spent money developing? Not that this applies to these "Patent Rights" scum, who never developed an actual product or innovative idea.
But, for nearly two decades, the bulk of the industry has done nothing but copy Apple and a handful of other hard-working companies.
He has repeatedly said that he doesn't care about userspace.
He has also said that Mach, which is the microkernel OSX is based on, is a "piece of shit". Read "Just for Fun", his autobiography, for full details.
All that means is that he's full of shit, and doesn't have many clues beyond his fanatical ideas.
For the price of $12 or $15, you can buy an hour's worth of high-quality (fidelity, if not artistic merit) music and enjoy it over and over, for thousands of hours, as many times as you want
What about FM radio? It doesn't cost me anything, I get an endless supply of quality music. Much of it is unavailable for purchase on CD (out of print, rare, pre-release, etc.)
Note that i'm not talking about ClearChannel. Outside the US, we can get quality, uncensored, free-to-air radio. The audio quality is only barely distinguishable from CDs, with a good receiver and antenna.
Plus, I can record it on my radioSHARK or DAT recorder. CDs are expensive, and offer an extremely limited range compared to radio.
As opposed to what? Making products work together with organically-grown vegetables and love? Allowing software to evolve in its natural habitat and using Darwinian evolution?
What, in the realm of computing, is not "artificial"? And what, on the plane of existence, is not "natural"?
Is anthrax any less natural than carrots? Are computers any less natural than boomerangs?
Slashdot Mirror
Wait. Forget I said that. I don't want to see the New York Times running "First Article!" headlines on the front page. And I definitely don't want to see a Beowulf cluster of Washington Posts in Soviet Russian.
Firstly, you are not going to get a decent AM tuner in a portable MP3 player. The antenna required is just too large. Even the FM reception in portable radios is usually shitty.
Secondly - why do you need it to be portable? This could cause problems with your recordings, as the reception quality will change as you move it around - or even drop out entirely when you pass under a bridge or enter a building. I only want quality reception with a decent antenna for my radio recordings.
Thirdly, the RadioShark actually is quite portable - as it needs no power brick and can be powered by a laptop.
Fourthly, you will often want to be using your MP3 player for playing MP3 at the same time as one of your radio shows is recording. I doubt the processors and hard drives in the portable players are capable of multi-tasking recording and playback at the same time. This would render your portable player useless while recording.
Note: I use an inductive loop, connected to my external antennae, to get perfect reception with my RadioShark. Especially on AM, the inbuilt antenna is not adequate for my needs. I highly recommend building an inductive loop and external antenna for any RadioShark users, and also for users of other radio receivers - especially portable ones that don't have decent antenna inputs. It will markedly improve the quality of your reception while you walk around the house, or if you live somewhere with a tin roof, or other RF interference or reception problems.
Don't you mean "Cars are good things"?
So, why don't they just come out and say that up-front, rather than in the ambiguous way it's written? Why don't they provide links to these online stores where you can buy "obscure" stuff?
because it obviously is. What other reason would Microsoft have for writing this article? The iPod is about the only player not compatible with their Windows Media format and DRM.
Hard-disk based player != ipod
It isn't just targeting HD-based players. Notice the bit where it talks about how you have to have a screen? Now, which popular flash-based player does not have a screen?
Bueller? Bueller??
Also notice how such a statement is quite specific, and is nonsensical for a general audience of consumers. Many people don't care about having the screen. In fact, if you use your player for sports or jogging, then looking at a screen could cause distraction, and an accident. Microsoft doesn't mention these issues, and just says "screens are good!" without considering all users.
Notice how the article doesn't mention the importance of having good software, and a good user interface to organize your music before transferring to your portable player? I wonder why that is ...
Also, notice the way Microsoft touts FM radio, as an attack on "playlists." now, which player and desktop software is famous for the creation of "Smart Playlists" and the sharing of user playlists online? Hmmmm...
No, I got the phone for free with a very modest calling plan, here in Australia. Seeing as Australians earn less than Americans - you are probably richer. And it's an old phone, not the latest thing.
That's a massive waste of your time and theirs, not something to be proud of. Wouldn't it be better if they never had to "learn" anything in the first place? people don't like learning - they like to get things done with a minimum of fuss.
Why do you want to make things more difficult and complex than they have to be?
The only market for Apple equipment is in the fields where dollar value added to the work created by a personal computer greatly exceeds the higher cost of the computer equipment itself (including software). For everyone else, the Windows/Linux OS solution is good enough. The benefits of an Apple system are not worth the extra cost, either the lower cost of the CPU and peripheral and the cost of using the more expensive Apple application software. That may be true, if your statements were factually correct in any way. However, they aren't. Some Apple computers cost slightly more than the equivalent PC. However, much of Apple's current line is much better value than any PC equivalents. See the iBook, Mac mini, and iMac for examples of where you get better value for money on hardware. Also, the peripherals argument is nonsense. Macs can use most standard PC components and peripherals. they use industry standards like Firewire, USB, and PCI. Also, a lot of Mac software is far cheaper than Windows equivalents. Most major packages (Photoshop, etc.) cost the same for Mac or Windows. There is a lot of quality shareware and freeware. Not only that, but you get free software included with every Mac that surpasses a lot of Windows software that costs hundreds of dollars. You get iMovie, Garageband, iDVD and more - FOR FREE! it's hard to even find consumer software this good on Windows, for any price. And all of this software can be expanded with a huge array of third-party plug-ins and helper software. Most consumer users will have to buy very little or no additional software for their Macs, other than what Apple has provided with the iLife suite.
Well, why don't you just get a decent phone? My Nokia 6600 allows me to transfer any digital image to use as a background. I can also convert music to WAV format (and usually convert it to Mono, 22.050 sample rate to save space) - and make any ring-tone I want, without the limitations of MIDI. it's great being able to rip the audio from a DVD and use movie quotes for for different callers and messages, instead of annoying ringtones.
Just use bluetooth and a decent phone, then you can do pretty much anything you would want to do with a phone.
When the original Napster was released, that didn't stop millions of people downgrading their listening experience to low-quality MP3s, even though they were used to much higher quality CD audio. And this was in an age of really pathetic MP3 encoders and software. Very few people noticed how bad their MP3s sounded.
When tiny "micro" hi-fi systems came out, that didn't stop tens of millions of people buying these crappy sounding mini-boomboxes, and throwing away their much better sounding Hi-Fi speakers and amplifiers from the 70s.
Most people don't care about quality as much as they do about convenience. The DVD was not a success because of the higher picture quality, it was a success because you don't have to rewind the tape or fast-forward!
There is always a very small fraction of "audiophiles" who care about quality. We are an insignificant minority, and a minority that is shrinking every day. Look at DVD-audio. No-one is buying it. Almost no technology has ever succeeded simply because it offers a higher quality audio-visual experience. Almost all that have succeeded, have done so due to convenience, availability, and low cost.
So, people will still get their music analog rips, and will never even notice the quality difference. Only the insignificant audiophile popoulation will ever care about direct digital conversions. Analog is fine for the majority of the market.
Well, I just wish he would come out and say it: be honest up-front. Jon claimed in defense of DeCSS that he was just an innocent teen, wanting nothing but to play a DVD on his Linux machine. In light of this iTunes hack, and his previous experience with DeCSS - that excuse does not seem credible anymore.
I find this trait common amongst the anti-IP crusaders. They portray themselves to Slashdot and their anti-IP friends as being all about "fighting the power" and how they are can beat the big corporations - but then when they get busted, that goes out the window, and all of a sudden they become innocent teens who didn't really know what they were doling.
I don't have any problems with stupid teens, nor with anti-IP avengers - but at least be honest about it. If you're a 133+ hacker, then you can hardly be innocent of what you are doing at the same time. If you're a stupid teen, then you can hardly be an elite hacker.
It does? it doesn't cost me anything except time to scan books and save them in PDF, bitmap or text format.
That's pure bullshit. If you believe that, then I have a bridge in Manhattan to sell you.
This is excuse may have seemed valid when he was younger, and just wanting to watch DVDs under Linux.
It just doesn't seem believable now. If all he wanted to do was listen, then why is he participating in starting up a service to allow others direct access to the iTunes servers?
The disingenuousness of this arguments seriously casts doubts over DeCSS, and whether he really was just an "innocent teen" who wanted to watch a movie. After all, there are pre-existing tools available for him to strip the DRM from iTunes-purchased tracks. So, why did he bother to write this application, when he could have easily listened to his iTunes music via other methods? Apple even provides the means to play iTMS tracks on Linux - burn the tracks to a CD!
You also don't mention that you've been frequently wrong about Apple for 15 years ...
Yeah!!! Fight the Man!! Well, at least for a month. Then give the Man yo money. the said the revolution wouldn't be serialized?
Hey, nobody said slashdot was relaxing.
America does have a Bill of Rights. The government still does what it pleases, and ignores the Bill of Rights.
Millions of people have been imprisoned in the US for non-violent drug charges. yet the government ignores "the pursuit of happiness" and laws against unreasonable search & seizure to imprison them. So, how does this Bill of Rights protect you in modern America?
The US government does what it wants. Who's going to stop them?
Knight to Queen 4. Instigate revolution!
If I'm in shrink-wrap, then how will I BREATHE, and laugh and LOVE????
Signed,
The Common Man
Basically, yes. Why innovate, when you can just "borrow" ideas that others have worked hard on, and spent money developing? Not that this applies to these "Patent Rights" scum, who never developed an actual product or innovative idea. But, for nearly two decades, the bulk of the industry has done nothing but copy Apple and a handful of other hard-working companies.
All that means is that he's full of shit, and doesn't have many clues beyond his fanatical ideas.
For the price of $12 or $15, you can buy an hour's worth of high-quality (fidelity, if not artistic merit) music and enjoy it over and over, for thousands of hours, as many times as you want What about FM radio? It doesn't cost me anything, I get an endless supply of quality music. Much of it is unavailable for purchase on CD (out of print, rare, pre-release, etc.) Note that i'm not talking about ClearChannel. Outside the US, we can get quality, uncensored, free-to-air radio. The audio quality is only barely distinguishable from CDs, with a good receiver and antenna. Plus, I can record it on my radioSHARK or DAT recorder. CDs are expensive, and offer an extremely limited range compared to radio.
As opposed to what? Making products work together with organically-grown vegetables and love? Allowing software to evolve in its natural habitat and using Darwinian evolution?
What, in the realm of computing, is not "artificial"? And what, on the plane of existence, is not "natural"? Is anthrax any less natural than carrots? Are computers any less natural than boomerangs?
Finally, a beowulf cluster of ants!
Haven't you ever heard of iTunes and Quicktime for Windows?