I think this essentially sums up your misguided view of these things. You're used to seeing everything as a turd. When you see something nice, you automatically assume that it's just a fancified turd. What you don't understand is that Apple has no tolerance for turds, the turds don't get a security pass to get into the campus in the first place.
Not that you'd understand - you probably think that a riced-up Honda Civic is the equivalent of a fine automobile.
Not only is the whole Apple/USB thing a big, fat lie
How so? Where was widespread USB adoption before the original iMac?
the post you responded to didn't say that Apple ditches EVERY connector they don't control.
Well, that's a fucking meaningless statement. Especially as there isn't a single external connector on any current Mac that Apple does fully control, with the exception of MagSafe.
The existence of a higher priced choice does not in any way negate the parent's point.
Actually it does. None of the designer fashion companies have a monopoly, yet you can't buy any of their products for anywhere near the price of production.
Or perhaps I misunderstood your argument and you are just sticking your tongue out and going "nah-nah I don't believe you", in which case there's not much I can say in reply.
That's right, I don't believe you. I could always be wrong, though. I guess we'll never know, in this particular case.
I always consider sales tax in the US to be a bit of a non-issue on things like this, since (unless I'm mistaken) avoiding it is pretty trivial, by ordering online from a distributor in another state.
Which is why pricing in the US is such an insidious trap. Displaying shelf prices as tax-free amounts to deception. And the whole "easy to avoid by buying out-of-state" is almost criminally inefficient. It encourages waste by having items shipped across the country for no good reason, resulting in more pollution.
It would be nice to see some tax reform, but I doubt that will ever happen, as people would rather exploit the loopholes than have an honest system that might cost a few bucks more (but also save a few bucks elsewhere).
I "pirated" Avatar off of Bittorrent because I'd seen it 3 times in the theater already, but it wasn't out on video yet (I then bought it on Blu-Ray the day after it came out).
You're a very sick person, and should seek treatment.
TV episodes. They are often available for free from the network's website - but they have annoying ads, are extremely low-quality, rely on Flash player, and often suffer from buffering issues and stuttering. If you download via bittorrent, you get it in much better quality, in a fraction of the time, and in a format compatible with your media server/set-top-box/game console.
Which, of course, it the good thing about actual free markets; prices fall towards the minimum needed to produce a certain good and perceived wealth in the economy is maximized.
That's a total fairy tale. The free market can also raise prices well above the cost to produce. Take, for example, designer clothing, Rolex watches, etc. The cost of production is irrelevant. People want those brands and the status, so they pay more for them.
I would be happy to pay $1 per episode to watch without commercials and to avoid any hassle downloading or getting Hulu onto my TV screen instead of a computer monitor.
But when Hulu does charge $1 for an ad-free episode, you won't pay it. This is the difference between saying you'd be "happy" to pay for it on an internet forum, versus actually paying for it.
Universal Iron rule of the Internet: Everyone would be happy to pay for X, but they're only willing to pay half of what's being asked. Songs are a buck? 50c please. Netflix is $10 a month? I'll only pay $5 a month, and only if there's a bigger selection.
You're not wrong. I think these surveys are worthless, because what people say they will do, and what they actually do, are very different things. There will always be an excuse.
Re:You signed away this "right" by picking Apple.
on
Flash Is Not a Right
·
· Score: 1
Not all criticism is automatically "whining."
True, but your whining is whining.
Great. How would you suggest this discussion go, then? Any constructive criticism?
You might want to try sticking to facts, rather than making stuff up.
When did I say anything about them being "held up" in court? That's completely irrelevant, as only a small fraction of patents are ever litigated over. That didn't stop European countries issuing thousands of software patents, and it doesn't say anything about their validity in Europe. Many patents (software and otherwise) are overturned in court in the US, that doesn't mean that all US patents are invalid.
You are dodging the question: what is the source for your claim that "the vast majority of the EU nations" are against software patents?
Indeed, which is why things like netbooks have gotten popular: modern computers are overpowered for most normal end-user applications.
That doesn't explain why netbooks are popular*, because they are underpowered for most normal end-use applications. Are you saying that people prefer underpowered computers?
*Note: there is no evidence that netbooks are popular.
I stated PlayForSure was a multi-vendor music system, and your argument does not change that fact
That seems like a meaningless thing to argue, seeing as it no longer exists. Your other argument is that Apple continues to sell videos with DRM. Something that Microsoft also continues to do. You appeared to be arguing that Microsoft and Apple are somehow different, yet the evidence doesn't back that up.
I stated PlayForSure was a multi-vendor music system, and your argument does not change that fact.
Sure it does. Plays For Sure doesn't exist anymore.
Nor the fact that Apple was even more rapacious than Microsoft with respect to its music store and hardware.
This doesn't even make sense. How can Apple "be rapacious" with respect to its own software and hardware? How can one rape oneself?
It appears that you're only interested in addressing what you think I've written, rather than what I've actually posted, as a means of scoring points
That is a highly ironic statement, given your twisted arguments that only allow for your beliefs, rather than facts.
Slashdot Mirror
Polish a turd...
I think this essentially sums up your misguided view of these things. You're used to seeing everything as a turd. When you see something nice, you automatically assume that it's just a fancified turd. What you don't understand is that Apple has no tolerance for turds, the turds don't get a security pass to get into the campus in the first place.
Not that you'd understand - you probably think that a riced-up Honda Civic is the equivalent of a fine automobile.
The web is ruled by web DESIGNERS
Web is ruled by BUSINESS
The Web is ruled by USERS
You're all wrong. The web is ruled by the Judean People's Front.
Not only is the whole Apple/USB thing a big, fat lie
How so? Where was widespread USB adoption before the original iMac?
the post you responded to didn't say that Apple ditches EVERY connector they don't control.
Well, that's a fucking meaningless statement. Especially as there isn't a single external connector on any current Mac that Apple does fully control, with the exception of MagSafe.
The existence of a higher priced choice does not in any way negate the parent's point.
Actually it does. None of the designer fashion companies have a monopoly, yet you can't buy any of their products for anywhere near the price of production.
Or perhaps I misunderstood your argument and you are just sticking your tongue out and going "nah-nah I don't believe you", in which case there's not much I can say in reply.
That's right, I don't believe you. I could always be wrong, though. I guess we'll never know, in this particular case.
I always consider sales tax in the US to be a bit of a non-issue on things like this, since (unless I'm mistaken) avoiding it is pretty trivial, by ordering online from a distributor in another state.
Which is why pricing in the US is such an insidious trap. Displaying shelf prices as tax-free amounts to deception. And the whole "easy to avoid by buying out-of-state" is almost criminally inefficient. It encourages waste by having items shipped across the country for no good reason, resulting in more pollution.
It would be nice to see some tax reform, but I doubt that will ever happen, as people would rather exploit the loopholes than have an honest system that might cost a few bucks more (but also save a few bucks elsewhere).
Slashdot user "pathological liar" says:
I'd love to pay for legal downloads.
Being a pathological liar, that's exactly what I'd expect you to say.
It'll never happen though.
OK, now I'm confused. So, it's definitely going to happen?
Forget it.
My head hurts.
I dont have the links, but dont articles mentioning this same thing keep appearing every few months?
Welcome to Slashdot!
I "pirated" Avatar off of Bittorrent because I'd seen it 3 times in the theater already, but it wasn't out on video yet (I then bought it on Blu-Ray the day after it came out).
You're a very sick person, and should seek treatment.
Like what?
TV episodes. They are often available for free from the network's website - but they have annoying ads, are extremely low-quality, rely on Flash player, and often suffer from buffering issues and stuttering. If you download via bittorrent, you get it in much better quality, in a fraction of the time, and in a format compatible with your media server/set-top-box/game console.
I only watch TV on DVD.
I only watch TV on the Radio.
Which, of course, it the good thing about actual free markets; prices fall towards the minimum needed to produce a certain good and perceived wealth in the economy is maximized.
That's a total fairy tale. The free market can also raise prices well above the cost to produce. Take, for example, designer clothing, Rolex watches, etc. The cost of production is irrelevant. People want those brands and the status, so they pay more for them.
I would be happy to pay $1 per episode to watch without commercials and to avoid any hassle downloading or getting Hulu onto my TV screen instead of a computer monitor.
But when Hulu does charge $1 for an ad-free episode, you won't pay it. This is the difference between saying you'd be "happy" to pay for it on an internet forum, versus actually paying for it.
Universal Iron rule of the Internet: Everyone would be happy to pay for X, but they're only willing to pay half of what's being asked. Songs are a buck? 50c please. Netflix is $10 a month? I'll only pay $5 a month, and only if there's a bigger selection.
You're not wrong. I think these surveys are worthless, because what people say they will do, and what they actually do, are very different things. There will always be an excuse.
Not all criticism is automatically "whining."
True, but your whining is whining.
Great. How would you suggest this discussion go, then? Any constructive criticism?
You might want to try sticking to facts, rather than making stuff up.
When did I say anything about them being "held up" in court? That's completely irrelevant, as only a small fraction of patents are ever litigated over. That didn't stop European countries issuing thousands of software patents, and it doesn't say anything about their validity in Europe. Many patents (software and otherwise) are overturned in court in the US, that doesn't mean that all US patents are invalid.
You are dodging the question: what is the source for your claim that "the vast majority of the EU nations" are against software patents?
I'd be extremely surprised considering the vast majority of the EU nations are against.
What's your source for this assertion? Plenty of software patents have been issued in European countries.
Who is Michael Pachter and why is anyone supposed to care what he thinks?
He is the King of the Universe and you should bow down before his completely accurate market analysis.
Indeed, which is why things like netbooks have gotten popular: modern computers are overpowered for most normal end-user applications.
That doesn't explain why netbooks are popular*, because they are underpowered for most normal end-use applications. Are you saying that people prefer underpowered computers?
*Note: there is no evidence that netbooks are popular.
Maybe they're front/back/basement keys,
That's what she said.
Where the fuck do you get 16MB RAM sticks from?
Everybody I know keeps their keys and trinkets around their neck on a lanyard [alibaba.com] along with their badges.
Those are the worst kind of douchebags. All of your friends are douchebags.
Don't many robots already have arms? Hell, many of them are basically nothing but an arm.
I stated PlayForSure was a multi-vendor music system, and your argument does not change that fact
That seems like a meaningless thing to argue, seeing as it no longer exists. Your other argument is that Apple continues to sell videos with DRM. Something that Microsoft also continues to do. You appeared to be arguing that Microsoft and Apple are somehow different, yet the evidence doesn't back that up.
I stated PlayForSure was a multi-vendor music system, and your argument does not change that fact.
Sure it does. Plays For Sure doesn't exist anymore.
Nor the fact that Apple was even more rapacious than Microsoft with respect to its music store and hardware.
This doesn't even make sense. How can Apple "be rapacious" with respect to its own software and hardware? How can one rape oneself?
It appears that you're only interested in addressing what you think I've written, rather than what I've actually posted, as a means of scoring points
That is a highly ironic statement, given your twisted arguments that only allow for your beliefs, rather than facts.
Good web rendering and Flash are mutually exclusive. By excluding Flash, they are doing that one thing well.