Ideally the money would go towards hiring (and keeping) qualified teachers and keeping nonessential programs (like the arts) up-to-date. If the school has functioning hardware they don't need a suite of shiny new Mac Minis.
As far as iLife... I have it, I've used it, and Pages in its current version is very much inferior to Open Office. Maybe that will change with the next update, but at the moment it's a placeholder app. It's also pretty obscure, while learning to use OO would give the students skills that would carry over to Microsoft Office when they inevitably need to use it at a job or in college.
Offtopic, I know, but I've heard a few grumblings (on Howard Stern, among other not-quite-trustworthy places) that satellite radio is really just a testing ground to move to a new model of delivering satellite TV. Anyone else think this might be a possibility?
In general, they're way too film-arty. That's no surprise, but still.
Hits: Blade Runner Dr. Strangelove The Fly (1986) LOTR Unforgiven Schindler's List Star Wars
Misses (not present): Men in Black The Quiet Man (John Wayne) The Ring The Passion of the Christ The Matrix (yeah, but I liked it)
How many of those "too film-arty" movies on the list have you actually seen? Whether you like subtitles or not, there's a world of incredible movies out there beyond "Men In Black" and "The Ring."
That's all well and good, and I'm sure it will be beautiful, but who's writing the actual story? I work in animation and I have seen many beautiful shorts, demos and portfolio pieces by many extremely talented technical animators... And most of them are boring and meaningless exercises, if that. Or they're based on a joke that's not funny in the first place.
Myself, I'd rather watch the pathetically animated but extremely funny Home Movies on Adult Swim than the beautifully and painstakingly rendered but pointless Final Fantasy movie. Good characters and storytelling should come first, I hope this project realizes that before embarking on this effort...
Problem is, many innovators (especially in the arts) don't have the skills to take their products to a wide audience on their own. There's a reason beyond just "cashing in" that someone would choose to option their idea to a corporation-- Marketing, publishing and distribution are difficult and daunting tasks. And it's easy to say "go with an indie film company-publishing-record label-whatever", but these companies' abilities to actually sell product vary wildly.
So yeah, up-and-coming artists, writers etc. should realize the value of their ideas and protect themselves from being screwed in the future. They should enter every business deal with a good lawyer, and consider working with reputable "indie" companies rather than a big name giants. And most importantly, those who have "made it" should look out for the little guy and do what they can to fight for creator's rights.
Amen. If you want to make a profit off someone else's creation-- using their characters in your own book or movie game, using their song in your game or movie, etc-- you have to have their permission. Parody is of course an exception, as is not-for-profit fanfiction. If you don't have the talent to come up with an original idea, if you find someone else's property so compelling that you want to piggyback on it, then you should realize the value that piece of art has and be willing to pay for it. Though I would argue copyright should expire with the creator-- history has shown "the estate of..." can't be trusted to do anything but cash in on the artist's work.
There are two levels of artistic property ownership, and Slashdotters who want information and culture to be free would be wise to realize it. Whether or not you really "own" a piece of music when you buy a CD, or whether it's morally right to download is a completely separate issue.
Futurama is a widely liked show, compared to much of the content available at any one time, yet it's still not cost effective to broadcast?
Futurama was also a very expensive show. There's a huge list of writers, producers and God-knows-what-they-do executives who are paid quite a bit of money per episode. That's the real problem with the networks-- it's not the actual cost of making a show, it's that every production is top-heavy with people in suits who are paid ghastly sum to give notes. I'm speaking from experience here-- the contact list for a typical network production (animated or live) has more executives than cast and crew. And with so many people with veto power, it's really difficult for something without a very broad appeal to survive.
Futurama is and was great, but it should have been a cable show. With a low overhead it would have found a comfortable audience and could have lasted for years. But at a network, the cost per episode was literally dozens of times what it costs to produce a cable show like Spongebob or Aqua Teen-- and since it wasn't a hit on the scale of The Simpsons, it had to go.
Actually, it's one of Japan's leading newspapers... And the stories are pretty routine. Unfortunately molestation and worse of underage girls is pretty rampant in Japanese society.
Copyright laws exist to protect the publishing companies, and to a lesser extent the creator. Before the laws existed a work was "thrown to the wolves" when it was released. Rival publishers could print it, alter the text, even attribute it to a different author.
It has zero to do with encouraging the artist to create more work.
So the only scenario in which long copyright terms help such artists is for those who create something that doesn't become popular, don't create anything else for a long time, meaning they have to have a job and can't support themselves with further creation, and then suddenly have their old works discovered.
Yeah, artists should all get real jobs. Stop giving them chairty in the form of royalties for their creations-- they should be happy enough the world appreciates their hobby. And if merchandise companies plaster their characters all over the malls, they should be glad someone cares and not request a dime. Or if Hollywood puts out a movie based on the story they wrote one day after the copyright expires, they should be flattered and get to work on the next short story.
I think quickly expiring copyright of works that fall out of distribution is a very good idea. Won't happen, though.
For what reason? So you can have access to every book, song and movie ever created for free?
And I don't buy the reasoning that if it's out of distribution, it should be public domain. Books, music and movies go in and out of print in cycles, and if there's a demand it will come back. Anyway there is almost nothing released in the last thirty or forty years that can't be found, if you want it enough. Maybe it's a dog-eared copy of a book or a VHS tape instead of DVD, but it's all out there. Even "classic" video games still have a market of sorts. No, the artist won't benefit when you buy a used copy, but if the demand is still there your purchase may call the publisher to put it back in print.
Because that is not the purpose of copyright. Copyright law is based on the premise that works should revert to the public domain as soon as possible while still providing an incentive for authors.
No, you have it completely wrong. Copyright law was created to protect authors (and publishers.) Prior to that, everything was public domain-- anyone could publish whatever they wanted. That may sound like heaven for the Bittorrent crowd who wants everything for free, but in such an environment there's little incentive to publish anything of quality.
It also guarantees the work won't be bastardized-- e.g. a publisher putting someone else's name on the book, or another author releasing a nearly identical work... Or these days, turning a book into a schlock movie without the author's say.
You may argue that 5 years is not enough incentive, but you have to realize that that is all it is, an incentive, not a guaranteed income, not a reward for time spent or money invested.
There is no guaranteed income for any creative endeavor. It's all a risk, it usually comes with a tremendous amount of effort beforehand, and more often than not there is no reward at all. Copyright law guarantees the creator won't be ripped off.
I would suggest that an artist who spends 10 or 20 years on a single work a) has independent means and b) is engaged in a labor of love and needs no further incentive.
"Labors of love" are what need to be protected, as they are more likely to carry artistic merit (that is, if they're any good) than an Eminem song whipped up in a day. There are plenty of examples in literature of novels that took years, if not decades to complete.
And ideally artistic satisfaction should be the ultimate motivator, but the fact is intellectual property has value. Whether or not you respect that value (and I would say anyone who demands work to be public domain five years from its release has no respect for what it really takes to create truly good art), I prefer to see the author/artist/musician/filmmaker/whatever justly rewarded for their success.
Of course, that would prevent us from getting music and Playstation roms from 2000 for free, which is all this is really about, right?
But what about the artist who falls out of favor for a time and then has a comeback, or who finds lukewarm success and then is "discovered" later? It happens quite a bit in literature and music. In fact, it often takes years for anyone but a top 40 musician to find success. Just as an example, look at Henry Miller or Charles Bukowski-- they didn't see their books in wide circulation until late in life, years after the first works were written.
Until the original creator can no longer reap the rewards of his or her hard work, they should be entitled to a share of the profits (and to say what is done with the material.) Of course that may mean it's more difficult and expensive to find something out of print, but guess what-- if you want it bad enough, you can almost always find it.
I work in animation, and though I'm not a creative genius myself (and will never create an original property) I've known quite a few people who are, some who've made it big, others who've fallen by the wayside.
I see a lot of people in this discussion throw out "5 years from date of creation" and similar time frames. I find that to be ridiculous. It could take five, ten, fifteen years or even longer for a creative type to find success. Someone could write a book or song in their twenties, release it in relative obscurity and then find success with the next generation (or two generations later, it happens.) Why shouldn't they be entitled to reap the rewards?
Look, if you create something, a property, a song, a character, whatever, it should be YOURS. As long as you are alive. This isn't patent law, where an invention and variations of the technology could be good for society. Nobody needs Mickey Mouse, it doesn't benefit the world for "I Can't Get No Satisfaction" to be free for everyone to use, and Steven King should be always be the first to profit when an edition of "Christine" is published. This has nothing to do with digital rights, Bittorent and all that... It has to do with who owns the rights and says what can be done with his or her intellectual property.
Of course, many if not most properties are in the hands of corporations, and I would suggest that copyright law be changed so that only individuals, not companies can own a copyright-- otherwise it's "leased" for a specific period of time (and here is where the five years figure could come in.) After which, the creator can renegotiate for a fair value or take it back. No more cases of Marvel screwing Kirby or Nickelodeon dumping Kricfalusi from his own show.
I would further suggest that copyrights cannot be owned by an estate. Public domain happens when the artist dies, period-- and then the work is released to the ages to be remembered or forgotten. Anyway, wives, children and grandchildren are notorious for "selling out", caring more for cash than any integrity.
Yeah, and most people wouldn't spend $400 on a hard drive based MP3 player either. Not when all the music sucks nowadays.
I'd also say there's a lot worth watching in HDTV. Maybe not the tonight show, but we've had ninety years of movies now and at least a few thousand of them would benefit from HDTV. And when HDTV is the norm-- and as animation and FX technology improve-- there will be plenty worth watching.
I do agree with you. But I'm not sure these campaigns work if you're going against the stream. In the case of Stern (and Janet Jackson etc.) the FCC (and the majority of congress) wanted a heavier hand in censoring "lewd" TV and radio broadcasts, and the smattering of outraged letters they received were used as proof their cause was justified.
I would bet they receive equal, if not greater amounts of calls and mail demanding "leave Howard Stern alone." You think those make any difference?
South Florida is Democrat territory [mostly transplanted NYers and NJers] and went overwhelmingly Gore. Republican strength is in North Florida, which, for all intents and purposes, is an entirely different state.
True that N. Florida is the bottom of the Bible Belt, but your summation of S. Florida as all transplants from NY is dated. They definitely exist in large numbers, but so do native Republicans. And then there is the enormous first and second generation Cuban community, which Jeb has more-or-less managed to sway (and who are responsible for tipping the scales in the state and getting him elected to office in the first place.)
Also-- I'm not familiar with the specifics of bankruptcy laws and such, but I believe Florida is extremely lenient. Meaning you (or your shadow corporation) can declare bankruptcy and still hold on to most if not all of your personal assetts. Seems to work for O.J...
I hate you, Post-it Notes. I hate the person who invented you. And most of all, I hate my uptight, neurotic and textbook case of passive behavior ex-roommate who communicated exclusively through you.
In real life, yeah... But in academia or the business world the New York Times is a brand name that brings with it a certain validiy (whether it merits it or not, and whether they grabbed the story from the same news wire as everyone else or not.)
"I did research... I also didn't do any research using articles that cost money to use. They are limiting their revenue stream, not increasing it."
C'mon... "Research" is a pretty vague term. What were you doing research FOR? If it was a term paper for an undergraduate class, then yeah, you can skip sources that cost money. But if you're, say, a professional journalist or PhD candidate you're going to pay whatever it costs to get the article you need from the New York Times archive, Even if you can get the same story free from somewhere else. A NYT source carries a lot more weight than the Toledo Ombudsman.
Another thing the Powermac has is dual monitor support (the iMac needs a potentially warranty violating firmware hack to do this.)
It's also much easier, of course, to upgrade and replace drives (optical drives particularly are the first thing to fail) and the iMac won't take additional internal hard drives.
And keep in mind the Powermac isn't targeted towards consumers. It's a production computer, designed for heavy and extended use (and abuse) by businesses such as sound, video, animation and graphics houses. For these customers initial price isn't as much of a concern as longevity and adaptability: They may cost significantly more, but Powermacs tend to live forever. All-in-ones, on the other hand, become dated quickly, and are useless once the monitor or innards fail. As my friend with a perfectly good G4 iMac with a dead 20" screen can attest to.
I guarantee you there are far more blue and white G3 towers in use than G3 iMacs.
With digital distribution now finally catching on, it would be in the best interest of most companies to release when it's done.. I'd much prefer to download a (legal) burnable disc image than have to wait for a box to show up.
There are a LOT of reasons why Apple doesn't just dump their product on the website the day it's done. For one, regardless of whether you personally would download a 4gb DVD image, most sales will still be through brick-and-mortar stores. Unless Apple wants to alienate (and likely lose) all third party retailers, every copy has to be available on the same date.
Also, I'm sure Apple has great servers, but the day the Mini was announced there was noticable lag. There's no way they could handle hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people trying to grab that large of a file at once. Bittorrent is an option for linux distros, since the base is obviously more tech savvy, but for the general public the client would have to be automatic and included in the software update to be usable.
And of course, Apple is a for-profit company. Say what you will about marketing and hype, making the release date a big event is just good business. Not to mention the fact that when they have them in the store, the customer is likely to pick up a laptop battery or iPod shuffle, or look longingly at a new Powerbook and realize how dated their three or four year old system is.
MHO much piracy is due to impatient souls who simply can't wait for the release. Music is a great exmaple of this. I say when it goes gold, release it. Many of these downloaders would probably pay for it.
Why aren't movies released the day they're finished? Why aren't DVDs available while the movie's still in the theaters? Hype works. Why doesn't anyone notice indie bands who're better than anything on the top 40 charts? Because they don't have a huge record label's marketing machine behind them.
Anyway, in the end most piracy is people wanting something for free. I see a lot more games, movies and albums that have been out for years on the torrent sites than new releases or bootlegs of yet-to-be-released products.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not so bad being confined to the tablet. My Wacom mouse pad is about 18" x 18". That's pretty close to your 2'x2' square.
You sure about that? The largest tablet Wacom makes is 9x12.
And I should add, that model retails for over $700. Which is quite a bit if all you want is a battery-free wireless mouse.
(The cheapest Wacom tablet b.t.w. is $99. Worth every penny if you use the pen, but easily five times what a wireless mouse would cost.)
Boy, that was the Slashdot post from hell. Reading that made me madder than a yak in heat.
Ideally the money would go towards hiring (and keeping) qualified teachers and keeping nonessential programs (like the arts) up-to-date. If the school has functioning hardware they don't need a suite of shiny new Mac Minis.
As far as iLife... I have it, I've used it, and Pages in its current version is very much inferior to Open Office. Maybe that will change with the next update, but at the moment it's a placeholder app. It's also pretty obscure, while learning to use OO would give the students skills that would carry over to Microsoft Office when they inevitably need to use it at a job or in college.
Offtopic, I know, but I've heard a few grumblings (on Howard Stern, among other not-quite-trustworthy places) that satellite radio is really just a testing ground to move to a new model of delivering satellite TV. Anyone else think this might be a possibility?
Everyone knows Morpheus is dead. Kazaa is the place to be, baby!
In general, they're way too film-arty. That's no surprise, but still.
Hits:
Blade Runner
Dr. Strangelove
The Fly (1986)
LOTR
Unforgiven
Schindler's List
Star Wars
Misses (not present):
Men in Black
The Quiet Man (John Wayne)
The Ring
The Passion of the Christ
The Matrix (yeah, but I liked it)
How many of those "too film-arty" movies on the list have you actually seen? Whether you like subtitles or not, there's a world of incredible movies out there beyond "Men In Black" and "The Ring."
That's all well and good, and I'm sure it will be beautiful, but who's writing the actual story? I work in animation and I have seen many beautiful shorts, demos and portfolio pieces by many extremely talented technical animators... And most of them are boring and meaningless exercises, if that. Or they're based on a joke that's not funny in the first place.
Myself, I'd rather watch the pathetically animated but extremely funny Home Movies on Adult Swim than the beautifully and painstakingly rendered but pointless Final Fantasy movie. Good characters and storytelling should come first, I hope this project realizes that before embarking on this effort...
Problem is, many innovators (especially in the arts) don't have the skills to take their products to a wide audience on their own. There's a reason beyond just "cashing in" that someone would choose to option their idea to a corporation-- Marketing, publishing and distribution are difficult and daunting tasks. And it's easy to say "go with an indie film company-publishing-record label-whatever", but these companies' abilities to actually sell product vary wildly.
So yeah, up-and-coming artists, writers etc. should realize the value of their ideas and protect themselves from being screwed in the future. They should enter every business deal with a good lawyer, and consider working with reputable "indie" companies rather than a big name giants. And most importantly, those who have "made it" should look out for the little guy and do what they can to fight for creator's rights.
Amen. If you want to make a profit off someone else's creation-- using their characters in your own book or movie game, using their song in your game or movie, etc-- you have to have their permission. Parody is of course an exception, as is not-for-profit fanfiction. If you don't have the talent to come up with an original idea, if you find someone else's property so compelling that you want to piggyback on it, then you should realize the value that piece of art has and be willing to pay for it. Though I would argue copyright should expire with the creator-- history has shown "the estate of..." can't be trusted to do anything but cash in on the artist's work.
There are two levels of artistic property ownership, and Slashdotters who want information and culture to be free would be wise to realize it. Whether or not you really "own" a piece of music when you buy a CD, or whether it's morally right to download is a completely separate issue.
Sorry to be a spelling nazi... But as a camera collector and an Outkast fan it was really bugging me.
Futurama is a widely liked show, compared to much of the content available at any one time, yet it's still not cost effective to broadcast?
Futurama was also a very expensive show. There's a huge list of writers, producers and God-knows-what-they-do executives who are paid quite a bit of money per episode. That's the real problem with the networks-- it's not the actual cost of making a show, it's that every production is top-heavy with people in suits who are paid ghastly sum to give notes. I'm speaking from experience here-- the contact list for a typical network production (animated or live) has more executives than cast and crew. And with so many people with veto power, it's really difficult for something without a very broad appeal to survive.
Futurama is and was great, but it should have been a cable show. With a low overhead it would have found a comfortable audience and could have lasted for years. But at a network, the cost per episode was literally dozens of times what it costs to produce a cable show like Spongebob or Aqua Teen-- and since it wasn't a hit on the scale of The Simpsons, it had to go.
Actually, it's one of Japan's leading newspapers... And the stories are pretty routine. Unfortunately molestation and worse of underage girls is pretty rampant in Japanese society.
Copyright laws exist to protect the publishing companies, and to a lesser extent the creator. Before the laws existed a work was "thrown to the wolves" when it was released. Rival publishers could print it, alter the text, even attribute it to a different author.
It has zero to do with encouraging the artist to create more work.
So the only scenario in which long copyright terms help such artists is for those who create something that doesn't become popular, don't create anything else for a long time, meaning they have to have a job and can't support themselves with further creation, and then suddenly have their old works discovered.
Yeah, artists should all get real jobs. Stop giving them chairty in the form of royalties for their creations-- they should be happy enough the world appreciates their hobby. And if merchandise companies plaster their characters all over the malls, they should be glad someone cares and not request a dime. Or if Hollywood puts out a movie based on the story they wrote one day after the copyright expires, they should be flattered and get to work on the next short story.
I think quickly expiring copyright of works that fall out of distribution is a very good idea. Won't happen, though.
For what reason? So you can have access to every book, song and movie ever created for free?
And I don't buy the reasoning that if it's out of distribution, it should be public domain. Books, music and movies go in and out of print in cycles, and if there's a demand it will come back. Anyway there is almost nothing released in the last thirty or forty years that can't be found, if you want it enough. Maybe it's a dog-eared copy of a book or a VHS tape instead of DVD, but it's all out there. Even "classic" video games still have a market of sorts. No, the artist won't benefit when you buy a used copy, but if the demand is still there your purchase may call the publisher to put it back in print.
Because that is not the purpose of copyright. Copyright law is based on the premise that works should revert to the public domain as soon as possible while still providing an incentive for authors.
No, you have it completely wrong. Copyright law was created to protect authors (and publishers.) Prior to that, everything was public domain-- anyone could publish whatever they wanted. That may sound like heaven for the Bittorrent crowd who wants everything for free, but in such an environment there's little incentive to publish anything of quality.
It also guarantees the work won't be bastardized-- e.g. a publisher putting someone else's name on the book, or another author releasing a nearly identical work... Or these days, turning a book into a schlock movie without the author's say.
You may argue that 5 years is not enough incentive, but you have to realize that that is all it is, an incentive, not a guaranteed income, not a reward for time spent or money invested.
There is no guaranteed income for any creative endeavor. It's all a risk, it usually comes with a tremendous amount of effort beforehand, and more often than not there is no reward at all. Copyright law guarantees the creator won't be ripped off.
I would suggest that an artist who spends 10 or 20 years on a single work a) has independent means and b) is engaged in a labor of love and needs no further incentive.
"Labors of love" are what need to be protected, as they are more likely to carry artistic merit (that is, if they're any good) than an Eminem song whipped up in a day. There are plenty of examples in literature of novels that took years, if not decades to complete.
And ideally artistic satisfaction should be the ultimate motivator, but the fact is intellectual property has value. Whether or not you respect that value (and I would say anyone who demands work to be public domain five years from its release has no respect for what it really takes to create truly good art), I prefer to see the author/artist/musician/filmmaker/whatever justly rewarded for their success.
Of course, that would prevent us from getting music and Playstation roms from 2000 for free, which is all this is really about, right?
But what about the artist who falls out of favor for a time and then has a comeback, or who finds lukewarm success and then is "discovered" later? It happens quite a bit in literature and music. In fact, it often takes years for anyone but a top 40 musician to find success. Just as an example, look at Henry Miller or Charles Bukowski-- they didn't see their books in wide circulation until late in life, years after the first works were written.
Until the original creator can no longer reap the rewards of his or her hard work, they should be entitled to a share of the profits (and to say what is done with the material.) Of course that may mean it's more difficult and expensive to find something out of print, but guess what-- if you want it bad enough, you can almost always find it.
I work in animation, and though I'm not a creative genius myself (and will never create an original property) I've known quite a few people who are, some who've made it big, others who've fallen by the wayside.
I see a lot of people in this discussion throw out "5 years from date of creation" and similar time frames. I find that to be ridiculous. It could take five, ten, fifteen years or even longer for a creative type to find success. Someone could write a book or song in their twenties, release it in relative obscurity and then find success with the next generation (or two generations later, it happens.) Why shouldn't they be entitled to reap the rewards?
Look, if you create something, a property, a song, a character, whatever, it should be YOURS. As long as you are alive. This isn't patent law, where an invention and variations of the technology could be good for society. Nobody needs Mickey Mouse, it doesn't benefit the world for "I Can't Get No Satisfaction" to be free for everyone to use, and Steven King should be always be the first to profit when an edition of "Christine" is published. This has nothing to do with digital rights, Bittorent and all that... It has to do with who owns the rights and says what can be done with his or her intellectual property.
Of course, many if not most properties are in the hands of corporations, and I would suggest that copyright law be changed so that only individuals, not companies can own a copyright-- otherwise it's "leased" for a specific period of time (and here is where the five years figure could come in.) After which, the creator can renegotiate for a fair value or take it back. No more cases of Marvel screwing Kirby or Nickelodeon dumping Kricfalusi from his own show.
I would further suggest that copyrights cannot be owned by an estate. Public domain happens when the artist dies, period-- and then the work is released to the ages to be remembered or forgotten. Anyway, wives, children and grandchildren are notorious for "selling out", caring more for cash than any integrity.
Yeah, and most people wouldn't spend $400 on a hard drive based MP3 player either. Not when all the music sucks nowadays.
I'd also say there's a lot worth watching in HDTV. Maybe not the tonight show, but we've had ninety years of movies now and at least a few thousand of them would benefit from HDTV. And when HDTV is the norm-- and as animation and FX technology improve-- there will be plenty worth watching.
I do agree with you. But I'm not sure these campaigns work if you're going against the stream. In the case of Stern (and Janet Jackson etc.) the FCC (and the majority of congress) wanted a heavier hand in censoring "lewd" TV and radio broadcasts, and the smattering of outraged letters they received were used as proof their cause was justified.
I would bet they receive equal, if not greater amounts of calls and mail demanding "leave Howard Stern alone." You think those make any difference?
South Florida is Democrat territory [mostly transplanted NYers and NJers] and went overwhelmingly Gore. Republican strength is in North Florida, which, for all intents and purposes, is an entirely different state.
True that N. Florida is the bottom of the Bible Belt, but your summation of S. Florida as all transplants from NY is dated. They definitely exist in large numbers, but so do native Republicans. And then there is the enormous first and second generation Cuban community, which Jeb has more-or-less managed to sway (and who are responsible for tipping the scales in the state and getting him elected to office in the first place.)
Also-- I'm not familiar with the specifics of bankruptcy laws and such, but I believe Florida is extremely lenient. Meaning you (or your shadow corporation) can declare bankruptcy and still hold on to most if not all of your personal assetts. Seems to work for O.J...
I hate you, Post-it Notes. I hate the person who invented you. And most of all, I hate my uptight, neurotic and textbook case of passive behavior ex-roommate who communicated exclusively through you.
In real life, yeah... But in academia or the business world the New York Times is a brand name that brings with it a certain validiy (whether it merits it or not, and whether they grabbed the story from the same news wire as everyone else or not.)
"I did research... I also didn't do any research using articles that cost money to use. They are limiting their revenue stream, not increasing it."
C'mon... "Research" is a pretty vague term. What were you doing research FOR? If it was a term paper for an undergraduate class, then yeah, you can skip sources that cost money. But if you're, say, a professional journalist or PhD candidate you're going to pay whatever it costs to get the article you need from the New York Times archive, Even if you can get the same story free from somewhere else. A NYT source carries a lot more weight than the Toledo Ombudsman.
Paying people saves me time and effort - it has nothing to do with stupidity.
No, the stupidy comes in when you're paying for someone to build you a DARTH VADER COMPUTER.
Another thing the Powermac has is dual monitor support (the iMac needs a potentially warranty violating firmware hack to do this.)
It's also much easier, of course, to upgrade and replace drives (optical drives particularly are the first thing to fail) and the iMac won't take additional internal hard drives.
And keep in mind the Powermac isn't targeted towards consumers. It's a production computer, designed for heavy and extended use (and abuse) by businesses such as sound, video, animation and graphics houses. For these customers initial price isn't as much of a concern as longevity and adaptability: They may cost significantly more, but Powermacs tend to live forever. All-in-ones, on the other hand, become dated quickly, and are useless once the monitor or innards fail. As my friend with a perfectly good G4 iMac with a dead 20" screen can attest to.
I guarantee you there are far more blue and white G3 towers in use than G3 iMacs.
With digital distribution now finally catching on, it would be in the best interest of most companies to release when it's done.. I'd much prefer to download a (legal) burnable disc image than have to wait for a box to show up.
There are a LOT of reasons why Apple doesn't just dump their product on the website the day it's done. For one, regardless of whether you personally would download a 4gb DVD image, most sales will still be through brick-and-mortar stores. Unless Apple wants to alienate (and likely lose) all third party retailers, every copy has to be available on the same date.
Also, I'm sure Apple has great servers, but the day the Mini was announced there was noticable lag. There's no way they could handle hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people trying to grab that large of a file at once. Bittorrent is an option for linux distros, since the base is obviously more tech savvy, but for the general public the client would have to be automatic and included in the software update to be usable.
And of course, Apple is a for-profit company. Say what you will about marketing and hype, making the release date a big event is just good business. Not to mention the fact that when they have them in the store, the customer is likely to pick up a laptop battery or iPod shuffle, or look longingly at a new Powerbook and realize how dated their three or four year old system is.
MHO much piracy is due to impatient souls who simply can't wait for the release. Music is a great exmaple of this. I say when it goes gold, release it. Many of these downloaders would probably pay for it.
Why aren't movies released the day they're finished? Why aren't DVDs available while the movie's still in the theaters? Hype works. Why doesn't anyone notice indie bands who're better than anything on the top 40 charts? Because they don't have a huge record label's marketing machine behind them.
Anyway, in the end most piracy is people wanting something for free. I see a lot more games, movies and albums that have been out for years on the torrent sites than new releases or bootlegs of yet-to-be-released products.