When I bought a record, a tape, or a CD, I could always make a copy. I could make bunch of copies and give them away to friends like candy. No one would sue me or come after me or send me to jail. Just because you could do it doesn't make it legal.
Dreaded Car Analogy: My car can go 130 miles per hour. It doesn't make it legal for my to drive it 130 miles per hour. I have driven my car 130 miles per hour on US Interstate Highways and was not arrested. Just because I wasn't arrested doesn't make it legal for me drive my car 130 miles per hour down Main Street in my hometown.
Basically, the music industry didn't have much problem with cassette tapes because cassette tapes were not high quality and the second, third, and fourth generation copies would not be as good as the first generation copies, which limited their spread. If I made a mix tape for my girlfriend, it sounded OK. If she copied that tape and gave it two of her friends, it didn't sound as good. If those friends made copies for two of their friends, it was even worse. Finally, you ended up with mud.
In fact, that was one of their concerns with CDs when they first came out: The audio quality of music recorded on CDs would not degrade over time. However, I don't believe they were concerned because there wasn't a really easy way for a consumer to copy CDs when they first came out. Heck, I think it took about 10 or more years for consumer CD burners to come out (I think consumer CDs are "magneto-optical" or something--I'm pretty sure they don't use the same technique for commercial CDs). This is also one reason for death of DAT (Digital Audio Tape) is that the RIAA raised the specter of suing everybody into oblivion unless they instituted draconian copy protection controls.
Also, consider how difficult it would be for the RIAA to come after you if you copied songs to a tape and gave them to your girlfriend. Unless she rats you out, you're pretty safe. Keep in mind that you could distribute it to "five of your friends." We're not talking about huge numbers here. It certainly wasn't worth the time and effort necessary to find out that you had broken the law. They were more concerned about the people making thousands of illegal copies and selling them as legitimate.
However, with digital music and the Internet, it's quite easy for you to distribute a song to thousands of people. Whether or not you make money off this distribution is unimportant.
Oh, you're expecting sense to come from Slashdot. You must be new here...:^)
Seriously, remember that Zune holds 10% of the hard-drive based MP3 player market. Apple used to do the same thing when talking about about iPod market-share and Steve Jobs would deride the flash-based MP3 player (right up until they built one).
For example, if you look at Amazon's top-selling MP3 players, the Zune shows up around #16. However, if you look at hard-drive based MP3 players, you'll find Zune sitting at #5.
What's entertaining, looking at the Amazon list, is that the Zune is selling for about $40-$50 off the MSRP of $249.99. So the Zune is competitively priced with an iPod nano. Not that I'd replace my nano with a Zune...
Bringing back Max would be interesting, but difficult.
First, forget the original actors--they're all too old (hey, so am I). Second, I think there would be less of a "Gee-Whiz" effect as much of what goes on has come about.
I mean, imagine sitting in your cube, and talking to that cute girl across the row about some song that she should just oh so totally have, and then being able to just go "HERE!" and give it to her!! But you still wouldn't get laid, so what's the use?
So, according to a manager at Redmond, there are ~16,000 iPods at MS-HQ. From looking at that bin, they've managed to get about 0.1% of those people to "upgrade" to a zune... I may be wrong, but I think the Zune team is down in Mountain View, CA, which is where the box is.
I may hate the iPod, but I'm not going to go from Redmond to Mountain View just to throw it out.
Actually, here's a few of my favorite Mac OS X things:
Download updates with Mac OS X's Software Update. This is especially true when it's an update that requires a restart. Choose 'Shut Down' from the Finder menu. Software Update will not shut down because it's in the middle of downloading and applying updates that will then require me to restart or shut down! Here's an idea: Since I have to restart or shut down anyway, why not let it finish the update program and THEN shut down? Why do I have to wait for it finish so I can then shut down?
On an Apple notebook, choose Shut Down. Click the "Are you sure?" button. Close the lid. Your computer is now asleep. When you next open up the top, the computer will wake up and finish shutting down. Hello? Does it make sense that I want the computer to go to sleep just before shutting down or does it make more sense that I'd like the computer to shut down with the lid closed?!
Personal peeve: Choose Shut Down. Click the "Are you sure?" button. Then click through every application that says, "Do you want to save your files before quitting?" How about this, Apple? Choose Shut Down. Applications are quit. If they need me to save something, they'll ask. You know, like you've been telling developers to do for the past 20 years? You know, like you used to do in Mac OS 9?
(Actually, the "official explanation" I got from Apple about this a few years ago at WWDC was that Apple is trying to get away from the whole "Document-based" thing and asking if you want to save. So if you do something and quit the application, the application should save it's state somewhere and then quit. When you restart the application, it should reload it's state so you don't lose anything. Mail is an example of this, where everything is saved when you quit.)
This is why I chuckle whenever I hear anybody talk about how Apple sweats "the little things."
Actually, my Audi will relock the car if I don't open one of the doors within a set amount of time. So if I accidentally unlock the car while walking away or something, it will lock it for me. Nice idea.
However, the trunk does not count as a door but is part of the security system. If I unlock the door and then open the trunk and I leave the trunk open when the lock re-engages, the alarm will go off.
Oops.
I can open the trunk without unlocking the car and everything works fine.
So, you don't think Earthlink and friends want to advertise on free software desktops? People with real services will pay that expense, so free software should not cost more than Windoze. Oh, I'm sure they have no problem. Except that what they want to advertise won't run on a Linux system with Ubuntu.
Why should Intuit pay Dell $20 to put Quicken trialware on a Linux box, when Quicken won't run under Linux? Why should Symantec pay Dell $20 to put NAV on a Linux box when NAV won't run under Linux? You get enough of these guys to put their trialware on your machine, you can offset the cost of the Windows license.
That said, if the machines prove themselves popular with "regular users", I could see Earthlink developing a setup program for Linux...
What about when my very first act is to ask the network administrator if I'm allowed to use his network, and he says "yes"? Is it okay then? Yes.
What if my NIC asks his router if I'm allowed to use his network, and his router says "yes"? Is it okay then? No.
Human beings own networks. Routers do not. Human beings can say, "I do not want Susan Otter using my network." Routers cannot simply because routers do not know who Susan Otter is. And I cannot tell a router who Susan Otter is. I can tell a router to disallow the NIC that I know Susan Otter has in her laptop, but if she gets a different NIC, I'm hosed. Therefore, a NIC is not suitable as identification of a person.
A compulsory vehicle analogy: Cars don't run over people, people run over people. If I run you over in my car, I'm arrested. Saying, "I pointed the car at you and stomped on the gas but don't blame me--the car did it!" wouldn't actually work in most courts. Another example: If I have a key which will unlock your house, that doesn't mean I am actually allowed in your house. Only you can decide who's allowed in your house.
As many have pointed out, it's possible to not allow people to use your network. Yet, the opposite is also true: It's possible to inform you that you are allowed to use the network. Therefore, if you don't see that explicit authorization, you can assume you're not welcome.
Anything else is highly unreasonable, as it requires me to know who the owners of all of my local WiFi hotspots are and what their terms of use might be. The dreaded analogies:
Your house is unlocked. You're not home. Your buddy comes in to your house, sits down on the couch, and starts watching your TV. The cops drive by, see this guy, they know he's not you, so they come and arrest him on the crime of trespassing. Your buddy calls you from jail and says, "The cops arrested me for watching your TV!" You come down to the station and tell the cops, "Yeah, it's fine. He had my permission." The cops let him go. Problem solved.
Your house is unlocked. You're not home. Some random guy comes in to your house, sits down on the couch, and starts watching your TV. The cops drive by, see this guy, they know he's not you, so they come and arrest him on the crime of trespassing. The cops call you up and say, "Hey, we found this guy in your house watching TV." You don't know him. At this point, it is up to you as to whether or not you want to press charges.
To me, it's a similar concept. In this case, the guy was using a WiFi hotspot that the owner of the hotspot did not want him to use. So, yes, you should make sure that you have permission to use a WiFi router before you use it. Just like you don't walk into someone's house without their permission. If you want to allow anybody and everybody to use your WiFi router to access the Internet, just tell the cops when they ask that, yes, anyone can use it.
Way back when, I rented a PS2 from Blockbuster video and a couple of games (I'd just switched to Mac OS X and my copy of Virtual GameStation would never be updated...) to try it out. Decided it wasn't for me (I like the keyboard, I guess) and returned it after a week.
So what I'm saying is, are there places renting PS3s and Blue Ray Movies? Maybe you could give it a try and see what you think...
...So I figure I'll google "Gertrude Weise" and see if I can get some info to see if there's some reason that they picked the name or are they just coming up with names. I run into Spirit Mission Manager Reports:. It catches my eye for these two quotes, taken entirely out of context:
"[...] Spirit backed up over Gertrude Weise [...]"
"Spirit acquired full color 13-filter images of Gertrude Weise [...]"
It's not clear whether Spirit took the pictures before or after backing over Gertrude Weise--if it was after, it may have been done for insurance purposes...
By the way, in reading the article, I notice that Spirit is near something that NASA is calling "Home Plate." So I assume that's what the baseball references are. There's also a "Virginia Bell" (not be confused, I assume, with this Virginia Bell), "Kathryn Beare", and "Janice O'Hara".
Most companies allow "upgrades" (ie, more money). Some even allow "downgrades" (ie, less money). However, most of them consider that to be a new contract.
So if you've been with a company for, say, 18 months out of a 24 month contract and you decide to add unlimited texting, *bing* you're there for another two years.
So, tonight they're watching Webster, Mr. Belvedere, Sidekicks, Sledge Hammer, Starman, Scarecrow and Mrs. King, Dallas, Falcon Crest, The A-Team, Miami Vice, and LA Law.
Actually, I remember working with Apple's years ago. We had a project where, ideally, people could send voice commands to a Mac and get it pull entries out of a database and read it to you. A "What is my outsanding balance?" sort of thing.
It was really entertaining, but I fell into what I call "The Missing Remote" syndrome: If you've ever lost your remote, you will spend 10 minutes looking for it so you can turn off the TV and go to bed, rather than get up and walk over to the TV and turn it off. I think I must have spent 5 minutes saying "Close Window" in various different ways and speeds rather than just click on the damn close box.
Of course, what I really miss in Apple's speech recognition are the avatars...
Clearly, actual Vista sales to consumers are disappointingly low [...] Yeah, but y'know, operating system upgrade sales have always been low. I heard it took Windows XP over a year to hit the one million mark. That's not to say there were only 1 million people using Windows XP after a year. It's that only one million people went out and bought the upgrade.
The vast majority of Windows users don't upgrade their operating system. They upgrade their computer. If they want Vista, they go buy a new computer to run it on. It's alot easier than buying the upgrade and discovering that it either won't work or sucks on your old computer (and then you have to go buy the new computer anyway which comes with a copy of Vista, so you've wasted money).
I'm pretty sure a touch-screen phone which will naturally get smudged easily will stop quite a few people just because of that. I gotta admit, that's one thing that will initially keep me away from the iPhone.
The iPhone looks great but it also looks like you'll have to treat it very carefully. I don't want to have to worry about it. Now, I have a cheap-ass phone that I don't really care if it gets scratched or smudged as it sits in my backpack. I'm worried about how durable the iPhone is going to be if it isn't sitting in it's soft velvet carrying case. I'd hate my iPod to stop working because it got a scratch over where the iPod icon is on the screen so that part of the touchscreen doesn't work anymore.
Don't get me wrong--Apple is generally pretty good about testing stuff like that. But I figure I'll wait and make sure before I drop $599 on one.
Slashdot Mirror
Dreaded Car Analogy: My car can go 130 miles per hour. It doesn't make it legal for my to drive it 130 miles per hour. I have driven my car 130 miles per hour on US Interstate Highways and was not arrested. Just because I wasn't arrested doesn't make it legal for me drive my car 130 miles per hour down Main Street in my hometown.
Basically, the music industry didn't have much problem with cassette tapes because cassette tapes were not high quality and the second, third, and fourth generation copies would not be as good as the first generation copies, which limited their spread. If I made a mix tape for my girlfriend, it sounded OK. If she copied that tape and gave it two of her friends, it didn't sound as good. If those friends made copies for two of their friends, it was even worse. Finally, you ended up with mud.
In fact, that was one of their concerns with CDs when they first came out: The audio quality of music recorded on CDs would not degrade over time. However, I don't believe they were concerned because there wasn't a really easy way for a consumer to copy CDs when they first came out. Heck, I think it took about 10 or more years for consumer CD burners to come out (I think consumer CDs are "magneto-optical" or something--I'm pretty sure they don't use the same technique for commercial CDs). This is also one reason for death of DAT (Digital Audio Tape) is that the RIAA raised the specter of suing everybody into oblivion unless they instituted draconian copy protection controls.
Also, consider how difficult it would be for the RIAA to come after you if you copied songs to a tape and gave them to your girlfriend. Unless she rats you out, you're pretty safe. Keep in mind that you could distribute it to "five of your friends." We're not talking about huge numbers here. It certainly wasn't worth the time and effort necessary to find out that you had broken the law. They were more concerned about the people making thousands of illegal copies and selling them as legitimate.
However, with digital music and the Internet, it's quite easy for you to distribute a song to thousands of people. Whether or not you make money off this distribution is unimportant.
...only if they can ride their bicycles.
Oh, you're expecting sense to come from Slashdot. You must be new here... :^)
Seriously, remember that Zune holds 10% of the hard-drive based MP3 player market. Apple used to do the same thing when talking about about iPod market-share and Steve Jobs would deride the flash-based MP3 player (right up until they built one).
For example, if you look at Amazon's top-selling MP3 players, the Zune shows up around #16. However, if you look at hard-drive based MP3 players, you'll find Zune sitting at #5.
What's entertaining, looking at the Amazon list, is that the Zune is selling for about $40-$50 off the MSRP of $249.99. So the Zune is competitively priced with an iPod nano. Not that I'd replace my nano with a Zune...
Bringing back Max would be interesting, but difficult.
First, forget the original actors--they're all too old (hey, so am I). Second, I think there would be less of a "Gee-Whiz" effect as much of what goes on has come about.
It would definitely need a "re-imagining."
I may hate the iPod, but I'm not going to go from Redmond to Mountain View just to throw it out.
Yes, but will it tell you about Bullfights?
- Download updates with Mac OS X's Software Update. This is especially true when it's an update that requires a restart. Choose 'Shut Down' from the Finder menu. Software Update will not shut down because it's in the middle of downloading and applying updates that will then require me to restart or shut down! Here's an idea: Since I have to restart or shut down anyway, why not let it finish the update program and THEN shut down? Why do I have to wait for it finish so I can then shut down?
- On an Apple notebook, choose Shut Down. Click the "Are you sure?" button. Close the lid. Your computer is now asleep. When you next open up the top, the computer will wake up and finish shutting down. Hello? Does it make sense that I want the computer to go to sleep just before shutting down or does it make more sense that I'd like the computer to shut down with the lid closed?!
- Personal peeve: Choose Shut Down. Click the "Are you sure?" button. Then click through every application that says, "Do you want to save your files before quitting?" How about this, Apple? Choose Shut Down. Applications are quit. If they need me to save something, they'll ask. You know, like you've been telling developers to do for the past 20 years? You know, like you used to do in Mac OS 9?
This is why I chuckle whenever I hear anybody talk about how Apple sweats "the little things."(Actually, the "official explanation" I got from Apple about this a few years ago at WWDC was that Apple is trying to get away from the whole "Document-based" thing and asking if you want to save. So if you do something and quit the application, the application should save it's state somewhere and then quit. When you restart the application, it should reload it's state so you don't lose anything. Mail is an example of this, where everything is saved when you quit.)
Actually, my Audi will relock the car if I don't open one of the doors within a set amount of time. So if I accidentally unlock the car while walking away or something, it will lock it for me. Nice idea.
However, the trunk does not count as a door but is part of the security system. If I unlock the door and then open the trunk and I leave the trunk open when the lock re-engages, the alarm will go off.
Oops.
I can open the trunk without unlocking the car and everything works fine.
I still have PL/I on my resume, but I haven't seen a PL/I job in 25 years. Not that I've looked for a PL/I job in 25 years...
I leave it there mostly for laughs.
As I've said numerous times (and I'm quoting from somewhere, but I don't know where):
"It's not dead. It just smells funny."
Why should Intuit pay Dell $20 to put Quicken trialware on a Linux box, when Quicken won't run under Linux? Why should Symantec pay Dell $20 to put NAV on a Linux box when NAV won't run under Linux? You get enough of these guys to put their trialware on your machine, you can offset the cost of the Windows license.
That said, if the machines prove themselves popular with "regular users", I could see Earthlink developing a setup program for Linux...
Human beings own networks. Routers do not. Human beings can say, "I do not want Susan Otter using my network." Routers cannot simply because routers do not know who Susan Otter is. And I cannot tell a router who Susan Otter is. I can tell a router to disallow the NIC that I know Susan Otter has in her laptop, but if she gets a different NIC, I'm hosed. Therefore, a NIC is not suitable as identification of a person.
A compulsory vehicle analogy: Cars don't run over people, people run over people. If I run you over in my car, I'm arrested. Saying, "I pointed the car at you and stomped on the gas but don't blame me--the car did it!" wouldn't actually work in most courts. Another example: If I have a key which will unlock your house, that doesn't mean I am actually allowed in your house. Only you can decide who's allowed in your house.
As many have pointed out, it's possible to not allow people to use your network. Yet, the opposite is also true: It's possible to inform you that you are allowed to use the network. Therefore, if you don't see that explicit authorization, you can assume you're not welcome.
Your house is unlocked. You're not home. Your buddy comes in to your house, sits down on the couch, and starts watching your TV. The cops drive by, see this guy, they know he's not you, so they come and arrest him on the crime of trespassing. Your buddy calls you from jail and says, "The cops arrested me for watching your TV!" You come down to the station and tell the cops, "Yeah, it's fine. He had my permission." The cops let him go. Problem solved.
Your house is unlocked. You're not home. Some random guy comes in to your house, sits down on the couch, and starts watching your TV. The cops drive by, see this guy, they know he's not you, so they come and arrest him on the crime of trespassing. The cops call you up and say, "Hey, we found this guy in your house watching TV." You don't know him. At this point, it is up to you as to whether or not you want to press charges.
To me, it's a similar concept. In this case, the guy was using a WiFi hotspot that the owner of the hotspot did not want him to use. So, yes, you should make sure that you have permission to use a WiFi router before you use it. Just like you don't walk into someone's house without their permission. If you want to allow anybody and everybody to use your WiFi router to access the Internet, just tell the cops when they ask that, yes, anyone can use it.
So, it's a "life vest" then?
Thank you folks. I'll be here all week. Try the veal.
Just because I'm curious...
Way back when, I rented a PS2 from Blockbuster video and a couple of games (I'd just switched to Mac OS X and my copy of Virtual GameStation would never be updated...) to try it out. Decided it wasn't for me (I like the keyboard, I guess) and returned it after a week.
So what I'm saying is, are there places renting PS3s and Blue Ray Movies? Maybe you could give it a try and see what you think...
- "[...] Spirit backed up over Gertrude Weise [...]"
- "Spirit acquired full color 13-filter images of Gertrude Weise [...]"
It's not clear whether Spirit took the pictures before or after backing over Gertrude Weise--if it was after, it may have been done for insurance purposes...By the way, in reading the article, I notice that Spirit is near something that NASA is calling "Home Plate." So I assume that's what the baseball references are. There's also a "Virginia Bell" (not be confused, I assume, with this Virginia Bell), "Kathryn Beare", and "Janice O'Hara".
Gustav Crater--Now known as "Silicon Crater."
Well, there's a variation on this.
Most companies allow "upgrades" (ie, more money). Some even allow "downgrades" (ie, less money). However, most of them consider that to be a new contract.
So if you've been with a company for, say, 18 months out of a 24 month contract and you decide to add unlimited texting, *bing* you're there for another two years.
So, tonight they're watching Webster, Mr. Belvedere, Sidekicks, Sledge Hammer, Starman, Scarecrow and Mrs. King, Dallas, Falcon Crest, The A-Team, Miami Vice, and LA Law.
Scary...
And what if Lincoln had been armed and able to fire back?
Actually, I remember working with Apple's years ago. We had a project where, ideally, people could send voice commands to a Mac and get it pull entries out of a database and read it to you. A "What is my outsanding balance?" sort of thing.
It was really entertaining, but I fell into what I call "The Missing Remote" syndrome: If you've ever lost your remote, you will spend 10 minutes looking for it so you can turn off the TV and go to bed, rather than get up and walk over to the TV and turn it off. I think I must have spent 5 minutes saying "Close Window" in various different ways and speeds rather than just click on the damn close box.
Of course, what I really miss in Apple's speech recognition are the avatars...
The vast majority of Windows users don't upgrade their operating system. They upgrade their computer. If they want Vista, they go buy a new computer to run it on. It's alot easier than buying the upgrade and discovering that it either won't work or sucks on your old computer (and then you have to go buy the new computer anyway which comes with a copy of Vista, so you've wasted money).
The iPhone looks great but it also looks like you'll have to treat it very carefully. I don't want to have to worry about it. Now, I have a cheap-ass phone that I don't really care if it gets scratched or smudged as it sits in my backpack. I'm worried about how durable the iPhone is going to be if it isn't sitting in it's soft velvet carrying case. I'd hate my iPod to stop working because it got a scratch over where the iPod icon is on the screen so that part of the touchscreen doesn't work anymore.
Don't get me wrong--Apple is generally pretty good about testing stuff like that. But I figure I'll wait and make sure before I drop $599 on one.
Don't be too sure--I think it's only within the last twenty years that there were finally more people than cows in Vermont.
I grew up there. A wonderful place to grow up. A great place to visit. But I don't think I could live there anymore.