i) If one is buying the *rights* to the data when one buys a CD, doesn't that mean that if one breaks/scratches the CD, one should be able to ask the store for another copy at the cost of the media since the data has already been "bought"?
ii) If one is buying the CD as an object similar to how one buys a car, then surely what the hell one does with it is nobody's business, even if one makes a million copies and seels them. After all, Ford cannot sue you for customising your car so that it runs on air or water and telling others how to do the same.
Now it seems to me that record companies want to have it both ways. Either (i) is true. Or (ii) is. Both cannot be. And it seems to me that if it came to the crunch, most companies would choose (i) since it protects the business model. Fair enough. But has anybody ever gotten a replacement CD for the cost of a CDR? No? Didn't think so...
"Even if CDs do become damaged, replacements are readily available at affordable prices."
It is exactly wanton comments like this which, I am sure give many downloaders a warm glow and pleasurable feeling whenever they download a song. Indeed, they probably feel it a duty after hearing this type of thing. It is exemplary of the record companies wanting both (i) and (ii) leaving the customer with nothing.
And those who are happy about buying DRM/iTunes only tracks are selling themselves short. CDs are in every way superior since they allow (i) and leave (ii) up to your own conscience. DRM music does not allow (ii) and only supports a limited form of (i). Not to mention the cost advantage.
To throw more fat into the fire, if (i) is true, then one should be able to "sell" the spare tracks on the CD which one doesn't like?
"But why WOULDN'T anyone want to kill the WM!?!?" "But why WOULDN'T users want to edit their.profile?" etc. etc.
simply shows the problem here. Most users, including those of us who are programmers, when they have their "I want to relax and watch movies/play games on my computer." hats on, simply could not give tuppence about empowerment. They, as OzRoy points out, want something that just works. Even if they have to pay Microsoft or a tech support guy for it. For them (try to read this slowly), fixing things = work. They do not want to work. _I_ do not want to work when I am relaxing. Therefore those users will not use Linux. For some insane reason, the zero learning curve business seems to pass Linux advocates by. People sign up to car insurance because they don't know how the engine works. Most of the time the car runs fine hence this is a reasonable scenario. If that is an acceptable state of affairs, why should computers be any different?
I agree entirely. As an ex-Windows user, I frequently switched to Linux, be it Red Hat, Mandrake, Ubuntu, Lycoris, Xandros, GoboLinux, etc.. Invairably, I would have to switch back because after frustrated attempts at compiling packages to, eg, make VPN work or install shfs.
All of this cam to an end when I discovered OS X:
1) Everything just works. 2) If I want to get my hands dirty, the option exists.
Respect may have to be instilled. Via fear.
on
Improving Education?
·
· Score: -1
I don't know how it is in the US, but in England, teachers are underpaid. This pales in comparison with the loss of social respect that the profession once used to have. Possibly this is because one of the few methods of inspiring fear (which can then lead to respect, and therefore learning) is corporal punishment, which is now banned. Victorian schoolmasters were literally a diety to their students.
Right now, we are at the stage where many students would have no problem telling their teachers to "Fuck off or I'll sue you.". Would that be the case if the teacher could give them a slap?
To those saying "Intel's compiler, Intel can do what it likes.", surely I am missing something here?
- Microsoft is acknowledged as a monopoly. For _OSes_, not programs. - Microsoft also happens produce programs (IE, WMP) which hamper the competition by being free/integrated/etc.. - Everyone gets annoyed about this (antitrust in US/EU).
For this situation:
- Intel has a monopoly on the _processor_ market (correct me on this: do they?) but not on the compiler market. - Intel also happens to produce programs (IFC, ICC, etc.) which hamper the competition (this current allegation). - ?.
Surely everyone should also get annoyed about the Intel case? One does agree with "Intel's compiler, Intel can do what it likes.", but then why not "MS's program, MS can do what it likes."? Surely the place where the line is drawn is where the company in question is a monopoly, which both Intel (again, correct me on this) and MS are, therefore practises which would be fine otherwise, become illegal since they discourage competition and entrench the monopolist.
The phone looks ugly. Hopefully that's just the prototype they used to show iTunes off on. Not that I will be buying the iTunes phone... but I will start feeling betrayed if Apple make give their blessing to such an ugly phone.
Slashdot Mirror
i) If one is buying the *rights* to the data when one buys a CD, doesn't that mean that if one breaks/scratches the CD, one should be able to ask the store for another copy at the cost of the media since the data has already been "bought"?
ii) If one is buying the CD as an object similar to how one buys a car, then surely what the hell one does with it is nobody's business, even if one makes a million copies and seels them. After all, Ford cannot sue you for customising your car so that it runs on air or water and telling others how to do the same.
Now it seems to me that record companies want to have it both ways. Either (i) is true. Or (ii) is. Both cannot be. And it seems to me that if it came to the crunch, most companies would choose (i) since it protects the business model. Fair enough. But has anybody ever gotten a replacement CD for the cost of a CDR? No? Didn't think so...
"Even if CDs do become damaged, replacements are readily available at affordable prices."
It is exactly wanton comments like this which, I am sure give many downloaders a warm glow and pleasurable feeling whenever they download a song. Indeed, they probably feel it a duty after hearing this type of thing. It is exemplary of the record companies wanting both (i) and (ii) leaving the customer with nothing.
And those who are happy about buying DRM/iTunes only tracks are selling themselves short. CDs are in every way superior since they allow (i) and leave (ii) up to your own conscience. DRM music does not allow (ii) and only supports a limited form of (i). Not to mention the cost advantage.
To throw more fat into the fire, if (i) is true, then one should be able to "sell" the spare tracks on the CD which one doesn't like?
I think, from the numerous posts asking:
.profile?"
"But why WOULDN'T anyone want to kill the WM!?!?"
"But why WOULDN'T users want to edit their
etc. etc.
simply shows the problem here. Most users, including those of us who are programmers, when they have their "I want to relax and watch movies/play games on my computer." hats on, simply could not give tuppence about empowerment. They, as OzRoy points out, want something that just works. Even if they have to pay Microsoft or a tech support guy for it. For them (try to read this slowly), fixing things = work. They do not want to work. _I_ do not want to work when I am relaxing. Therefore those users will not use Linux. For some insane reason, the zero learning curve business seems to pass Linux advocates by. People sign up to car insurance because they don't know how the engine works. Most of the time the car runs fine hence this is a reasonable scenario. If that is an acceptable state of affairs, why should computers be any different?
I agree entirely. As an ex-Windows user, I frequently switched to Linux, be it Red Hat, Mandrake, Ubuntu, Lycoris, Xandros, GoboLinux, etc.. Invairably, I would have to switch back because after frustrated attempts at compiling packages to, eg, make VPN work or install shfs.
All of this cam to an end when I discovered OS X:
1) Everything just works.
2) If I want to get my hands dirty, the option exists.
I don't know how it is in the US, but in England, teachers are underpaid. This pales in comparison with the loss of social respect that the profession once used to have. Possibly this is because one of the few methods of inspiring fear (which can then lead to respect, and therefore learning) is corporal punishment, which is now banned. Victorian schoolmasters were literally a diety to their students.
Right now, we are at the stage where many students would have no problem telling their teachers to "Fuck off or I'll sue you.". Would that be the case if the teacher could give them a slap?
To those saying "Intel's compiler, Intel can do what it likes.", surely I am missing something here?
- Microsoft is acknowledged as a monopoly. For _OSes_, not programs.
- Microsoft also happens produce programs (IE, WMP) which hamper the competition by being free/integrated/etc..
- Everyone gets annoyed about this (antitrust in US/EU).
For this situation:
- Intel has a monopoly on the _processor_ market (correct me on this: do they?) but not on the compiler market.
- Intel also happens to produce programs (IFC, ICC, etc.) which hamper the competition (this current allegation).
- ?.
Surely everyone should also get annoyed about the Intel case? One does agree with "Intel's compiler, Intel can do what it likes.", but then why not "MS's program, MS can do what it likes."? Surely the place where the line is drawn is where the company in question is a monopoly, which both Intel (again, correct me on this) and MS are, therefore practises which would be fine otherwise, become illegal since they discourage competition and entrench the monopolist.
The phone looks ugly. Hopefully that's just the prototype they used to show iTunes off on. Not that I will be buying the iTunes phone... but I will start feeling betrayed if Apple make give their blessing to such an ugly phone.
1st?