FTA, the guy's app didn't brick the iPhone and had no offensive material. He didn't indicate directly whether it's a paid app, but he did say he made some money off it. So basically, Apple's rejection does not fit all nice and neat in your three bullet points. More to the point, if the platform was totally open, they really wouldn't have to worry about being sued.
I'm just in shock that "emission of a succession of repetitive beats" doesn't actually include rock (beatles, stones), punk (sex pistols, the clash), metal (iron maiden, judas priest), and just about any music to have deep roots in Britain.
Pardon my ignorance, isn't MySQL an Open Source project? I thought we could just fork it and continue working on it -- a pipe dream, I know, but still theoretically possible?? In fact, I thought there was already a fork based on MySQL a while back?
Cannonball, why do people like you insist on trying to change an Apple fanboy's mind by pointing to rational, logical examples?? No matter how many times you hit your head against a brick wall, it will always be your head that suffers. Arguments against those people should take the form "ooh don't look there, shiny here!!!!"
The entire meta-labeling scheme seems convoluted. My music could be classified in folders like "ABC Soundtrack" with filename being the name of the artist - song name.mp3. But the meta-info may be missing. Or I have a bunch of foreign music that CDDB didn't recognize. In all these cases, the "Artist" column is "Unknown" and if you don't fix the problem at import, the Unknown category becomes a black hole for music. And what happens if I import a bunch of these at the same time? Now, they all mix together in the Unknown folder, and I'm SOL.
For me, Apple's way of doing things in iTunes (and mostly, in general) just doesn't make sense - and I've owned a Mac for 2 years now, and have had many iPods, so I *had* to use iTunes extensively.
Going back to GP's comment, I totally agree -- Apple's business model is starting to revolve heavily around providing a service, i.e. iTunes. Why they want to limit people from using a specific device to hook into iTunes is beyond me. The only thing I can think of is the fear that they will lose iPod sales, but to that, I say they have already lost that sale!!!
I have to side with the GP here. I love linux just as much as any other slashdotter, but the knee-jerk reaction to ANY problem around here is "JUST INSTALL LINUX."
There are a gazillion reasons that it's not as simple as that in all of these cases, first and foremost is COST. Who is going to pay for these installs, who is going to do the research to find someone able and willing to do these installs, who is going to pay for that? What about legacy software you CAN'T run on Linux, what about dongles, what about the network, etc etc etc. What about the cost of training the unionized teachers to use something completely new and unfamiliar as opposed to the same old "window thingy" they used to access their email?Does anyone around here even realize how much of a bureaucratic process it is to something "simple" as installing a new operating system in publicly-funded schools??
Undoubtedly, I'll get modded down as troll of flamebait for pointing out that a solution to a technical problem is not "just install linux" because there are other non-technical factors to consider in each scenario.
By the way, I think it's very cool that there is still active development going on for a legacy system, and that it has an active community, and I am in no way, shape or form trying to take away from that with this post.
People listen to radio because the world doesn't exist just on their hard drives. Even IF you had all the music that has ever existed you still won't have all the *new* music that will exist, and you would have no way of expanding your musical tastes (or, at the very least, sampling new stuff).
More to the point, people listen to INTERNET radio because it's convenient and offers better services than over-the-air radio, such as Pandora, that tailor the music stream according to your tastes. Moreover, Pandora, for example, doesn't play just mainstream stuff, so I would have never found bands like Liquid Tension Experiment or Marty Friendman's album Music for Speeding (to give just a few examples) if it weren't for Pandora. I also would never be able to listen to a continuous stream of D&B if Shoutcast didn't exist.
And the best part? It's all free (for now). And mostly commercial-free too. In fact, you don't need a fancy connection to stream music over the internet -- I streamed Pandora over the EDGE network on my way to work this morning (a 60-mile, 1.5 hour commute), and it had only two hiccups in the very beginning!
If you can find similar services without using the internet, I'm all ears...
Big deal. If you get paid once every two weeks (instead of twice a month) you're getting two extra paychecks per year. Clearly they cancel each other out, you should be glad you have a job in this economy, there are lots of people willing to do your job for a lot less
But seriously, if I had a choice between losing one paycheck every two years or having all my movements tracked, you bet your sweet-cheeks I'd choose losing the paycheck. In fact, why don't we all just pony up one paycheck every two years, and call it quits??
If you happen to have enough money to be on multiple lists, that's the only way you can legally use your money to your advantage in the USA's system.
That's the whole point of this conversation. You should not be allowed to have your name on more than one list. There are several problems:
1. Imagine if everyone suddenly did this. The kind of an administrative nightmare alone this would create is mind-bottling. Not to mention that it could lead to a possibility of losing donor livers because they couldn't figure out who's next because of the backlog.
2. Even if only a select few did this, they take away hope from every single person on that donor list (on which they don't belong in the first place) by pushing them down. Imagine you're the guy first on the list with only 2 months to live, and some dude randomly takes your only chance of survival. I know I would be utterly depressed at that point.
Aside all that, as I mentioned in my reply down below, taking the profit out of health care would make it much more balanced, fair, and humane.
That's one of those things that sounds reasonable, but upon further thought really isn't. Should rich people not be allowed to see dieticians and personal trainers, or buy more expensive and healthier food? Should they not be allowed to buy cars with extra safety features or home security systems?
That's not buying health. That is buying an active, healthy lifestyle. Again, there are people all over the world that outlive the healthiest-living (read: big-money spenders on health crap they don't need) Americans, without spending that kind of money. That's not the point, anyway. I guess it's impossible to understand unless you have lived in a culture where the well-being of a human being is equal whether you're a janitor or a CEO.
The only way to make it impossible to spend money for better health outcomes is to criminalize anything beyond very basic care.
That's not the only way. How about taking the profit out of health care and concentrate on actually providing health???
Health is not a commodity you can buy. By extension, medical care should not be a commodity either. I think most of the people on here are upset not because Jobs used his money to "get better faster." We are upset because you shouldn't be allowed to do so, especially not at the expense of another person.
By the way, "such is life" only in America. There are places where a person doesn't need to worry about being able to afford a liver transplant. To put it another way, a person shouldn't have to be worried whether they will live or die based on how much money is left in their savings account. It's plain wrong and -- I'd argue -- inhumane.
However, I do agree with you on points A-D later in your post
What if, one day, you fall gravely ill and into a coma, and become so obese that your fingers cannot hit the keys on a keyboard precisely when you wake up? You will lose access to everything you've always known. FOR GOD'S SAKE MAN, WRITE DOWN YOUR PASSWORDS!!!
The point isn't how hard it is to store digital data, or how long a single instance of digital data can last. The point is how easy it is to copy it. Replicating print can be time-consuming and expensive. Replicating bits on a drive is fast and cheap.
Slashdot Mirror
FTA, the guy's app didn't brick the iPhone and had no offensive material. He didn't indicate directly whether it's a paid app, but he did say he made some money off it. So basically, Apple's rejection does not fit all nice and neat in your three bullet points. More to the point, if the platform was totally open, they really wouldn't have to worry about being sued.
Right, I forgot: The Zulu were pioneers of rock n' roll.
I'm just in shock that "emission of a succession of repetitive beats" doesn't actually include rock (beatles, stones), punk (sex pistols, the clash), metal (iron maiden, judas priest), and just about any music to have deep roots in Britain.
Pardon my ignorance, isn't MySQL an Open Source project? I thought we could just fork it and continue working on it -- a pipe dream, I know, but still theoretically possible?? In fact, I thought there was already a fork based on MySQL a while back?
They already tried that. It didn't work out so well.
Same should be done with music. Eventually, you'll start getting paid to listen to Van Halen's Jump (as one should be)
Apologies, didn't notice your full nick: CannonballHead, duh :)
Cannonball, why do people like you insist on trying to change an Apple fanboy's mind by pointing to rational, logical examples?? No matter how many times you hit your head against a brick wall, it will always be your head that suffers. Arguments against those people should take the form "ooh don't look there, shiny here!!!!"
The entire meta-labeling scheme seems convoluted. My music could be classified in folders like "ABC Soundtrack" with filename being the name of the artist - song name.mp3. But the meta-info may be missing. Or I have a bunch of foreign music that CDDB didn't recognize. In all these cases, the "Artist" column is "Unknown" and if you don't fix the problem at import, the Unknown category becomes a black hole for music. And what happens if I import a bunch of these at the same time? Now, they all mix together in the Unknown folder, and I'm SOL.
For me, Apple's way of doing things in iTunes (and mostly, in general) just doesn't make sense - and I've owned a Mac for 2 years now, and have had many iPods, so I *had* to use iTunes extensively.
Going back to GP's comment, I totally agree -- Apple's business model is starting to revolve heavily around providing a service, i.e. iTunes. Why they want to limit people from using a specific device to hook into iTunes is beyond me. The only thing I can think of is the fear that they will lose iPod sales, but to that, I say they have already lost that sale!!!
The treatment is *clearly* not effective.
I'd rather a world with no professional musicians than no professional plumbers.
Me too. I'd rather have crappy music than crappy pants.
I have to side with the GP here. I love linux just as much as any other slashdotter, but the knee-jerk reaction to ANY problem around here is "JUST INSTALL LINUX."
There are a gazillion reasons that it's not as simple as that in all of these cases, first and foremost is COST. Who is going to pay for these installs, who is going to do the research to find someone able and willing to do these installs, who is going to pay for that? What about legacy software you CAN'T run on Linux, what about dongles, what about the network, etc etc etc. What about the cost of training the unionized teachers to use something completely new and unfamiliar as opposed to the same old "window thingy" they used to access their email?Does anyone around here even realize how much of a bureaucratic process it is to something "simple" as installing a new operating system in publicly-funded schools??
Undoubtedly, I'll get modded down as troll of flamebait for pointing out that a solution to a technical problem is not "just install linux" because there are other non-technical factors to consider in each scenario.
By the way, I think it's very cool that there is still active development going on for a legacy system, and that it has an active community, and I am in no way, shape or form trying to take away from that with this post.
People listen to radio because the world doesn't exist just on their hard drives. Even IF you had all the music that has ever existed you still won't have all the *new* music that will exist, and you would have no way of expanding your musical tastes (or, at the very least, sampling new stuff).
More to the point, people listen to INTERNET radio because it's convenient and offers better services than over-the-air radio, such as Pandora, that tailor the music stream according to your tastes. Moreover, Pandora, for example, doesn't play just mainstream stuff, so I would have never found bands like Liquid Tension Experiment or Marty Friendman's album Music for Speeding (to give just a few examples) if it weren't for Pandora. I also would never be able to listen to a continuous stream of D&B if Shoutcast didn't exist.
And the best part? It's all free (for now). And mostly commercial-free too. In fact, you don't need a fancy connection to stream music over the internet -- I streamed Pandora over the EDGE network on my way to work this morning (a 60-mile, 1.5 hour commute), and it had only two hiccups in the very beginning!
If you can find similar services without using the internet, I'm all ears...
"Did you notice it's a twin bed?"
I prefer Flingers. They don't make you wear pieces of flair.
Looks like someone has a case of the Mondays
Two words: Bruce Campbell
Big deal. If you get paid once every two weeks (instead of twice a month) you're getting two extra paychecks per year. Clearly they cancel each other out, you should be glad you have a job in this economy, there are lots of people willing to do your job for a lot less
But seriously, if I had a choice between losing one paycheck every two years or having all my movements tracked, you bet your sweet-cheeks I'd choose losing the paycheck. In fact, why don't we all just pony up one paycheck every two years, and call it quits??
(Yes, this is all tongue-in-cheek)
If you happen to have enough money to be on multiple lists, that's the only way you can legally use your money to your advantage in the USA's system.
That's the whole point of this conversation. You should not be allowed to have your name on more than one list. There are several problems:
1. Imagine if everyone suddenly did this. The kind of an administrative nightmare alone this would create is mind-bottling. Not to mention that it could lead to a possibility of losing donor livers because they couldn't figure out who's next because of the backlog.
2. Even if only a select few did this, they take away hope from every single person on that donor list (on which they don't belong in the first place) by pushing them down. Imagine you're the guy first on the list with only 2 months to live, and some dude randomly takes your only chance of survival. I know I would be utterly depressed at that point.
Aside all that, as I mentioned in my reply down below, taking the profit out of health care would make it much more balanced, fair, and humane.
That's one of those things that sounds reasonable, but upon further thought really isn't. Should rich people not be allowed to see dieticians and personal trainers, or buy more expensive and healthier food? Should they not be allowed to buy cars with extra safety features or home security systems?
That's not buying health. That is buying an active, healthy lifestyle. Again, there are people all over the world that outlive the healthiest-living (read: big-money spenders on health crap they don't need) Americans, without spending that kind of money. That's not the point, anyway. I guess it's impossible to understand unless you have lived in a culture where the well-being of a human being is equal whether you're a janitor or a CEO.
The only way to make it impossible to spend money for better health outcomes is to criminalize anything beyond very basic care.
That's not the only way. How about taking the profit out of health care and concentrate on actually providing health???
Mods feeling a little cranky today? C'mon, that was hilarious!
Luckily, a normal person has 2 kidneys, 2 lungs and 2 hearts they can donate, so it's not really a problem.
Health is not a commodity you can buy. By extension, medical care should not be a commodity either. I think most of the people on here are upset not because Jobs used his money to "get better faster." We are upset because you shouldn't be allowed to do so, especially not at the expense of another person.
By the way, "such is life" only in America. There are places where a person doesn't need to worry about being able to afford a liver transplant. To put it another way, a person shouldn't have to be worried whether they will live or die based on how much money is left in their savings account. It's plain wrong and -- I'd argue -- inhumane.
However, I do agree with you on points A-D later in your post
What if, one day, you fall gravely ill and into a coma, and become so obese that your fingers cannot hit the keys on a keyboard precisely when you wake up? You will lose access to everything you've always known. FOR GOD'S SAKE MAN, WRITE DOWN YOUR PASSWORDS!!!
The point isn't how hard it is to store digital data, or how long a single instance of digital data can last. The point is how easy it is to copy it. Replicating print can be time-consuming and expensive. Replicating bits on a drive is fast and cheap.