I'm exactly the person you described. I'm a Web designer who does some programming/scripting: javascipt, ruby, php. I never touch a windows machine except to use IE to test Web pages I'm working on. I have no idea what software is available exclusively for Windows, because it doesn't concern me. When bootcamp was released, I did buy a copy of XP. (Although, I know someone who used to work at M$, he called someone he knew that still worked there, and got it for $42 shipped) I bought it one, just to fool around with, and two, so I could use Q to run both operating systems side-by-side for easier testing.
Frankly, I find it a little pompous you assume a Macintosh user is somehow to inferior to have implemented this idea, and a little naive to think everyone on the planet needs windows boxes to get through day-to-day life.
Basically you put your TV on the floor so the screen is pointed straight up. Then you hang a piece of plexiglass at a 45 degree angle above the TV. The image will be projected on the plexiglass and look like a floating head that you can see through.
Maybe the circle of aquaintances you have are different, but all the business travellers I know have their laptops with them to play a DVD on. Bigger screen, and they have to take it with them on trips anyway. The really wired ones take not only a couple of DVDs but also a few shows from Tivo2Go with them. I don't know of one person who takes a portable DVD/PVR with them on business trips.
I don't know anything about soldiers, but I don't think basing a market on a few thousand (hopefully) temporary deployments would be a great idea.
I'm assuming you're being funny, but just in case. The mouse defaults to a one button mouse. The "button" is actually a touch sensitive device, that if enabled, can tell the difference between clicking on the left or the right. To get the functionality, it looks like you'll have to enable it in your preferences.
It's a win-win. First time users get the simplicity of the one button mouse, and advanced users can enable more powerful features. It's not revolutionary perhaps, but I think it's a neat idea.
This is true for some CSS, but they could possibly improve other things. IE for instance thinks that there's some mysterious element that surrounds the HTML tag so, you can pass styles to IE by using * HTML {}, while other browsers will ignore it. If they fix both the quirks that the hacks are fixing, and the method of passing the hacks to IE, it would be no harm no foul. It's just that they'd have to make sure they got everything right. So that the new IE doesn't end up ignoring a hack it needs...
How about the part where Real would be *happy* to license to Apple?
Why should Apple ask to license from Real? It's not like Real got permission or paid anything to license. It's OK because real asked firat? Why should Apple have to pay Real?
Microsoft Optical Here - 4 buttons + scroll wheel. Works great everywhere. Setting Expose up on buttons three and four have saved me unbelievable amounts of time.
Anyone else notice the front side bus is slower than on the PMacs? The 1.8Ghz has only a 600Mhz FSB, the 1.8 PMac had a 900Mhz one. Are these some kind of different chip?
I still think even this analogy is flawed, but I'll admit mine is flawed much worse. After reading a few more articles, I have to agree it doesn't seem like Real is doing anything illegal. They simply want their crappy codec to play on the number one player in the world, and who wouldn't? I think this is a good thing, it'll make apple start thinking about more ways of innovating the iTMS to stay ahead of the competition instead of letting it get stale by relying on the competitive edge of the iPod. I relent.;)
Wow a discussion on slashdot that didn't involve name calling and actually ended in agreement. It may be a first.
Sorry, but unless Apple is going to lease iPods they have no control over what you do to the hardware you bought from them. If I wanted to write software that turned iPod into a toaster I am within my rights to do so.
Something tells me they wouldn't have a problem with this, I mean the iPod isn't supposed to be a book reader but you can get drink recipies and even the constitution for it. Apple doesn't seem to be going after them.
FWIW, I like Apple and I think what Real did is wrong, but I think your argument isn't really addressing the real issue. I mean, if someone wrote a book on how to hack TiVo so you could use their service without paying for it, instead of adding functionality to the box, they'd probably be angry as well. (or maybe that's what the TiVo books really are about, I dunno I've never seen one)
So: Tom Waits "Rain Dogs" = $19; Bob Dylan "Infidels" = $9; Philip Glass "Music in 12 Parts" (3 CDs) = $12? Where are they going with that bologna? Are the Boredoms or other experimental artists going to sell any of their extra-long tracks or one-track albums for just $1? Are artists going to be forced to ditch the 'album' experience and focus on hovering a saleable image over a bunch of disconnected songs?
Errr....
When I looked on iTMS, I saw this:
Tom Waits "Rain Dogs" -- $9.99
Bob Dylan "Infidels" -- $7.92
Philip Glass "Music in 12 Parts" -- Couldn't find it.
So as you can see, he was simply trying to make it easy for the readers of the article to understand. It's not a hard-n-fast rule, it's an aproximation.
As for your other point about the "album experience" I believe Jobs said that 45% of all sales were in the form of albums, so if you make a great album, people will listen to it as you intended. Also, I know some albums are available "By Song Only" -- Is there a flip side to this where you have to buy the whole album?
I saw them at our local musical Mecca, Ralph's Corner about a year ago. He's a great entertainer. The robots have pre-programmed phrases to say through the show, but he can also switch his mic to talk through the robots to heckle the crowd.
The basic plot of the show is that the human built some robots to be his friends and play with him, but the robots rebelled and took him prisoner, and rip his guts out for fun. The take the human around the nation on tour so they can ridicule him in front of other humans to show their superiority. There is also two stuffed monkeys involved... The-ape-that-hath-no-name, and another one who's name escapes me.
Great show. If you go, check out the merchandise table, they have hilarious stuff for sale, including Captured By Robots cock rings.
I don't know if it's different on the windows version, but on the mac version you don't even need that. You can just change the order of the songs. Drag track #2 to position #1 and presto. 10 more burns.
Disagree? Give a brand new machine to your parents, or grandparents and get them to install unix. See what happens, and if you have any hair left after walking them through.
That's pretty funny, because actually I have given both my parents and my grandparents my old machines running Unix, and I've never had a big problem.;)
Just to give everyone some insight into how fast RFID tags are coming to fruition, the town I live in just got named as a site for a new Alien Technologies factory. Everyone is touting it as a great thing for the area without realizing how harmful these things could become. The scary quote from the newspapers is how they're expecting to grow from a hundred or two hundred person factory to an 1100 person factory over the course of just a few years! I wouldn't think they'd be spouting off those numbers unless they had a lot of retailers/manufacturers already lining up for the little suckers.
*SELLING* copyright material has always been considering copyright infringement, but until the NO THEFT ACT and DMCA, non-commercial copies of copyrighted material were considered fair use and legal.
I'm not sure if this is quite the same as what your talking about, but in 1989 8 book publishers brought a copyright case against Kinko's for copying some passages out of their college text books. The supreme court came up with 4 tests to test for copyright infringment, and the type of use was only one of them. Boy, you're really testing my communications law memory now, but I think they were:
Type of use: commercial, non-commercial etc
Type of work: educational, fictional, published, etc
Amount of work that was copied. Part or whole
Impact on the economy due to the use
Each of these is weighed in a decision of whether something is copyright infringement. The commercial, non-commercial is just one part. You can definately not make money on something and still have it be copyright infrinement.
The constitutionality of the DMCA and associated laws would undoubtedly be the first things reviewed, and again, given enough attention, could be soundly defeated.
In RIAA v. Verizon neither side ever actually brought up the constitutionality of the DMCA so it was never used in the decision (Verizon did try at one point, but they didn't do it in the correct way or something like that so the judge wouldn't hear the argument. IANAL so if someone familiar with the case and court process wants to clarify, feel free). but the judge did address the constitutionality of the decision in his opinion anyway, just because he thought it would come up later. (This is in the first case, not the appeal, I don't know if it came up again or not) He basically said that there is precedent that the first amendment cannot be used to protect copyright infringement and that this case is not one where anonymity is essential to a persons first amendment rights, as it is when someone wants to criticize the gov't or a corporation on a message board.
Of course this only covers the constitutionality of the subpoena power of the DMCA to get the identity of an infringing user from a service provider. Their could be other parts of the DMCA that are still ruled unconsitutional in the future.
Sooooooo. What exactly is your point? I'm a little confused as to why this was moderated up as insightful. Are you trying to say that it doesn't matter that these people are stealing because other bad things happen in this world?
It sounds like you're hinting at the fact that since a substantial amount of people are going to get away with doing unlawful things anyway, we just shouldn't have laws against those things?
Sounds like an argument of someone who does unlawful things.;)
Remember, the wolves go for the weak caribu first. When they go for the strong ones, they have to spend a lot of energy running it down, and it isn't worth it to them. --
While this was probably part of it, I also want to point out rule number one in civil law -- Sue the people with the money.
Perhaps, the RIAA are going after the weak to set up precedent to make things easier when they start going after bigger game? Just a thought.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm exactly the person you described. I'm a Web designer who does some programming/scripting: javascipt, ruby, php. I never touch a windows machine except to use IE to test Web pages I'm working on. I have no idea what software is available exclusively for Windows, because it doesn't concern me. When bootcamp was released, I did buy a copy of XP. (Although, I know someone who used to work at M$, he called someone he knew that still worked there, and got it for $42 shipped) I bought it one, just to fool around with, and two, so I could use Q to run both operating systems side-by-side for easier testing.
Frankly, I find it a little pompous you assume a Macintosh user is somehow to inferior to have implemented this idea, and a little naive to think everyone on the planet needs windows boxes to get through day-to-day life.
If you have an old tv around (No LCD or flat screens, have to be the old school rounded front). Try Boo Tube DVDs (http://www.frightcatalog.com/Halloween-Special+Ef fects/DVDs/Boo+Tube+DVD+Volume+2-1408002/)
Basically you put your TV on the floor so the screen is pointed straight up. Then you hang a piece of plexiglass at a 45 degree angle above the TV. The image will be projected on the plexiglass and look like a floating head that you can see through.
Maybe the circle of aquaintances you have are different, but all the business travellers I know have their laptops with them to play a DVD on. Bigger screen, and they have to take it with them on trips anyway. The really wired ones take not only a couple of DVDs but also a few shows from Tivo2Go with them. I don't know of one person who takes a portable DVD/PVR with them on business trips.
I don't know anything about soldiers, but I don't think basing a market on a few thousand (hopefully) temporary deployments would be a great idea.
I'm assuming you're being funny, but just in case. The mouse defaults to a one button mouse. The "button" is actually a touch sensitive device, that if enabled, can tell the difference between clicking on the left or the right. To get the functionality, it looks like you'll have to enable it in your preferences.
It's a win-win. First time users get the simplicity of the one button mouse, and advanced users can enable more powerful features. It's not revolutionary perhaps, but I think it's a neat idea.
"The language itself is just becoming mature - with big strides (generics, etc) in Java 1.5." - emphasis mine
It's funny you should use that word. Last month the creator of rails wrote a posting on the very subject. Read more at http://www.loudthinking.com/arc/000434.html
This is true for some CSS, but they could possibly improve other things. IE for instance thinks that there's some mysterious element that surrounds the HTML tag so, you can pass styles to IE by using * HTML {}, while other browsers will ignore it. If they fix both the quirks that the hacks are fixing, and the method of passing the hacks to IE, it would be no harm no foul. It's just that they'd have to make sure they got everything right. So that the new IE doesn't end up ignoring a hack it needs...
How about the part where Real would be *happy* to license to Apple?
Why should Apple ask to license from Real? It's not like Real got permission or paid anything to license. It's OK because real asked firat? Why should Apple have to pay Real?
Microsoft Optical Here - 4 buttons + scroll wheel. Works great everywhere. Setting Expose up on buttons three and four have saved me unbelievable amounts of time.
Anyone else notice the front side bus is slower than on the PMacs? The 1.8Ghz has only a 600Mhz FSB, the 1.8 PMac had a 900Mhz one. Are these some kind of different chip?
I still think even this analogy is flawed, but I'll admit mine is flawed much worse. After reading a few more articles, I have to agree it doesn't seem like Real is doing anything illegal. They simply want their crappy codec to play on the number one player in the world, and who wouldn't? I think this is a good thing, it'll make apple start thinking about more ways of innovating the iTMS to stay ahead of the competition instead of letting it get stale by relying on the competitive edge of the iPod. I relent. ;)
Wow a discussion on slashdot that didn't involve name calling and actually ended in agreement. It may be a first.
Sorry, but unless Apple is going to lease iPods they have no control over what you do to the hardware you bought from them. If I wanted to write software that turned iPod into a toaster I am within my rights to do so.
Something tells me they wouldn't have a problem with this, I mean the iPod isn't supposed to be a book reader but you can get drink recipies and even the constitution for it. Apple doesn't seem to be going after them.
FWIW, I like Apple and I think what Real did is wrong, but I think your argument isn't really addressing the real issue. I mean, if someone wrote a book on how to hack TiVo so you could use their service without paying for it, instead of adding functionality to the box, they'd probably be angry as well. (or maybe that's what the TiVo books really are about, I dunno I've never seen one)
Apple != Music Industry
Doh... What do I know, I use a one button mouse...
And I knew there was something funny about those PC geeks. They can't even tell men from women!
Errr....
When I looked on iTMS, I saw this:
Tom Waits "Rain Dogs" -- $9.99
Bob Dylan "Infidels" -- $7.92
Philip Glass "Music in 12 Parts" -- Couldn't find it.
So as you can see, he was simply trying to make it easy for the readers of the article to understand. It's not a hard-n-fast rule, it's an aproximation.
As for your other point about the "album experience" I believe Jobs said that 45% of all sales were in the form of albums, so if you make a great album, people will listen to it as you intended. Also, I know some albums are available "By Song Only" -- Is there a flip side to this where you have to buy the whole album?
I saw them at our local musical Mecca, Ralph's Corner about a year ago. He's a great entertainer. The robots have pre-programmed phrases to say through the show, but he can also switch his mic to talk through the robots to heckle the crowd.
The basic plot of the show is that the human built some robots to be his friends and play with him, but the robots rebelled and took him prisoner, and rip his guts out for fun. The take the human around the nation on tour so they can ridicule him in front of other humans to show their superiority. There is also two stuffed monkeys involved... The-ape-that-hath-no-name, and another one who's name escapes me.
Great show. If you go, check out the merchandise table, they have hilarious stuff for sale, including Captured By Robots cock rings.
I don't know if it's different on the windows version, but on the mac version you don't even need that. You can just change the order of the songs. Drag track #2 to position #1 and presto. 10 more burns.
That's pretty funny, because actually I have given both my parents and my grandparents my old machines running Unix, and I've never had a big problem.
Just to give everyone some insight into how fast RFID tags are coming to fruition, the town I live in just got named as a site for a new Alien Technologies factory. Everyone is touting it as a great thing for the area without realizing how harmful these things could become. The scary quote from the newspapers is how they're expecting to grow from a hundred or two hundred person factory to an 1100 person factory over the course of just a few years! I wouldn't think they'd be spouting off those numbers unless they had a lot of retailers/manufacturers already lining up for the little suckers.
Dual 2ghz g5, $2999 w/ OS X
A dual ghz machine will cost the linux guys $2800 in the OS alone after October 15th!
*cackles manically* Ahhh revenge for the Mac community!
p.s. -- Yes this is a joke... don't flame me.
I'm not sure if this is quite the same as what your talking about, but in 1989 8 book publishers brought a copyright case against Kinko's for copying some passages out of their college text books. The supreme court came up with 4 tests to test for copyright infringment, and the type of use was only one of them. Boy, you're really testing my communications law memory now, but I think they were:
Each of these is weighed in a decision of whether something is copyright infringement. The commercial, non-commercial is just one part. You can definately not make money on something and still have it be copyright infrinement.
In RIAA v. Verizon neither side ever actually brought up the constitutionality of the DMCA so it was never used in the decision (Verizon did try at one point, but they didn't do it in the correct way or something like that so the judge wouldn't hear the argument. IANAL so if someone familiar with the case and court process wants to clarify, feel free). but the judge did address the constitutionality of the decision in his opinion anyway, just because he thought it would come up later. (This is in the first case, not the appeal, I don't know if it came up again or not) He basically said that there is precedent that the first amendment cannot be used to protect copyright infringement and that this case is not one where anonymity is essential to a persons first amendment rights, as it is when someone wants to criticize the gov't or a corporation on a message board.
Of course this only covers the constitutionality of the subpoena power of the DMCA to get the identity of an infringing user from a service provider. Their could be other parts of the DMCA that are still ruled unconsitutional in the future.
It sounds like you're hinting at the fact that since a substantial amount of people are going to get away with doing unlawful things anyway, we just shouldn't have laws against those things?
Sounds like an argument of someone who does unlawful things.
--
While this was probably part of it, I also want to point out rule number one in civil law -- Sue the people with the money.
Perhaps, the RIAA are going after the weak to set up precedent to make things easier when they start going after bigger game? Just a thought.
May I please restate a Previous Post of mine...