I can have either a full sized laptop that I need a bag for, or a smartphone I don't need a bag for. If I wanted to get something in between that I'd still need a bag for, I'd get a fully capable netbook. Your mistake is thinking that because I don't like the ipad, I don't like technology. Quite the opposite. It is because I like technology (particularly powerful technology) that I dislike the ipad.
If you really think the jump from 95 to XP is too large for a computer illiterate to make, but the jump from 95 to an ipad is perfectly easy, then I'm afraid you might be in danger of drowning. Always make sure to take breaths between your gulps of kool-aid.
So the target audience for the ipad is senior citizens who barely even know how to use a mouse? Good to know, now I can go back to completely ignoring the thing.
This is not just a tablet computer, this is a big-ass iPod
This is also exactly why so many slashdotters hate the thing. It's nothing more than an ipod so big I can't even fit it in my pocket. Why in the world would I want that?
Fact is you are getting a lossy file from itunes, unless you pay more for a lossless file. Whether or not you think it is worth it is really an opinion. The only thing that personally really bugs me is when I do the burn/rip trick, I either receive files that are far far larger (on the order of 20 or so megabytes, my harddrive is only so big...), or I receive small files that now have been encoded lossy twice. At that point it certainly makes some difference.
Anyways, all of this is why I prefer just going to shows...
If you burn a lossy file to a CD, you can't really say the process was "lossless". There may not have been loss on your side, but there was when it was originally encoded, and to avoid additional loss when you rip it back you need to use a lossless file format. This results in your file being far larger than the original but having the same quality.
Besides that nitpick, I'll agree it was a pretty decent thing to do.
The only opinion around here is whether or not mathematics should be patentable. Software being algorithms and algorithms being math is in fact established fact, not opinion. Current US law states that mathematics is not to be patentable, and any sane person agrees.
My quote from Donald Knuth neatly argues why patenting math is a Bad Idea(tm), but you have yet to respond to it. In reality, it is you who is unable or unwilling to effectively argue, or even defend, your opinion.
He makes mathematically sound arguments, and backs it up with common sense. I think the opinion of Donald Knuth, who has invented more patents than you could ever dream of, is very relevant.
Nice job dodging the question though, you would make a good politician.
In the period 1945-1980, it was generally believed that patent law did not pertain to software. However, it now appears that some people have received patents for algorithms of practical importance--e.g., Lempel-Ziv compression and RSA public key encryption--and are now legally preventing other programmers from using these algorithms.
This is a serious change from the previous policy under which the computer revolution became possible, and I fear this change will be harmful for society. It certainly would have had a profoundly negative effect on my own work: For example, I developed software called TeX that is now used to produce more than 90% of all books and journals in mathematics and physics and to produce hundreds of thousands of technical reports in all scientific disciplines. If software patents had been commonplace in 1980, I would not have been able to create such a system, nor would I probably have ever thought of doing it, nor can I imagine anyone else doing so. I am told that the courts are trying to make a distinction between mathematical algorithms and nonmathematical algorithms. To a computer scientist, this makes no sense, because every algorithm is as mathematical as anything could be. An algorithm is an abstract concept unrelated to physical laws of the universe.
Nor is it possible to distinguish between "numerical" and "nonnumerical" algorithms, as if numbers were somehow different from other kinds of precise information. All data are numbers, and all numbers are data. Mathematicians work much more with symbolic entities than with numbers.
Therefore the idea of passing laws that say some kinds of algorithms belong to mathematics and some do not strikes me as absurd as the 19th century attempts of the Indiana legislature to pass a law that the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter is exactly 3, not approximately 3.1416. It's like the medieval church ruling that the sun revolves about the earth. Man-made laws can be significantly helpful but not when they contradict fundamental truths.
--Donald Knuth
What I'm still not getting, is what could possibly make you think you know better than Donald Knuth...
That is kind of the point he is trying to make isn't it? Even if he wanted to own an iphone (which I assume he does not), he would not be allowed to own an iphone.
I get phonecalls from my mother all the time telling me that the internet has gone down once again. Her home phone, which she uses when she calls me about this, is VoIP.
The third party is free to hide updates from those idiotic apps (and I of course agree that they are quite idiotic), however the first party (the person playing them) still loses credibility with everyone that has to be bothered to go hide updates because of them.
It's all about familiarity. People think that Excel is a more descriptive name than OpenOffice Calc simply because they are more exposed to it. They are of course wrong, but that's not to say that they don't have a point. Open Source developers are not playing on a level playing field here. If you live in the real world you'll realize that opensource can't just be as good, it has to be better. Significantly so.
I say this as an admitted FOSS fanatic. Also, this is of course assuming that the goal of open source projects is to gain wider adoption than proprietary competitors (something that is by no means universally true). A lot of these projects are run by people that don't give a shit about market share, they just do it because they love it.
Slashdot Mirror
Reality distortion field my friend. Reality distortion field.
I can have either a full sized laptop that I need a bag for, or a smartphone I don't need a bag for. If I wanted to get something in between that I'd still need a bag for, I'd get a fully capable netbook. Your mistake is thinking that because I don't like the ipad, I don't like technology. Quite the opposite. It is because I like technology (particularly powerful technology) that I dislike the ipad.
Pants already exist with pockets that big. Nobody I know wears them.
You can do those things with just about any electronic device on the market in the past 10 years...
WRONG. These devices are all about consumption, not creation.
Rumoured by who? That is quite possibly the stupidest thing I have ever heard of.
If you really think the jump from 95 to XP is too large for a computer illiterate to make, but the jump from 95 to an ipad is perfectly easy, then I'm afraid you might be in danger of drowning. Always make sure to take breaths between your gulps of kool-aid.
So the target audience for the ipad is senior citizens who barely even know how to use a mouse? Good to know, now I can go back to completely ignoring the thing.
Marketing Fail.
This is also exactly why so many slashdotters hate the thing. It's nothing more than an ipod so big I can't even fit it in my pocket. Why in the world would I want that?
At least it is nice to know that someone who was in the prison system actually cares about some justice.
Yes, that is very clear. I'm smacking myself for not seeing that earlier. It is abundantly obvious his name isn't just in another language.
Yes, no doubt she was 'Asking For It'(TM)...
[/sarcasm]
I think that is quite possibly the worst possible way something like this could possibly have been implemented. Congrats.
Fact is you are getting a lossy file from itunes, unless you pay more for a lossless file. Whether or not you think it is worth it is really an opinion. The only thing that personally really bugs me is when I do the burn/rip trick, I either receive files that are far far larger (on the order of 20 or so megabytes, my harddrive is only so big...), or I receive small files that now have been encoded lossy twice. At that point it certainly makes some difference.
Anyways, all of this is why I prefer just going to shows...
If you burn a lossy file to a CD, you can't really say the process was "lossless". There may not have been loss on your side, but there was when it was originally encoded, and to avoid additional loss when you rip it back you need to use a lossless file format. This results in your file being far larger than the original but having the same quality.
Besides that nitpick, I'll agree it was a pretty decent thing to do.
You do realize that HTML is just a Markup Language right?
The only opinion around here is whether or not mathematics should be patentable. Software being algorithms and algorithms being math is in fact established fact, not opinion. Current US law states that mathematics is not to be patentable, and any sane person agrees.
My quote from Donald Knuth neatly argues why patenting math is a Bad Idea(tm), but you have yet to respond to it. In reality, it is you who is unable or unwilling to effectively argue, or even defend, your opinion.
This.
I can claim that it is my opinion that the earth is flat, but that does not make me any less wrong.
Knuth explains why patenting algorithms is a terrible idea. You continue to suggest that algorithms should be patentable.
You don't see any contradiction there?
Go on, don't be afraid. Tell us why you think Knuth is wrong. It should be funny.
He makes mathematically sound arguments, and backs it up with common sense. I think the opinion of Donald Knuth, who has invented more patents than you could ever dream of, is very relevant.
Nice job dodging the question though, you would make a good politician.
--Donald Knuth
What I'm still not getting, is what could possibly make you think you know better than Donald Knuth...
That is kind of the point he is trying to make isn't it? Even if he wanted to own an iphone (which I assume he does not), he would not be allowed to own an iphone.
[citation needed]
I get phonecalls from my mother all the time telling me that the internet has gone down once again. Her home phone, which she uses when she calls me about this, is VoIP.
The third party is free to hide updates from those idiotic apps (and I of course agree that they are quite idiotic), however the first party (the person playing them) still loses credibility with everyone that has to be bothered to go hide updates because of them.
It's all about familiarity. People think that Excel is a more descriptive name than OpenOffice Calc simply because they are more exposed to it. They are of course wrong, but that's not to say that they don't have a point. Open Source developers are not playing on a level playing field here. If you live in the real world you'll realize that opensource can't just be as good, it has to be better. Significantly so.
I say this as an admitted FOSS fanatic. Also, this is of course assuming that the goal of open source projects is to gain wider adoption than proprietary competitors (something that is by no means universally true). A lot of these projects are run by people that don't give a shit about market share, they just do it because they love it.