Despite the world's increasing use of English words as their exact opposites I think it's safe to say that, lacking a negative context, Panacea still has a positive meaning.
So what's the secret exactly? Everyone knows that iPods don't cost nearly as much to make as they're sold for - big deal. Sounds like editors at the New York Times own shares of Creative Technology:(.
This is definitely a step in the right direction (the Firefox direction that is). I agree that anyone who insists upon using Internet Explorer should get this the moment it's released. Now if only Microsoft can start adopting important standards in 10 years.
The problem I have is this: if IE7 reverses the spread of Firefox, what's to stop Microsoft from repeating history and ceasing all serious development again?
This is the true solution that I didn't think anyone was actually considering. Community wireless is not the answer, it's plagued by many problems, not the least of which being that it's wireless. The internet is a huge international resource, I never understood why a few monopoly-prone corporations were put in charge of those last few miles anyway. It makes little, almost no sense that someone can be a few miles from the internet backbone and be completely subject to a monopolie's whim as to whether or not they can access it.
I'm extremely curious to see what Google does as an ISP, even though they'll only be a local one. I almost think they might be doing it to put themselves in a position to fight legal battles in favor of Google users, though that might be hoping too much even for Google.
As I clearly stated, my comment was from a capitalist's point of view. I also wasn't implying that Apple was going to go to war with France, just that they're most likely going to work around the law. I also wasn't taking shots at French victories, quite the opposite. Every country with a long history has suffered defeat, France just happens to be well known for it.
Our society is sick, plain and simple. The fact that there's good reason to take things like this seriously is bad enough, but the fact that a 15 year old kid is in trouble for this and has been denied any right of free speech is even worse. I'm much rather have him making a few angry drawings now than taking an AK-47 to class a few years down the road. Mark my words, it's going to get to the point where not even well known comedians can joke about the very issues that need to be joked about the most.
Does Apple have a monopoly in either of these markets in France? If not, this it completely and utterly wrong and amounts to socialism. If you're socialist, good for you, but if you prefer an approach where open competition creates the best products at the lowest prices for customers than this is a horrible move. Apple, who single-handedly ended our reliance on the music industry's easily scratched CDs 19/20 full of crappy songs and their accompanying players, is now being forced to share proprietary data that it uses to synergize two of its business products.
If it truly does have a monopoly in one or both of these markets in France, then I understand where they're coming from. By linking the two markets together they can use their monopoly in one to ensure an unfair advantage in the other. However, I don't know if this is the answer to solving that.
The French have lost a lot of battles, my guess is they'll lose their fight with Apple too.
When did our society become more about security than freedom? I'm Republican, and I believe that the government should be small and involved as little as possible in most matters. Why does anyone need to know who I'm e-mailing? What websites I visit? Whether or not I transfer files using BitTorrent? When I call my grandmother? That's completely unnecessary. I'm not a criminal!
Child pornography is bad news, but it's hardly worth 100% government surveillance of every American. To be honest, I don't care who knows what about me - if some quack at the NSA wants to watch me take a shower they're welcome to it. I'm far more concerned what they do with that information.
The problem is this: they can use that information to screw me. Let's say I'm applying for a job - they can tell my potential employer that I post negative blog comments about them on the internet in the past and I will not get the job and never know why. I don't care about privacy, I care about the transparency of the use of my data. Same goes a thousand fold for people who oppose a government or particular political party. Government officials can simply use their "private" information to completely destroy them.
We know about these spy programs, what we don't know is what they're doing with the data they've obtained because it's "classified." Any idiot (terrorists included) knows that they're combing through it to identify terrorists and gain intelligence on terrorist activities, but without confirmation (at least of what is not being done with it) we can't assume anything. That's not acceptable. You can have my private data but in return I should have a right to know what is being done with it. And I seriously doubt that's going to happen.
The United States government wants the best of both worlds - everyone's data and no transparency or oversight of how it's being used. That's absurd! I honestly don't think the average American realizes exactly how utterly and completely accessible everything they do is to the right people. If they did, politicians would be getting elected on privacy concerns instead of kiddie porn. At this rate of data security I forsee this scenario:
Bob steals my identity.
Bob accuses me of identity theft.
Bob wins, I go to jail.
I plan to run for office in a few years (not sure if I'm going local or state - or even which state I'm going to be in), I can assure you that there are at least some politicians who aren't senile or interested in a police state.
That's exactly what I want - an end to major software companies that don't even think twice about developing for an OS that isn't Windows. I don't expect there not to be any specific OS exclusives, but when many many important peices of software only get developed for one system it perpetuates a quasi-monopoly without the monopoly holder (in this case, Microsoft) having to do anything! The very existence of one operating system so dominant that certain important types of software aren't even available for other platforms is harmful to everyone who doesn't own stock in the company that makes that OS.
The fact that we're talking about businesses not being ABLE to switch from Windows (even if they have the money to support it) is proof that this market needs regulation. When you don't have a choice, you don't have capitalism.
This is how capitalism is supposed to work people - multiple businesses compete in the same market and when one lags behind it begins to lose market share (and therefore money) - then it comes up with its own new product or service to compete.
That's how you get good products at low prices - comeptition, plan and simple. The thing that is unfortunate with markets like PC and server processors (or even operating systems) is that there are only two major market share holders, and one of them is much larger than the other making it tough for them to be competitive due to lack of volume.
But as Apple and AMD have proven, you don't have to have the largest market share to innovate, and you can make a serious dent in the Microsofts and Intels of the world - even if all it accomplishes is forcing them to put more effort into their products both of their customers win.
See, that's just it. If the music industry sat down and decided they actually want to win this war there is a solution, at least for the United States:
Sit down with artists and customers and talk about a business model that is more fair for everyone (record label, artist, and customer). This would probably lead to a a dual system of online non-DRM song sales and in-store non-DRM CD sales where artists get a better cut. If they actually did this, which we both know will never happen, they could use it to completely reverse public opinion on the matter and have free reign to sue the crap out of everyone (or even get the government involved) who continued to steal music. "Support your favorite artist" ad campaigns without end, personal appeals from well known artists on TV, ect. Popular culture would turn against stealing, and it would once again be pushed to the fringe groups of cyber pirates who did it before (and who industry officials have publicly stated they don't care about because they can't stop - so long as they're not making the stuff available to a significant portion of their customer base).
I can't say I'm surprised. They are a lot of copies of Windows out there, legit and illegit. Hell, I'm using 2000 right now:(. Microsoft wants to move copies of Vista when it comes out, and I can only guess that this might be part of some sort of plot to make that happen. Personally, I hope it disables Windows for millions of users with legitimate copies - including business boxes.
More users for OS X and Linux:).
I agree to a point. Despite being a huge Apple fan I despise the iTunes Music Store because of the low audio quality and restrictive DRM on songs purchased from it. However, if someone were to offer lossless audio quality non-DRM songs with a pricing model that actually gives some of the money to the artist I would not only be willing to pay, I'd be willing to pay a lot. Why would I drive to a store, search to find what I want, pay $25 for a crappy CD with one song on it, then drive back when I could go to an online store, find the song I want almost instantly, and download it for $3.50 in a matter of minutes? Hell, if the artists actually got some of the money I'd buy some songs just to support them!
Of course, I'd never be able to use the service unless I could somehow link it to a bank savings account (I don't believe in credits cards), but that's a personal issue.
Do the RIAA and MPAA realize they're a joke? Maybe not to the unfortunate people who get sued (a good friend of mind among them), but to everyone else? In some countries you can get RIAA insurance! They sue people who have never used a computer, little girls, dumb parents, and pretty much anyone they happen to randomly pick.
This is not going to work, anymore than their initial batch of lawsuits did. There needs to be some serious discussion of how to reform the music and movie industries and create a system where:
1) Customers know what is and is not right/legal and why. 2) Customers WANT to get music and movies legally.
Neither of those things is ever going to happen as a result of restrictive DRM (which actually punishes customers who obey the law) and lawsuits (which generate extremely bad publicity and create a rebel/pirate underground that only intensifies the file sharing culture).
I'm not going to pretend that #2 is easy, but no matter how you look at it that's the way it's got to be unless you want to sue or put on trial a huge percentage of the US population including the majority of college students.
Slashdot Mirror
Despite the world's increasing use of English words as their exact opposites I think it's safe to say that, lacking a negative context, Panacea still has a positive meaning.
So what's the secret exactly? Everyone knows that iPods don't cost nearly as much to make as they're sold for - big deal. Sounds like editors at the New York Times own shares of Creative Technology :(.
This is definitely a step in the right direction (the Firefox direction that is). I agree that anyone who insists upon using Internet Explorer should get this the moment it's released. Now if only Microsoft can start adopting important standards in 10 years.
The problem I have is this: if IE7 reverses the spread of Firefox, what's to stop Microsoft from repeating history and ceasing all serious development again?
I was expecting eternal happiness, I want my HTTP requests back :(.
This is the true solution that I didn't think anyone was actually considering. Community wireless is not the answer, it's plagued by many problems, not the least of which being that it's wireless. The internet is a huge international resource, I never understood why a few monopoly-prone corporations were put in charge of those last few miles anyway. It makes little, almost no sense that someone can be a few miles from the internet backbone and be completely subject to a monopolie's whim as to whether or not they can access it.
I'm extremely curious to see what Google does as an ISP, even though they'll only be a local one. I almost think they might be doing it to put themselves in a position to fight legal battles in favor of Google users, though that might be hoping too much even for Google.
As I clearly stated, my comment was from a capitalist's point of view. I also wasn't implying that Apple was going to go to war with France, just that they're most likely going to work around the law. I also wasn't taking shots at French victories, quite the opposite. Every country with a long history has suffered defeat, France just happens to be well known for it.
Other than that, nice try, thanks for playing.
Our society is sick, plain and simple. The fact that there's good reason to take things like this seriously is bad enough, but the fact that a 15 year old kid is in trouble for this and has been denied any right of free speech is even worse. I'm much rather have him making a few angry drawings now than taking an AK-47 to class a few years down the road. Mark my words, it's going to get to the point where not even well known comedians can joke about the very issues that need to be joked about the most.
I'm not claiming they invented anything, just that they made it successful.
Does Apple have a monopoly in either of these markets in France? If not, this it completely and utterly wrong and amounts to socialism. If you're socialist, good for you, but if you prefer an approach where open competition creates the best products at the lowest prices for customers than this is a horrible move. Apple, who single-handedly ended our reliance on the music industry's easily scratched CDs 19/20 full of crappy songs and their accompanying players, is now being forced to share proprietary data that it uses to synergize two of its business products.
If it truly does have a monopoly in one or both of these markets in France, then I understand where they're coming from. By linking the two markets together they can use their monopoly in one to ensure an unfair advantage in the other. However, I don't know if this is the answer to solving that.
The French have lost a lot of battles, my guess is they'll lose their fight with Apple too.
When did our society become more about security than freedom? I'm Republican, and I believe that the government should be small and involved as little as possible in most matters. Why does anyone need to know who I'm e-mailing? What websites I visit? Whether or not I transfer files using BitTorrent? When I call my grandmother? That's completely unnecessary. I'm not a criminal! Child pornography is bad news, but it's hardly worth 100% government surveillance of every American. To be honest, I don't care who knows what about me - if some quack at the NSA wants to watch me take a shower they're welcome to it. I'm far more concerned what they do with that information. The problem is this: they can use that information to screw me. Let's say I'm applying for a job - they can tell my potential employer that I post negative blog comments about them on the internet in the past and I will not get the job and never know why. I don't care about privacy, I care about the transparency of the use of my data. Same goes a thousand fold for people who oppose a government or particular political party. Government officials can simply use their "private" information to completely destroy them. We know about these spy programs, what we don't know is what they're doing with the data they've obtained because it's "classified." Any idiot (terrorists included) knows that they're combing through it to identify terrorists and gain intelligence on terrorist activities, but without confirmation (at least of what is not being done with it) we can't assume anything. That's not acceptable. You can have my private data but in return I should have a right to know what is being done with it. And I seriously doubt that's going to happen. The United States government wants the best of both worlds - everyone's data and no transparency or oversight of how it's being used. That's absurd! I honestly don't think the average American realizes exactly how utterly and completely accessible everything they do is to the right people. If they did, politicians would be getting elected on privacy concerns instead of kiddie porn. At this rate of data security I forsee this scenario: Bob steals my identity. Bob accuses me of identity theft. Bob wins, I go to jail. I plan to run for office in a few years (not sure if I'm going local or state - or even which state I'm going to be in), I can assure you that there are at least some politicians who aren't senile or interested in a police state.
That's exactly what I want - an end to major software companies that don't even think twice about developing for an OS that isn't Windows. I don't expect there not to be any specific OS exclusives, but when many many important peices of software only get developed for one system it perpetuates a quasi-monopoly without the monopoly holder (in this case, Microsoft) having to do anything! The very existence of one operating system so dominant that certain important types of software aren't even available for other platforms is harmful to everyone who doesn't own stock in the company that makes that OS. The fact that we're talking about businesses not being ABLE to switch from Windows (even if they have the money to support it) is proof that this market needs regulation. When you don't have a choice, you don't have capitalism.
This is how capitalism is supposed to work people - multiple businesses compete in the same market and when one lags behind it begins to lose market share (and therefore money) - then it comes up with its own new product or service to compete.
That's how you get good products at low prices - comeptition, plan and simple. The thing that is unfortunate with markets like PC and server processors (or even operating systems) is that there are only two major market share holders, and one of them is much larger than the other making it tough for them to be competitive due to lack of volume.
But as Apple and AMD have proven, you don't have to have the largest market share to innovate, and you can make a serious dent in the Microsofts and Intels of the world - even if all it accomplishes is forcing them to put more effort into their products both of their customers win.
See, that's just it. If the music industry sat down and decided they actually want to win this war there is a solution, at least for the United States: Sit down with artists and customers and talk about a business model that is more fair for everyone (record label, artist, and customer). This would probably lead to a a dual system of online non-DRM song sales and in-store non-DRM CD sales where artists get a better cut. If they actually did this, which we both know will never happen, they could use it to completely reverse public opinion on the matter and have free reign to sue the crap out of everyone (or even get the government involved) who continued to steal music. "Support your favorite artist" ad campaigns without end, personal appeals from well known artists on TV, ect. Popular culture would turn against stealing, and it would once again be pushed to the fringe groups of cyber pirates who did it before (and who industry officials have publicly stated they don't care about because they can't stop - so long as they're not making the stuff available to a significant portion of their customer base).
I was referring to Windows 2000, and you know it.
I can't say I'm surprised. They are a lot of copies of Windows out there, legit and illegit. Hell, I'm using 2000 right now :(. Microsoft wants to move copies of Vista when it comes out, and I can only guess that this might be part of some sort of plot to make that happen. Personally, I hope it disables Windows for millions of users with legitimate copies - including business boxes.
More users for OS X and Linux :).
I agree to a point. Despite being a huge Apple fan I despise the iTunes Music Store because of the low audio quality and restrictive DRM on songs purchased from it. However, if someone were to offer lossless audio quality non-DRM songs with a pricing model that actually gives some of the money to the artist I would not only be willing to pay, I'd be willing to pay a lot. Why would I drive to a store, search to find what I want, pay $25 for a crappy CD with one song on it, then drive back when I could go to an online store, find the song I want almost instantly, and download it for $3.50 in a matter of minutes? Hell, if the artists actually got some of the money I'd buy some songs just to support them! Of course, I'd never be able to use the service unless I could somehow link it to a bank savings account (I don't believe in credits cards), but that's a personal issue.
Do the RIAA and MPAA realize they're a joke? Maybe not to the unfortunate people who get sued (a good friend of mind among them), but to everyone else? In some countries you can get RIAA insurance! They sue people who have never used a computer, little girls, dumb parents, and pretty much anyone they happen to randomly pick.
This is not going to work, anymore than their initial batch of lawsuits did. There needs to be some serious discussion of how to reform the music and movie industries and create a system where:
1) Customers know what is and is not right/legal and why.
2) Customers WANT to get music and movies legally.
Neither of those things is ever going to happen as a result of restrictive DRM (which actually punishes customers who obey the law) and lawsuits (which generate extremely bad publicity and create a rebel/pirate underground that only intensifies the file sharing culture).
I'm not going to pretend that #2 is easy, but no matter how you look at it that's the way it's got to be unless you want to sue or put on trial a huge percentage of the US population including the majority of college students.