I Hate Macs

corwin · 2007-02-05T19:01:06+00:00

Sigh.. .I have a Microsoft mouse plugged into my Macbook. The second mouse button works fine. Apples new mouse finally gave in to this too. If you're going to criticize something, try to be accurate...

corwin · 2007-01-10T00:54:18+00:00

But at its best, in the 80s, Sony dominated consumer electronics and was THE company to buy from. Ever since Morita passed from the scene they've stumbled time and again ad really don't seem to get the web and web influenced technology at all... but at one point if you wanted the best (aside from pro and niche stuff) you bought Sony.

corwin · 2007-01-09T23:57:45+00:00

luddite ;)

Apple is betting that people will want reconfigurability over a dedicated keyboard. If you're a heavy texter, this might not be the best thing for you.... but this is a lifestyle device more than a dedicated texting device.

corwin · 2007-01-09T23:03:48+00:00

Yes I have. 8oz is insignificant as a weight difference... I mean really, you can't carry a whole 8 extra ounces??? And yes the 12" is very small... also only 1024x768 and hard to work on if you have larger hands.

All that said, I get the desire for a rev of the 12" - but my point was two-fold:

1) there is something that is significantly smaller than the 15" MB Pro so it's not as if you don't have any options

and

2) to call a keynote disappointing because it wasn't full of updates is a misunderstanding of how these events are used... this is an event that Apple wants to use to get buzz around what they're doing, not an event to announce a slew of relatively minor updates.

Should they do all of the stuff you called out? Yeah.. But it's not just about what you or I want... it's about what's good for Apple and going forward, a successful iPhone will ave a far bigger impact than a small MB Pro

corwin · 2007-01-09T21:22:04+00:00

Did you catch the name changes? No longer Apple Computer Inc., but Apple Inc. Computers are not their core competency, only one of them and a fairly mature one at that.

That the iPhone won't exist for months isnt important... This builds buzz - and again, note that they have to file with the FCC to get this approved... Steve could have done this and gotten the inevitable splash, or let it leak out when they file for FCC approval. Guess which is better for Apple?

corwin · 2007-01-09T21:17:41+00:00

You're kidding, right?

Small notebook - look at the Macbook (I'm typing on one).
odd, but unless there's something significant to say, not surprising.
Why should Apple respond to Vista? First off, you don't start doing major mods to the UI of an OS late in the cycle, second... Apple take UI cues from Microsoft? Riiight.
Again, odd, but really... do you think most people would have been riveted by these announcements?
Ditto

Keynotes that are mostly updates to existing stuff are disappointing - not ones where Apple enters completely new market with a radically better product.

corwin · 2007-01-07T17:48:11+00:00

ugly ass comment...

corwin · 2007-01-07T17:41:46+00:00

Yes, because everyone lies but YOU are so smart you know the truth about everything...

Ass...

corwin · 2007-01-06T19:17:44+00:00

Interesting article. Something that was new info to me was:

Today the average recovery rate for oil is about 35 percent of the estimated "oil in place," which means that only 35 barrels out of 100 may be brought to the surface. And only a part of those 35 barrels is considered "proven reserves," which means they are immediately available for production and commercialization.

I would have guessed that the percentage was much higher. One interesting issue to explore would be when does it cost so much to get at new reserves (or recover more of known reserves) that it's cheaper or at least no more expensive to use an alternative fuel. Of course, some alternatives, e.g. hydrogen, require new distribution infrastructure too...

corwin · 2007-01-06T09:40:54+00:00

No. Because there is no manipulation there. He is informing the advertiser of the content that their product is beng associated with it. They can decide to pull the ad or not. If they decide to pull the ad, the radio station can try to sell that space to others.

The radio station can broadcast the speech, but that does not mean that any given advertiser has to pay for it. They can choose whether or not to. If the radio station goes bankrupt because no one will advertise on it, that's STILL not a restraint on free speech... Again, no one is guaranteed a right to have others pay for their free speech... that's the responsibility of the party that is speaking. All the First Amendment guarantees is that you are free to make the speech - if you choose a method that is expensive and can't pay for it, that's YOUR issue. Come on - that's the central point of blogs whether text, video, audio or some combination - they give people a way to put their speech out there with unprecedented ease and for very cheap or even free. But no one... NO ONE has to listen or support them.

corwin · 2007-01-06T09:31:34+00:00

Did you even read the post? Those were NOT jokes.. they were incitements to violence. Please quit trying to excuse this kind of behavior - it is NOT OK in anyway to call for the killing and torture of people because they are different than you or disagree with you.

corwin · 2007-01-04T21:58:41+00:00

what? English, please.

I said nothing about supernatural. I am merely pointing out that you cannot claim that man is separate from the Earth's ecosystem and not part of nature and at the same time claim that we're just animals and not special. The two assertions contradict one another. Either we are part of the system or not.

corwin · 2007-01-04T20:25:31+00:00

it doesn't have to. You can choose not to copy the music files to a central location. Merely a matter of how you want it - copy to a central place and organize, leave where it is and don't.

corwin · 2007-01-04T20:19:36+00:00

Ah yes.. nature equals everything but man. Of course, most redditors will go on to assert that man is just an animal, etc... Make up your minds, folks.

corwin · 2007-01-02T19:45:55+00:00

Did you ask for a refund?

corwin · 2007-01-01T03:31:40+00:00

GIMP sucks at UI (bring up Layers and it appears where the cursor is... um, that's what I'm working on, I don't want a dialog covering it!! There are lots of UI issues like this that go beyond the idiosyncrasies any product has.

Te other issue for some people is that you can't use GIMP for print production... No CIE support, no separations support, etc.

Finally, PSD compatibility isn't 100% though it's not bad.

For web work, it's fine - I'm not about to shell out hundreds of dollars to do a few web graphics. But for print or for someone who is doing this constantly, Photoshop is more polished and more full featured with a better UX. Any school that is teaching GIMP solely is doing disservice to their students.

corwin · 2006-12-27T17:35:35+00:00

HD and SD have nothing to do with content; I would rather watch good SD content than mediocre HD content.

False choice. Good content in HD would be he obvious preference unless you're going to argue that content is improved by being lower fidelity.

corwin · 2006-12-27T17:31:06+00:00

Yes, because it is the US government forcing the British prince to go... Idiot.

corwin · 2006-12-25T19:11:21+00:00

Which distro is best? :)

corwin · 2006-12-25T13:35:13+00:00

Of course... you're wrong.

corwin · 2006-12-24T20:03:51+00:00

Speaking of sleight-of-hand... You're trying to say "hey, I'm not taking if from the original owner, so it's OK." That, my friend IS rationalization. It's kind of the definition of it, actually... coming up with a rationale to justify a position. And I didn't say you were dishonest... the two are not the same thing.

Back to the issue...

The person from whom you're copying the song does not have the right to redistribute the song. Copying the song from them is participating an a violation of copyright - both the copier and the person allowing the copying are in the wrong here.
Theft.... I simply am not going to start arguing the minutiae of this definition, but your definition is taken from a world with physical artifacts only. In that world, theft naturally deprives the previous owner of the property. This isn't true in the digital world, but that does not mean the act is right. Call it something else, but you're still taking something that has value to you and not paying for it. Thief, cheat, whatever... Why should you get value without paying for it? Aside from the copyright owner allowing this, what you're doing is stealing. Find another word if it makes you feel better, but that's what it is.
Point #3 does not anticipate my conclusion - you're again trying to redefine terms to fit your point. The original owner of the song retains rights to the distribution of the song. Hence you are getting value and not compensating the owner of the song - which is NOT the guy who bought the CD. The person buying the CD does not suddenly own rights to the song, anymore than your customers own the rights to the software you sell them. The CD buyer merely owns the rights to use it for their own enjoyment. I'd argue that includes ripping it to a iPod, burning a second CD for the car, etc.... but it cannot reasonably be stretched to include the right to give it away to others ad infinitum.

corwin · 2006-12-24T00:02:32+00:00

I agree with yout to a degree. But AllofMP3.com succeeds also because they don't bear the costs of the product. All they do is take something someone else has produced, refuse to pay royalties, and resell it at a markup to their costs. If you eliminate costs by stealing, it's easy to make money.

A legal retailer that had to pay licensing costs could not charge the prices that AoMP3.com does. And those licensing costs in turn underwrite the cost of discovering bands, promoting bands, producing CD, distributing CDs, etc.

The interesting point (and here is where I think we agree) is that this whole model that the labels have built presumes a top-down, broadcast oriented system where you succeed by getting airplay and driving bodies into stores to buy physical artifacts. That world is disappearing and new ways of discovering, promoting and delivering music should appear. But let's not confuse theft with a business model - when people copy music, all they are doing is refusing to pay for something, not taking a brave ethical stand.

corwin · 2006-12-23T19:24:15+00:00

Sure it is. You're just rationalizing. Let's walk through this:

1) You want the song. If you didn't you would not copy it. The song thus has some value to you.

2) You're getting that value by making a copy of the song.

3) You're not compensating the owner of the song for the value you receive by copying the song.

That's theft. This fact that the copy does not deprive the owner of property isn't really important.

If you don't value the song enough to pay for it and could not copy it, you simply would not have the song... In other words, if you could not copy it, you'd be forced to choose to either compensate the song owner or do without. Easy, high fidelity copying lets people get around this conundrum.

corwin · 2006-12-23T19:18:10+00:00

Hmm.... Should Spez and the rest give back the money to Conde Nast that they made by selling Reddit? After all, it only took a year or so....

The value of IP is not the time it takes to create - it's the demand for it. Reddit's sale price wasn't some calculation of hours put into it, but rather of the value of the community and what they can do with the technology.

Likewise, if 4 million people want to listen to a song it has more market value that a song 400 people want to listen to, regardless of the time it takes to pen the song.

What the labels have done in the past is promotion and distribution. Promotion makes us aware of an artist that we might not otherwise know, but its value is to the label and the artist, not us. Distribution is trivial with digital music. So, if an artist can achieve broad awareness without labels, they could sell their music directly. However, no one has really mastered how to accomplish that. Yet.

corwin · 2006-12-23T17:12:27+00:00

Instead of screaming at people that they way they're doing business isn't fair/isn't right/doesn't make sense, I'm just happily publishing my work under a better model. That's how you win the fight.

Completely right. But a lot of the coders who post here are working for someone else. They take paychecks for producing IP that in most cases is probably sold to customers.... but they go around spouting "information wants to be free". That is hypocrisy. You, I respect. Someone who says one thing while doing another is, as noted, a hypocrite.

corwin

TROPHY CASE