www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - [Slight OT] TDPL in Russia

reply Stanislav Blinov <stanislav.blinov gmail.com> writes:
Hi,

I've noticed I'm not the only one Russian here, so I've decided to ask: 
(yeah, I know I'm quite a bit late)

Did anyone buy TDPL in Russia? If so, where from? Is Amazon a good place 
to look (there seemed to be trouble getting stuff from them)?
Aug 26 2010
next sibling parent reply Vladimir <vlad mymail.rus> writes:
Stanislav Blinov Wrote:

 Hi,
 
 I've noticed I'm not the only one Russian here, so I've decided to ask: 
 (yeah, I know I'm quite a bit late)
 
 Did anyone buy TDPL in Russia? If so, where from? Is Amazon a good place 
 to look (there seemed to be trouble getting stuff from them)?
I'm quite satisfied with the torrent version. As long as no money goes directly to the D development I refuse to buy books. The book guy already earns 10 to 100 times as much as a normal developer in Russia.
Aug 26 2010
next sibling parent reply "Yao G." <yao.gomez spam.gmail.com> writes:
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 17:27:31 -0500, Vladimir <vlad mymail.rus> wrote:

 I'm quite satisfied with the torrent version. As long as no money goes  
 directly to the D development I refuse to buy books. The book guy  
 already earns 10 to 100 times as much as a normal developer in Russia.
LOL. Gotta love the way you justify being a pirate. -- Yao G.
Aug 26 2010
parent Stanislav Blinov <stanislav.blinov gmail.com> writes:
Yao G. wrote:
 On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 17:27:31 -0500, Vladimir <vlad mymail.rus> wrote:
 
 I'm quite satisfied with the torrent version. As long as no money goes 
 directly to the D development I refuse to buy books. The book guy 
 already earns 10 to 100 times as much as a normal developer in Russia.
LOL. Gotta love the way you justify being a pirate.
It's somewhat a disease in Russia. At one point, in the middle/late 1990s, piracy has gone to such lengths that almost every piece of software, music, video and you name it was available at virtually no cost (or at least very little compared to official prices, e.g. $3 vs $20). From this came many homegrown "professionals" that got their hands on things such as Windows, Visual Studio, Photoshop, 3DS MAX and so on. They got it, clicked it, assumed it was easy to get and easy to use - and here we are - we have a HUGE army of developers, artists, photographers... And most of them (not all, mind you, but the very most) - are in doublequotes just because anything they could REALLY do is find an take, but not think and use (no offense Vladimir, maybe you ARE from those "not all", I simply judge from my own experience). Even now I face the professionalism and skills of my local Internet "providers" (read - I don't use their services). Later rise of torrents and other filetrackers put even more oil to the fire. Now I love resources like old-games.ru - resources where you really can find something that's just not available in any other form today. But this is different. Even Microsoft, with all I personally think about them, put a lot of effort into Visual Studio. And the fact that the company is richer today than I'll probably be in my life won't justify my "desire" to take their product for free. No one earns anything just for the shiny eyes.
Aug 26 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Stanislav Blinov <stanislav.blinov gmail.com> writes:
Vladimir wrote:
 Stanislav Blinov Wrote:
 
 Hi,

 I've noticed I'm not the only one Russian here, so I've decided to ask: 
 (yeah, I know I'm quite a bit late)

 Did anyone buy TDPL in Russia? If so, where from? Is Amazon a good place 
 to look (there seemed to be trouble getting stuff from them)?
I'm quite satisfied with the torrent version. As long as no money goes directly to the D development I refuse to buy books. The book guy already earns 10 to 100 times as much as a normal developer in Russia.
Thanks for the honesty but no thanks. The "book guy" puts a lot of effort into D and I'm sure that work on TDPL was tremendous hit on all his resources (both mental and physical) as well. A hard an honest work needs to be compensated, and an (assumed) overall current income has nothing to do with it (I assume that's plain jealousy talking in you). If Andrei so wished, he could publish the book for free, but he didn't. Mind you, he and Walter and others have LOTS thing to do except D, but they keep perfecting the language, keep finding new goals, keep participating in discussions in this newsgroup, keep helping the language and the community. What stops you from earning 10 to 100 times more? Being a Russian? I doubt it. If you desire earning more, then do it. Plain assumptions and "big" talk are no justifications for plain stealing. P.S. Seems that some things would never change. I think there would be far less "professionals" out there weren't it not for piracy. Anyway, does someone have any other options on the topic?
Aug 26 2010
parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 8/26/10 16:35 PDT, Stanislav Blinov wrote:
 Vladimir wrote:
 Stanislav Blinov Wrote:

 Hi,

 I've noticed I'm not the only one Russian here, so I've decided to
 ask: (yeah, I know I'm quite a bit late)

 Did anyone buy TDPL in Russia? If so, where from? Is Amazon a good
 place to look (there seemed to be trouble getting stuff from them)?
I'm quite satisfied with the torrent version. As long as no money goes directly to the D development I refuse to buy books. The book guy already earns 10 to 100 times as much as a normal developer in Russia.
Thanks for the honesty but no thanks. The "book guy" puts a lot of effort into D and I'm sure that work on TDPL was tremendous hit on all his resources (both mental and physical) as well. A hard an honest work needs to be compensated, and an (assumed) overall current income has nothing to do with it (I assume that's plain jealousy talking in you). If Andrei so wished, he could publish the book for free, but he didn't. Mind you, he and Walter and others have LOTS thing to do except D, but they keep perfecting the language, keep finding new goals, keep participating in discussions in this newsgroup, keep helping the language and the community. What stops you from earning 10 to 100 times more? Being a Russian? I doubt it. If you desire earning more, then do it. Plain assumptions and "big" talk are no justifications for plain stealing. P.S. Seems that some things would never change. I think there would be far less "professionals" out there weren't it not for piracy. Anyway, does someone have any other options on the topic?
Thanks for your kind words. If you email me your address, I'll be glad to mail you a signed copy of TDPL's collector edition as a gift. Andrei
Aug 26 2010
parent Stanislav Blinov <blinov loniir.ru> writes:
  27.08.2010 4:48, Andrei Alexandrescu пишет:
 On 8/26/10 16:35 PDT, Stanislav Blinov wrote:
 Vladimir wrote:
 Stanislav Blinov Wrote:

 Hi,

 I've noticed I'm not the only one Russian here, so I've decided to
 ask: (yeah, I know I'm quite a bit late)

 Did anyone buy TDPL in Russia? If so, where from? Is Amazon a good
 place to look (there seemed to be trouble getting stuff from them)?
I'm quite satisfied with the torrent version. As long as no money goes directly to the D development I refuse to buy books. The book guy already earns 10 to 100 times as much as a normal developer in Russia.
Thanks for the honesty but no thanks. The "book guy" puts a lot of effort into D and I'm sure that work on TDPL was tremendous hit on all his resources (both mental and physical) as well. A hard an honest work needs to be compensated, and an (assumed) overall current income has nothing to do with it (I assume that's plain jealousy talking in you). If Andrei so wished, he could publish the book for free, but he didn't. Mind you, he and Walter and others have LOTS thing to do except D, but they keep perfecting the language, keep finding new goals, keep participating in discussions in this newsgroup, keep helping the language and the community. What stops you from earning 10 to 100 times more? Being a Russian? I doubt it. If you desire earning more, then do it. Plain assumptions and "big" talk are no justifications for plain stealing. P.S. Seems that some things would never change. I think there would be far less "professionals" out there weren't it not for piracy. Anyway, does someone have any other options on the topic?
Thanks for your kind words. If you email me your address, I'll be glad to mail you a signed copy of TDPL's collector edition as a gift. Andrei
Thank you, you're very generous. I simply don't have words. What little I could gather myself for I wrote in the email (if I got an address hint right).
Aug 27 2010
prev sibling parent BCS <none anon.com> writes:
Hello Vladimir,

 Stanislav Blinov Wrote:
 
 Hi,
 
 I've noticed I'm not the only one Russian here, so I've decided to
 ask: (yeah, I know I'm quite a bit late)
 
 Did anyone buy TDPL in Russia? If so, where from? Is Amazon a good
 place to look (there seemed to be trouble getting stuff from them)?
 
I'm quite satisfied with the torrent version. As long as no money goes directly to the D development I refuse to buy books. The book guy already earns 10 to 100 times as much as a normal developer in Russia.
IIRC there are VERY few people in the world who make much money writing books. I'm talking few enough that if you pay attention to the bookstore, you may recognize 10% of there names. -- ... <IXOYE><
Aug 26 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Max Klyga <max.klyga gmail.com> writes:
Hi, there.

Amazon is a good place to buy books. I had no problems with delivery from US
Amazon so far.
Aug 26 2010
next sibling parent Olivier Pisano <olivier.pisano laposte.net> writes:
Le 27/08/2010 02:08, Max Klyga a crit :
 Hi, there.

 Amazon is a good place to buy books. I had no problems with delivery from US
 Amazon so far.
Hi, +1 I had preordered TDPL on Amazon.fr and got it delivered in France about a week after its release in the US, which I think is more than reasonable. I don't see any reason why it should be more problematic in Russia. Cheers, Olivier
Aug 27 2010
prev sibling parent Stanislav Blinov <blinov loniir.ru> writes:
  27.08.2010 4:08, Max Klyga wrote:
 Hi, there.

 Amazon is a good place to buy books. I had no problems with delivery from US
 Amazon so far.
 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 Filtered-With-Copfilter: Version 0.84beta4 (ProxSMTP 1.8)
 Copfilter-Filtered-With: SpamAssassin 3.2.5
 Copfilter-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.94.2
 by Markus Madlener   http://www.copfilter.org
Thanks, I'll remember that.
Aug 27 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent reply digited <digited yandex.ru> writes:
[heavy_ot]
Piracy is not stealing - author actually loses nothing from it, and .torrent
user
is not guaranteed to buy a book if unable to download a .pdf
Futhermore, .torrent distribution may be a good advertisement and help to find
out
if a russian-speaking coder wants to actually order a 1300+ rur book in english
or
not.
[/heavy_ot]

as for me, i prefer paper books over reading from screen, but i'm not interested
in d2. I won't buy tdpl in english because of questionable rate of
price/usefulness for me, but i'll buy it on russian (for collection), if it will
be translated and will have a reasonable price.
Aug 27 2010
next sibling parent reply Stanislav Blinov <blinov loniir.ru> writes:
  27.08.2010 14:48, digited пишет:
 [heavy_ot]
 Piracy is not stealing - author actually loses nothing from it, and .torrent
user
 is not guaranteed to buy a book if unable to download a .pdf
 Futhermore, .torrent distribution may be a good advertisement and help to find
out
 if a russian-speaking coder wants to actually order a 1300+ rur book in
english or
 not.
 [/heavy_ot]
Author may not lose anything, but she actually doesn't gain what she could, so yes, this is stealing. Pirates steal profit (and often prestiege as well), profit that may have paid off spent time, nerves and money. And torrent user is not guaranteed to buy the book if *able* to download a .pdf as well. It doesn't stimulate authors to share more of their thoughts and knowledge when they see all their efforts are simply taken away without any kind of thanks. A book is not a car, you don't need to read it ALL before buying, and most modern authors and publishers provide samples so potential reader may see if the book is worth buying (btw, a whole chapter of TDPL was recently provided for all willing), so I don't see any reasons for advertisement here.
 as for me, i prefer paper books over reading from screen, but i'm not
interested
 in d2. I won't buy tdpl in english because of questionable rate of
 price/usefulness for me, but i'll buy it on russian (for collection), if it
will
 be translated and will have a reasonable price.
Here I agree that paper books beat any ebooks. As for Russian translations - I don't like them since I've taken a look at translated GoF book on design patterns. Translations are unbearable far too often. Most of the time, people who translate such books are either totally incompetent in CompSci, or know little to know aspects of the particular area covered by the book. That leads to mistakes, inconsistensies, errors. And often, the translation itself is hardly readable compared to original. So I'd personally rather buy the book from original publisher (therefore giving my monetary thanks to the author) rather than pay additional sum for questionable work of translators and local publishers. It's too bad I don't know any other language except Russian and English, because I fear that translation tendency touches not only English books.
Aug 27 2010
next sibling parent reply retard <re tard.com.invalid> writes:
Fri, 27 Aug 2010 17:35:32 +0400, Stanislav Blinov wrote:

 Author may not lose anything, but she actually doesn't gain what she
 could, so yes, this is stealing. Pirates steal profit (and often
 prestiege as well), profit that may have paid off spent time, nerves and
 money. And torrent user is not guaranteed to buy the book if *able* to
 download a .pdf as well. It doesn't stimulate authors to share more of
 their thoughts and knowledge when they see all their efforts are simply
 taken away without any kind of thanks. A book is not a car, you don't
 need to read it ALL before buying, and most modern authors and
 publishers provide samples so potential reader may see if the book is
 worth buying (btw, a whole chapter of TDPL was recently provided for all
 willing), so I don't see any reasons for advertisement here.
Do you think the libraries also steal from the authors? If I can't afford a book or don't find it important enough, I can ask the local library to order it and later read it for free. This also encourages other member of the target audience to loan the book without paying--the libraries have lists of most recent books and all kinds of enthusiastics subscribe to those lists. This is also a great way to introduce new readers to a topic. I've noticed that books I order get lots of attention after they're available from the shelves. When I was a kid, I didn't have a credit card nor internet connection. It was impossible to buy books from online stores. The local libraries were the best places to find computer science / engineering related literature. No one did mention that in addition to money, the book author gets truckloads of good reputation, if the topic turns out to be useful. You get invitations to all kinds of important places and employers. When I was still buying C++ books, I remember having this kind of conversation in a book store: "Do you have any metaprogramming books?" "Why, yes" "Any books by Alexandrescu" "Just this one" "I'll take it then. Keep the rest." Note that I'm not advocating piracy this time!
Aug 27 2010
next sibling parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
retard wrote:
 Do you think the libraries also steal from the authors? If I can't afford 
 a book or don't find it important enough, I can ask the local library to 
 order it and later read it for free. This also encourages other member of 
 the target audience to loan the book without paying--the libraries have 
 lists of most recent books and all kinds of enthusiastics subscribe to 
 those lists. This is also a great way to introduce new readers to a 
 topic. I've noticed that books I order get lots of attention after 
 they're available from the shelves.
 
 When I was a kid, I didn't have a credit card nor internet connection. It 
 was impossible to buy books from online stores. The local libraries were 
 the best places to find computer science / engineering related literature.
When I was a kid, the library was really the only place to get books. There were no mega bookstores like B&N. (I remember when B&N first came to town, what a magical place it was.) Even if there were well-stocked bookstores, I had no money to buy books. I spent a lot of time at the library, reading hundreds of books. As a teenager, there was a local strip mall bookstore packed with used paperbacks. I'd buy a pile, read them, and then sell them back to the store for half price and buy another pile. They were cheap enough that I could indulge myself. These days, I buy all my books because going to the library twice (once to get, once to return, plus late fees) is far more expensive and time consuming, compared to point & click on the internet. My house is full of books :-O
Aug 27 2010
prev sibling parent reply "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 13:36:44 -0400, retard <re tard.com.invalid> wrote:

 Fri, 27 Aug 2010 17:35:32 +0400, Stanislav Blinov wrote:

 Author may not lose anything, but she actually doesn't gain what she
 could, so yes, this is stealing. Pirates steal profit (and often
 prestiege as well), profit that may have paid off spent time, nerves and
 money. And torrent user is not guaranteed to buy the book if *able* to
 download a .pdf as well. It doesn't stimulate authors to share more of
 their thoughts and knowledge when they see all their efforts are simply
 taken away without any kind of thanks. A book is not a car, you don't
 need to read it ALL before buying, and most modern authors and
 publishers provide samples so potential reader may see if the book is
 worth buying (btw, a whole chapter of TDPL was recently provided for all
 willing), so I don't see any reasons for advertisement here.
Do you think the libraries also steal from the authors? If I can't afford a book or don't find it important enough, I can ask the local library to order it and later read it for free. This also encourages other member of the target audience to loan the book without paying--the libraries have lists of most recent books and all kinds of enthusiastics subscribe to those lists. This is also a great way to introduce new readers to a topic. I've noticed that books I order get lots of attention after they're available from the shelves.
No, libraries don't steal, they buy their copies or are given books that other people have bought. If I lent you my copy of TDPL then it wouldn't be stealing either, someone paid for that book. If you have a copy of a book from the library, then nobody else has that copy. This falls under fair-use. You are allowed to transfer your copy of IP to someone else (despite what EULA's try to enforce), or lend it to them as long as you are not also using it. There is a difference between copying and lending. -Steve
Aug 27 2010
next sibling parent Stanislav Blinov <stanislav.blinov gmail.com> writes:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
 On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 13:36:44 -0400, retard <re tard.com.invalid> wrote:
 
 Fri, 27 Aug 2010 17:35:32 +0400, Stanislav Blinov wrote:

 Author may not lose anything, but she actually doesn't gain what she
 could, so yes, this is stealing. Pirates steal profit (and often
 prestiege as well), profit that may have paid off spent time, nerves and
 money. And torrent user is not guaranteed to buy the book if *able* to
 download a .pdf as well. It doesn't stimulate authors to share more of
 their thoughts and knowledge when they see all their efforts are simply
 taken away without any kind of thanks. A book is not a car, you don't
 need to read it ALL before buying, and most modern authors and
 publishers provide samples so potential reader may see if the book is
 worth buying (btw, a whole chapter of TDPL was recently provided for all
 willing), so I don't see any reasons for advertisement here.
Do you think the libraries also steal from the authors? If I can't afford a book or don't find it important enough, I can ask the local library to order it and later read it for free. This also encourages other member of the target audience to loan the book without paying--the libraries have lists of most recent books and all kinds of enthusiastics subscribe to those lists. This is also a great way to introduce new readers to a topic. I've noticed that books I order get lots of attention after they're available from the shelves.
No, libraries don't steal, they buy their copies or are given books that other people have bought. If I lent you my copy of TDPL then it wouldn't be stealing either, someone paid for that book. If you have a copy of a book from the library, then nobody else has that copy. This falls under fair-use. You are allowed to transfer your copy of IP to someone else (despite what EULA's try to enforce), or lend it to them as long as you are not also using it. There is a difference between copying and lending. -Steve
Totally agreed. Though one may tell "So what? Some torrent user have bought the book as well, and he just 'lends' it to others". But that is not true. Because most times no "buying" is involved, and because torrent is not lending - you get a copy for yourself, and no longer need to worry about returning or paying for it. I already said before that the only point that justifies content trackers for me is when you physically (and legally) can't get your hands on something in any other way (book is not published anymore, game developer long ago 'went out of scope', etc.)
Aug 27 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent reply retard <re tard.com.invalid> writes:
Fri, 27 Aug 2010 15:03:29 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

 On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 13:36:44 -0400, retard <re tard.com.invalid> wrote:
 
 Fri, 27 Aug 2010 17:35:32 +0400, Stanislav Blinov wrote:

 Author may not lose anything, but she actually doesn't gain what she
 could, so yes, this is stealing. Pirates steal profit (and often
 prestiege as well), profit that may have paid off spent time, nerves
 and money. And torrent user is not guaranteed to buy the book if
 *able* to download a .pdf as well. It doesn't stimulate authors to
 share more of their thoughts and knowledge when they see all their
 efforts are simply taken away without any kind of thanks. A book is
 not a car, you don't need to read it ALL before buying, and most
 modern authors and publishers provide samples so potential reader may
 see if the book is worth buying (btw, a whole chapter of TDPL was
 recently provided for all willing), so I don't see any reasons for
 advertisement here.
Do you think the libraries also steal from the authors? If I can't afford a book or don't find it important enough, I can ask the local library to order it and later read it for free. This also encourages other member of the target audience to loan the book without paying--the libraries have lists of most recent books and all kinds of enthusiastics subscribe to those lists. This is also a great way to introduce new readers to a topic. I've noticed that books I order get lots of attention after they're available from the shelves.
No, libraries don't steal, they buy their copies or are given books that other people have bought. If I lent you my copy of TDPL then it wouldn't be stealing either, someone paid for that book. If you have a copy of a book from the library, then nobody else has that copy. This falls under fair-use. You are allowed to transfer your copy of IP to someone else (despite what EULA's try to enforce), or lend it to them as long as you are not also using it. There is a difference between copying and lending.
Assume the library bought the damn book and someone always provides copies of the books online. In that case it really doesn't make any difference financially if I lent it or downloaded from the web and destroyed the copy. In either case the author gets as much/little money assuming that reading the book doesn't break it too badly. Those people who reason about the problem this way wouldn't buy the book in any case.
Aug 27 2010
next sibling parent reply "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 16:36:49 -0400, retard <re tard.com.invalid> wrote:

 Fri, 27 Aug 2010 15:03:29 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

 On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 13:36:44 -0400, retard <re tard.com.invalid> wrote:

 Fri, 27 Aug 2010 17:35:32 +0400, Stanislav Blinov wrote:

 Author may not lose anything, but she actually doesn't gain what she
 could, so yes, this is stealing. Pirates steal profit (and often
 prestiege as well), profit that may have paid off spent time, nerves
 and money. And torrent user is not guaranteed to buy the book if
 *able* to download a .pdf as well. It doesn't stimulate authors to
 share more of their thoughts and knowledge when they see all their
 efforts are simply taken away without any kind of thanks. A book is
 not a car, you don't need to read it ALL before buying, and most
 modern authors and publishers provide samples so potential reader may
 see if the book is worth buying (btw, a whole chapter of TDPL was
 recently provided for all willing), so I don't see any reasons for
 advertisement here.
Do you think the libraries also steal from the authors? If I can't afford a book or don't find it important enough, I can ask the local library to order it and later read it for free. This also encourages other member of the target audience to loan the book without paying--the libraries have lists of most recent books and all kinds of enthusiastics subscribe to those lists. This is also a great way to introduce new readers to a topic. I've noticed that books I order get lots of attention after they're available from the shelves.
No, libraries don't steal, they buy their copies or are given books that other people have bought. If I lent you my copy of TDPL then it wouldn't be stealing either, someone paid for that book. If you have a copy of a book from the library, then nobody else has that copy. This falls under fair-use. You are allowed to transfer your copy of IP to someone else (despite what EULA's try to enforce), or lend it to them as long as you are not also using it. There is a difference between copying and lending.
Assume the library bought the damn book and someone always provides copies of the books online. In that case it really doesn't make any difference financially if I lent it or downloaded from the web and destroyed the copy.
In fact it does. When the library has lent out the book, nobody else can use it. So effectively, the author is giving you a license attached to the book to whomever possesses it to read it, as long as someone paid for the book originally. The publisher sets the price based on this model, so if that is not the model being used, the publisher loses money. One copy == one license fee. The reason money is lost is because you are destroying the publisher's assumption, and his entire pricing structure is based on it. If he knew half the people who read the book were going to download it without paying for it, he'd charge more, or simply not publish because it's not worth it. Downloading the book means that you have a copy, and the web site you downloaded it from has a copy, but it only has been paid for once. This breaks the license terms, and is effectively stealing from the publisher. In reality what happens is thousands or hundreds of thousands of people download it, and now the publisher's pricing model is completely destroyed. It's backwards to think about, but it's how it works. The publisher must make such assumptions because the COG for a book is not worth nearly as much as creating the IP that goes into the book. The law protects them so they can make those assumptions and remain a profitable company. Without the law, publishers go out of business, and books are never created in the first place. Here's another way to think about it: Let's say a publisher wants to publish a book, but before doing so, accepts fees from all people who potentially will buy the book, until it has enough to pay the author and make a profit. Then when the book is finished, you get your copy. How well do you think this model will work? Essentially it's the same as the current model, but now *you* are taking all the risk, not the publisher. Who wants to do that? I want to peruse a book before buying it, how can that work if I have to pay for it before it's written? BTW, I can download electronic copies of books from my library for free too. The library pays for one license per copy, and while I'm reading it, nobody else can. That model also fits within the copyright law. Legal use of copyright material doesn't have to be expensive or "unjust". To see a very good way of reading actual books that you only want to read once and then give away, see paperbackswap.com. What people don't understand is the *act* of copying something isn't illegal. Fair use protects copying for reasonable usage (such as backing up your software, or transferring it to another medium for your own benefit). The thing that is illegal is when two or more copies of the item are being used and only one has been licensed.
 In either case the author gets as much/little money
 assuming that reading the book doesn't break it too badly. Those people
 who reason about the problem this way wouldn't buy the book in any case.
At this point, the author is probably getting very little money (not sure, never wrote a book), it's the publisher recouping his initial investment to the author to write the book. If you don't like the model, start your own publishing company and give more money to the authors. See how long you stay in business... I agree that people who want to justify stealing often just simplify the model to prove their point. You can try to justify it all you want, it's still stealing. See how far your justification story gets you when they take you to court. -Steve
Aug 27 2010
next sibling parent reply retard <re tard.com.invalid> writes:
Fri, 27 Aug 2010 17:18:26 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

 On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 16:36:49 -0400, retard <re tard.com.invalid> wrote:
 
 Assume the library bought the damn book and someone always provides
 copies of the books online. In that case it really doesn't make any
 difference financially if I lent it or downloaded from the web and
 destroyed the copy.
In fact it does. When the library has lent out the book, nobody else can use it.
Actually they can. You can read it loud just like the teacher used to do in the elementary school. You can also share the book with a friend unlike in http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html - the copyright mafia is constantly inventing new ways to restrict use.
 The reason money is lost is
 because you are destroying the publisher's assumption, and his entire
 pricing structure is based on it.  If he knew half the people who read
 the book were going to download it without paying for it, he'd charge
 more, or simply not publish because it's not worth it.
The loss of money might not be that important. The greater goal is to educate people.
 The publisher must make such assumptions because the COG for a
 book is not worth nearly as much as creating the IP that goes into the
 book.  The law protects them so they can make those assumptions and
 remain a profitable company.  Without the law, publishers go out of
 business, and books are never created in the first place.
That's hardly the case. One reason why open sourced books are so rare is that the capitalistic finance system competes with voluntary work. For example, when Andrei writes a book about D, he probably wants money (because life isn't free), money (because he wants to be richer than some low class douchebag trolling in the newsgroups), he wants fame (talks, job offers, other contacts), he wants to contribute to the development of D. If the money was provided by other means, there wouldn't be a need for profits from the book anymore, thus piracy would be acceptable. The plus side of capitalism is that it encourages writing books. The bad thing is (if you're a novelist), you basically *have to* always write something, because there's no other way to get money unless you change your profession. If you have high moral and you know that you can only write one good book during your lifetime, you should stop writing crappy books after The book and collecting money with your previous fame. Here, capitalism might encourage you to waste the rest of your time hurting the society. Capitalism isn't equal to justice in all cases.
 Here's another way to think about it:  Let's say a publisher wants to
 publish a book, but before doing so, accepts fees from all people who
 potentially will buy the book, until it has enough to pay the author and
 make a profit.
You can't know how much is enough.
 Then when the book is finished, you get your copy.  How
 well do you think this model will work?  Essentially it's the same as
 the current model, but now *you* are taking all the risk, not the
 publisher. Who wants to do that?  I want to peruse a book before buying
 it, how can that work if I have to pay for it before it's written?
I think sites like wikipedia work this way.
 
 BTW, I can download electronic copies of books from my library for free
 too.  The library pays for one license per copy, and while I'm reading
 it, nobody else can.  That model also fits within the copyright law. 
That is ass-backwards retarded from technical point of view, but yes, it fits within the copyright law.
 What people don't understand is the *act* of copying something isn't
 illegal.
They perfectly understand that it's illegal. They don't care because it feels irrational and unjust. That's it.
Aug 27 2010
next sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
retard wrote:
 That's hardly the case. One reason why open sourced books are so rare is 
 that the capitalistic finance system competes with voluntary work. For 
 example, when Andrei writes a book about D, he probably wants money 
 (because life isn't free), money (because he wants to be richer than some 
 low class douchebag trolling in the newsgroups), he wants fame (talks, 
 job offers, other contacts), he wants to contribute to the development of 
 D. If the money was provided by other means, there wouldn't be a need for 
 profits from the book anymore, thus piracy would be acceptable.
I've never heard of anyone dissuaded from writing a free book because capitalist Andrei wrote one.
 The plus side of capitalism is that it encourages writing books. The bad 
 thing is (if you're a novelist), you basically *have to* always write 
 something, because there's no other way to get money unless you change 
 your profession.
It's bad that you have to work at your chosen profession? Is it also bad that a carpenter has to cut wood to get paid?
 If you have high moral and you know that you can only 
 write one good book during your lifetime, you should stop writing crappy 
 books after The book and collecting money with your previous fame. Here, 
 capitalism might encourage you to waste the rest of your time hurting the 
 society. Capitalism isn't equal to justice in all cases.
I'm sorry, this just makes no sense to me. People change professions all the time under capitalism. Novelists aren't locked in to writing novels. They can switch to carpentry any time <g>. (In fact, I know a programmer who switched to making ceramic pots.)
Aug 27 2010
next sibling parent reply retard <re tard.com.invalid> writes:
Fri, 27 Aug 2010 20:40:56 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:

 retard wrote:
 That's hardly the case. One reason why open sourced books are so rare
 is that the capitalistic finance system competes with voluntary work.
 For example, when Andrei writes a book about D, he probably wants money
 (because life isn't free), money (because he wants to be richer than
 some low class douchebag trolling in the newsgroups), he wants fame
 (talks, job offers, other contacts), he wants to contribute to the
 development of D. If the money was provided by other means, there
 wouldn't be a need for profits from the book anymore, thus piracy would
 be acceptable.
I've never heard of anyone dissuaded from writing a free book because capitalist Andrei wrote one.
Having a decent commercial book discourages projects like http:// en.wikibooks.org/wiki/A_Beginner's_Guide_to_D---on the other hand, these projects also require motivated authors. There are also examples of free, good quality texts by motivated authors (e.g. many blog posts these days are CC licensed). The commercial bookstores / newspapers often don't have good alternatives to up-to-date blog articles..
 If you have high moral and you know that you can only write one good
 book during your lifetime, you should stop writing crappy books after
 The book and collecting money with your previous fame. Here, capitalism
 might encourage you to waste the rest of your time hurting the society.
 Capitalism isn't equal to justice in all cases.
I'm sorry, this just makes no sense to me. People change professions all the time under capitalism. Novelists aren't locked in to writing novels. They can switch to carpentry any time <g>.~
'Pays well', 'is enjoyable', 'has a justified reason' are totally different points of view. Sometimes/often a work can't satisfy each one of those.
Aug 27 2010
parent Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> writes:
 Having a decent commercial book discourages projects like http://
 en.wikibooks.org/wiki/A_Beginner's_Guide_to_D
Having a book like TDPL encourages adoption and will eventually spawn user-made tutorials and free books (because people will have knowledge of the language by learning from TDPL). You can't write a good free book about a language unless you understand it well, and before TDPL you had to keep track of the newsgroups for any language changes and you had to try to figure out D on your own (I'm referring to D2). Honestly, I find the wikibooks approach rather silly. Someone starts a project, then leaves, and expects someone else to just jump in and continue writing. That's no good. You either commit to your project, or if you're solo and can't finish it on your own then you enlist the help of others. But you need to keep everyone informed of the progress. And you need some kind of plan/schedule. I've found this after a bit of googling: http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/announce/3412.html http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/41861.html So someone comes up with an idea, others think it's a good idea, a few commits here and there and it all stagnates from there on. It becomes a random bunch of code snippets each written in different style and some of the code probably broken (e.g. that case of writefln vs writeln some weeks ago that popped up in the NG). I don't find wikibooks a good learning place at all. But maybe that's just my experience from the few books I've tried reading there. On the other hand, a book like Pilgrim's Dive Into Python 3 is an excellent example of a free book. But the author took the time to plan and write it, he was really committed to his project (unlike these NG posts like "hey lets do this!" "yeah, lets do it!" "zzz").
Aug 27 2010
prev sibling parent reply Frank Fuente <franfu telefonica.es> writes:
 I'm sorry, this just makes no sense to me. People change professions
all the
 time under capitalism. Novelists aren't locked in to writing novels.
They can
 switch to carpentry any time <g>.
 (In fact, I know a programmer who switched to making ceramic pots.)
Is that why D2 is taking so long to complete :-)
Aug 28 2010
parent reply retard <re tard.com.invalid> writes:
Sat, 28 Aug 2010 12:13:10 +0000, Frank Fuente wrote:

 I'm sorry, this just makes no sense to me. People change professions
all the
 time under capitalism. Novelists aren't locked in to writing novels.
They can
 switch to carpentry any time <g>.
 (In fact, I know a programmer who switched to making ceramic pots.)
Is that why D2 is taking so long to complete :-)
Maybe it's because some of DIP text [2] and bibliography links were in a wiki [1] and wikis are a bad form of communication [3]. [1] http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/d58qq/ interview_with_andrei_alexandrescu_part_3_d/c0xo1bt [2] http://www.wikiservice.at/d/wiki.cgi? action=browse&amp;id=LanguageDevel/DIPs [3] http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php? art_group=digitalmars.D&article_id=116345
Aug 28 2010
parent Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> writes:
OT: Anyway, I don't think making tutorials for newbies is a priority
right now. Even if you make a fantastic free D book it still wouldn't
help much, because D2 is missing libraries. It's the same situation as
Python 3 was when it was released (heck, many Python 2 libraries have
not been ported to Python 3 yet). Newbies might have a good time
learning the language, but when it's time to do some actual work
they'll realize there's few libraries they can use.

On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 4:56 PM, retard <re tard.com.invalid> wrote:
 Sat, 28 Aug 2010 12:13:10 +0000, Frank Fuente wrote:

 I'm sorry, this just makes no sense to me. People change professions
all the
 time under capitalism. Novelists aren't locked in to writing novels.
They can
 switch to carpentry any time <g>.
 (In fact, I know a programmer who switched to making ceramic pots.)
Is that why D2 is taking so long to complete :-)
Maybe it's because some of DIP text [2] and bibliography links were in a wiki [1] and wikis are a bad form of communication [3]. [1] http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/d58qq/ interview_with_andrei_alexandrescu_part_3_d/c0xo1bt [2] http://www.wikiservice.at/d/wiki.cgi? action=browse&amp;id=LanguageDevel/DIPs [3] http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php? art_group=digitalmars.D&article_id=116345
Aug 28 2010
prev sibling parent reply "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 19:43:22 -0400, retard <re tard.com.invalid> wrote:

 Fri, 27 Aug 2010 17:18:26 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

 On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 16:36:49 -0400, retard <re tard.com.invalid> wrote:

 Assume the library bought the damn book and someone always provides
 copies of the books online. In that case it really doesn't make any
 difference financially if I lent it or downloaded from the web and
 destroyed the copy.
In fact it does. When the library has lent out the book, nobody else can use it.
Actually they can. You can read it loud just like the teacher used to do in the elementary school. You can also share the book with a friend unlike in http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html - the copyright mafia is constantly inventing new ways to restrict use.
And that will never change. It hasn't in a hundred years. Richard Stallman predicting the future is hardly evidence of anything ;) Let's not forget that we have an open society where everything is openly debated, and where our elected officials are held accountable for their actions (like they will be this November). First, the chances of copyright law being changed to alter the provisions of fair-use is 0. The DMCA is an atrocity, and should be repealed, but it probably will lose its teeth the first time it's tested in court. And second, any changes will have to be judged against existing law by trials. The point is, all types of fair-use are accounted for in the pricing structure of the book. Once you start having "unfair use" or piracy, the pricing model doesn't work, and without laws to protect against such abuses, its quite possible that we would have a much less innovative society, with less books or crappier books. Shit, just look at the over-abundance of totally crappy open source software versus for-sale software. For-sale software that sucks doesn't last very long.
 The reason money is lost is
 because you are destroying the publisher's assumption, and his entire
 pricing structure is based on it.  If he knew half the people who read
 the book were going to download it without paying for it, he'd charge
 more, or simply not publish because it's not worth it.
The loss of money might not be that important. The greater goal is to educate people.
Educating people doesn't feed your family. Making money does. If educating people doesn't make you money, then you're likely to do something else, especially if you have the intelligence to write a good book. I suppose only millionaires with lots of time on their hands (although that happens very rarely) would be the ones to write books?
 The publisher must make such assumptions because the COG for a
 book is not worth nearly as much as creating the IP that goes into the
 book.  The law protects them so they can make those assumptions and
 remain a profitable company.  Without the law, publishers go out of
 business, and books are never created in the first place.
That's hardly the case. One reason why open sourced books are so rare is that the capitalistic finance system competes with voluntary work. For example, when Andrei writes a book about D, he probably wants money (because life isn't free), money (because he wants to be richer than some low class douchebag trolling in the newsgroups), he wants fame (talks, job offers, other contacts), he wants to contribute to the development of D. If the money was provided by other means, there wouldn't be a need for profits from the book anymore, thus piracy would be acceptable.
Oh yeah, how dare people try to make money off of books. Who do they think they are? People should just spend years writing books and give them away for free, so I can benefit and they can starve. That's the way it should be! I can see where you got your name ;)
 The plus side of capitalism is that it encourages writing books. The bad
 thing is (if you're a novelist), you basically *have to* always write
 something, because there's no other way to get money unless you change
 your profession. If you have high moral and you know that you can only
 write one good book during your lifetime, you should stop writing crappy
 books after The book and collecting money with your previous fame. Here,
 capitalism might encourage you to waste the rest of your time hurting the
 society. Capitalism isn't equal to justice in all cases.
Crappy books don't sell, that's how capitalism works. You seem to have a very twisted view on reality.
 Here's another way to think about it:  Let's say a publisher wants to
 publish a book, but before doing so, accepts fees from all people who
 potentially will buy the book, until it has enough to pay the author and
 make a profit.
You can't know how much is enough.
Trust me, the publishers know exactly how many copies they need to sell to make a sustainable profit.
 Then when the book is finished, you get your copy.  How
 well do you think this model will work?  Essentially it's the same as
 the current model, but now *you* are taking all the risk, not the
 publisher. Who wants to do that?  I want to peruse a book before buying
 it, how can that work if I have to pay for it before it's written?
I think sites like wikipedia work this way.
wikipedia writes books? And charges fees for the contract of writing them? I've never heard of that...
 What people don't understand is the *act* of copying something isn't
 illegal.
They perfectly understand that it's illegal. They don't care because it feels irrational and unjust. That's it.
No, it's *legal*. What's not legal is giving the copies to others. Many people *do not get it*. They think if they can do something, and do it easily, then why should it be illegal? Especially when they have legally obtained all the items necessary to pirate. Ignorance is probably less prevalent now that individuals are being sued over their actions, but I'd say most people still don't get how copyright works, and what rights they have. Almost everyone I've ever told that copying music and giving it to a friend is illegal were defiantly ignorant about it, not defiantly knowledgeable. I was probably in that majority until I really studied copyright laws when the DMCA/decss controversy was around. -Steve
Aug 30 2010
next sibling parent retard <re tard.com.invalid> writes:
Mon, 30 Aug 2010 08:13:54 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

 Shit, just look at the
 over-abundance of totally crappy open source software versus for-sale
 software.  For-sale software that sucks doesn't last very long.
The number #1 problem with open source is the lack of workforce. The reasons for this have less to do with financial issues. The freedom it provides also scatters the community. When you're not aiming at high profits, you can choose exactly the combination of licenses, languages, and toolchains you prefer. Typical FLOSS enthusiastic's mindset: "Oh no! They made a BSD licensed desktop calculator in Ruby - quickly, we must make a 'better' BSD licensed clone in Python. The audience liked the GUI and the GMP backend was optimal for the task, therefore let's use those same libraries ourselves. To avoid intellectual deterioration, we should avoid studying the existing code at all costs!!" Another thing is that professional developers don't have too much energy to be spent in hobby projects after 8..12 hours of daily work, commuting etc. The number #2 problem is that stupid unnecessary projects never die. Linux distributions get higher scores in international rankings when their repositories are full of all kinds of crap software.
Aug 30 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:op.vh82xgi1eav7ka localhost.localdomain...
 The loss of money might not be that important. The greater goal is to
 educate people.
Educating people doesn't feed your family.
Unless you hapen to be a Steven King or Tom Clancy, neither does writing books. And that was true well before pdf torrents.
Aug 30 2010
prev sibling parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
 I suppose only millionaires with lots of time on their hands (although 
 that happens very rarely) would be the ones to write books?
Up until rather recently, most scientific progress *was* done by millionaires with time and funds to spare to spend on it. Or by someone who managed to get a millionaire to fund them.
Aug 30 2010
prev sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:op.vh3740cneav7ka localhost.localdomain...
 Fair use protects copying for reasonable usage (such as backing  up your 
 software, or transferring it to another medium for your own  benefit).
Not in the US.
Aug 27 2010
parent reply Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisprog gmail.com> writes:
On Friday 27 August 2010 21:58:30 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message
 news:op.vh3740cneav7ka localhost.localdomain...
 
 Fair use protects copying for reasonable usage (such as backing  up your
 software, or transferring it to another medium for your own  benefit).
Not in the US.
It was certainly my understanding that backing up software was covered under free use. - Jonathan M Davis
Aug 27 2010
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisprog gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:mailman.535.1282972511.13841.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...
 On Friday 27 August 2010 21:58:30 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message
 news:op.vh3740cneav7ka localhost.localdomain...

 Fair use protects copying for reasonable usage (such as backing  up 
 your
 software, or transferring it to another medium for your own  benefit).
Not in the US.
It was certainly my understanding that backing up software was covered under free use.
(IANAL) "Fair use" only exists in US law in the same sense that "Plessy v. Ferguson" ("Separate but equal") exists. Plessy v. Ferguson is still in the books, but it's effectively rendered dead by "Brown v. Board of Education" (for good reason, of course). Similarly, "Fair use" still exists in the books, but it's effectively rendered dead by the DMCA (for shitty reason, of course). Only real difference I see is that "Plessy v. Ferguson" and "Brown v. Board of Education" are case law and "fair use"/DMCA aren't, but I don't think that makes any real difference (sure as shit doesn't make any *practical* difference). Yea, DCMA only overturns fair use when "copy protection" is used, but that's trivial enough: all you really need to do is to slap a "consider this copyrighted" bit into it (and there's probably even super-low-tech ways to do it that would be compatible with, say, a book or CD Audio) and declare "this is DRM", and there you go - no more pesky "fair use" to get in the way of corporate greed.
Aug 27 2010
parent reply Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisprog gmail.com> writes:
On Friday 27 August 2010 22:47:54 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisprog gmail.com> wrote in message
 news:mailman.535.1282972511.13841.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...
 
 On Friday 27 August 2010 21:58:30 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message
 news:op.vh3740cneav7ka localhost.localdomain...
 
 Fair use protects copying for reasonable usage (such as backing  up
 your
 software, or transferring it to another medium for your own  benefit).
Not in the US.
It was certainly my understanding that backing up software was covered under free use.
(IANAL) "Fair use" only exists in US law in the same sense that "Plessy v. Ferguson" ("Separate but equal") exists. Plessy v. Ferguson is still in the books, but it's effectively rendered dead by "Brown v. Board of Education" (for good reason, of course). Similarly, "Fair use" still exists in the books, but it's effectively rendered dead by the DMCA (for shitty reason, of course). Only real difference I see is that "Plessy v. Ferguson" and "Brown v. Board of Education" are case law and "fair use"/DMCA aren't, but I don't think that makes any real difference (sure as shit doesn't make any *practical* difference). Yea, DCMA only overturns fair use when "copy protection" is used, but that's trivial enough: all you really need to do is to slap a "consider this copyrighted" bit into it (and there's probably even super-low-tech ways to do it that would be compatible with, say, a book or CD Audio) and declare "this is DRM", and there you go - no more pesky "fair use" to get in the way of corporate greed.
Well, since both fair use and the DMCA are law, and they contradict each other, I believe it would take a court ruling to say which won out, and even then it could easily depend on the exact circumstances of the case. Some situations might be deemed legal under fair use while others might be deemed illegal due to the DMCA. Personally, what I'd really love to have happen is have a case go to court where someone did something under fair use which was illegal under the DMCA and have at least some portion of the DMCA overruled by the Supreme Court due to it violating fair use. But I can't imagine the odds of that happening are very high. After all, the DMCA has been around for a while now, and it hasn't happened. Also, odds are that it would happen in a suit by a big corporation against an individual, and the individual wouldn't be able to afford to take the case that far, so it wouldn't actually get to the Supreme Court to be ruled on. In any case, I can dream, I suppose. The DMCA is one of the worst laws ever passed, but there's not much that we can do about it. - Jonathan M Davis
Aug 28 2010
parent reply "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 06:21:02 -0400, Jonathan M Davis  
<jmdavisprog gmail.com> wrote:

 On Friday 27 August 2010 22:47:54 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisprog gmail.com> wrote in message
 news:mailman.535.1282972511.13841.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...

 On Friday 27 August 2010 21:58:30 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message
 news:op.vh3740cneav7ka localhost.localdomain...

 Fair use protects copying for reasonable usage (such as backing  up
 your
 software, or transferring it to another medium for your own   
benefit).
 Not in the US.
It was certainly my understanding that backing up software was covered under free use.
(IANAL) "Fair use" only exists in US law in the same sense that "Plessy v. Ferguson" ("Separate but equal") exists. Plessy v. Ferguson is still in the books, but it's effectively rendered dead by "Brown v. Board of Education" (for good reason, of course). Similarly, "Fair use" still exists in the books, but it's effectively rendered dead by the DMCA (for shitty reason, of course). Only real difference I see is that "Plessy v. Ferguson" and "Brown v. Board of Education" are case law and "fair use"/DMCA aren't, but I don't think that makes any real difference (sure as shit doesn't make any *practical* difference). Yea, DCMA only overturns fair use when "copy protection" is used, but that's trivial enough: all you really need to do is to slap a "consider this copyrighted" bit into it (and there's probably even super-low-tech ways to do it that would be compatible with, say, a book or CD Audio) and declare "this is DRM", and there you go - no more pesky "fair use" to get in the way of corporate greed.
Well, since both fair use and the DMCA are law, and they contradict each other, I believe it would take a court ruling to say which won out, and even then it could easily depend on the exact circumstances of the case. Some situations might be deemed legal under fair use while others might be deemed illegal due to the DMCA. Personally, what I'd really love to have happen is have a case go to court where someone did something under fair use which was illegal under the DMCA and have at least some portion of the DMCA overruled by the Supreme Court due to it violating fair use. But I can't imagine the odds of that happening are very high. After all, the DMCA has been around for a while now, and it hasn't happened. Also, odds are that it would happen in a suit by a big corporation against an individual, and the individual wouldn't be able to afford to take the case that far, so it wouldn't actually get to the Supreme Court to be ruled on. In any case, I can dream, I suppose. The DMCA is one of the worst laws ever passed, but there's not much that we can do about it.
DMCA will eventually be repealed. It goes against existing laws and fair-use. There are efforts currently being made to alter or repeal it (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act). FWIW, the lack of funds for someone with a real chance of getting the DMCA to be tested by the supreme court is not an issue, EFF will pick up the bill in a heartbeat :) -Steve
Aug 30 2010
parent reply David Gileadi <gileadis NSPMgmail.com> writes:
On 8/30/10 5:28 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
 DMCA will eventually be repealed. It goes against existing laws and
 fair-use. There are efforts currently being made to alter or repeal it
 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act).

 FWIW, the lack of funds for someone with a real chance of getting the
 DMCA to be tested by the supreme court is not an issue, EFF will pick up
 the bill in a heartbeat :)

 -Steve
The trend seems to be in the other direction: the ACTA treaty is considered by many to be the DMCA for the rest of the world. Ars Technica's thoughts on it are at http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/02/world-get-ready-for-the-dmca-actas-internet-chapter-leaks.ars
Aug 30 2010
parent "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 08:35:56 -0400, David Gileadi <gileadis nspmgmail.com>  
wrote:

 On 8/30/10 5:28 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
 DMCA will eventually be repealed. It goes against existing laws and
 fair-use. There are efforts currently being made to alter or repeal it
 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act).

 FWIW, the lack of funds for someone with a real chance of getting the
 DMCA to be tested by the supreme court is not an issue, EFF will pick up
 the bill in a heartbeat :)

 -Steve
The trend seems to be in the other direction: the ACTA treaty is considered by many to be the DMCA for the rest of the world. Ars Technica's thoughts on it are at http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/02/world-get-ready-for-the-dmca-actas-internet-chapter-leaks.ars
That's scary shit... I found a later post here: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/04/acta-is-here.ars Thanks for posting this. -Steve
Aug 30 2010
prev sibling parent "Lars T. Kyllingstad" <public kyllingen.NOSPAMnet> writes:
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 20:36:49 +0000, retard wrote:

 Fri, 27 Aug 2010 15:03:29 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
 
 On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 13:36:44 -0400, retard <re tard.com.invalid> wrote:
 
 Fri, 27 Aug 2010 17:35:32 +0400, Stanislav Blinov wrote:

 Author may not lose anything, but she actually doesn't gain what she
 could, so yes, this is stealing. Pirates steal profit (and often
 prestiege as well), profit that may have paid off spent time, nerves
 and money. And torrent user is not guaranteed to buy the book if
 *able* to download a .pdf as well. It doesn't stimulate authors to
 share more of their thoughts and knowledge when they see all their
 efforts are simply taken away without any kind of thanks. A book is
 not a car, you don't need to read it ALL before buying, and most
 modern authors and publishers provide samples so potential reader may
 see if the book is worth buying (btw, a whole chapter of TDPL was
 recently provided for all willing), so I don't see any reasons for
 advertisement here.
Do you think the libraries also steal from the authors? If I can't afford a book or don't find it important enough, I can ask the local library to order it and later read it for free. This also encourages other member of the target audience to loan the book without paying--the libraries have lists of most recent books and all kinds of enthusiastics subscribe to those lists. This is also a great way to introduce new readers to a topic. I've noticed that books I order get lots of attention after they're available from the shelves.
No, libraries don't steal, they buy their copies or are given books that other people have bought. If I lent you my copy of TDPL then it wouldn't be stealing either, someone paid for that book. If you have a copy of a book from the library, then nobody else has that copy. This falls under fair-use. You are allowed to transfer your copy of IP to someone else (despite what EULA's try to enforce), or lend it to them as long as you are not also using it. There is a difference between copying and lending.
Assume the library bought the damn book and someone always provides copies of the books online. In that case it really doesn't make any difference financially if I lent it or downloaded from the web and destroyed the copy. In either case the author gets as much/little money assuming that reading the book doesn't break it too badly. Those people who reason about the problem this way wouldn't buy the book in any case.
Sure it makes a difference. Say I lend the book from the library. While I have it, you and a lot of other people go to the library and ask for the same book. The library people go "man, this sure is a popular book, we better get some more copies". Author makes more money. -Lars
Aug 29 2010
prev sibling parent reply Leandro Lucarella <luca llucax.com.ar> writes:
Steven Schveighoffer, el 27 de agosto a las 15:03 me escribiste:
 On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 13:36:44 -0400, retard <re tard.com.invalid> wrote:
 
Fri, 27 Aug 2010 17:35:32 +0400, Stanislav Blinov wrote:

Author may not lose anything, but she actually doesn't gain what she
could, so yes, this is stealing. Pirates steal profit (and often
prestiege as well), profit that may have paid off spent time, nerves and
money. And torrent user is not guaranteed to buy the book if *able* to
download a .pdf as well. It doesn't stimulate authors to share more of
their thoughts and knowledge when they see all their efforts are simply
taken away without any kind of thanks. A book is not a car, you don't
need to read it ALL before buying, and most modern authors and
publishers provide samples so potential reader may see if the book is
worth buying (btw, a whole chapter of TDPL was recently provided for all
willing), so I don't see any reasons for advertisement here.
Do you think the libraries also steal from the authors? If I can't afford a book or don't find it important enough, I can ask the local library to order it and later read it for free. This also encourages other member of the target audience to loan the book without paying--the libraries have lists of most recent books and all kinds of enthusiastics subscribe to those lists. This is also a great way to introduce new readers to a topic. I've noticed that books I order get lots of attention after they're available from the shelves.
No, libraries don't steal, they buy their copies or are given books that other people have bought. If I lent you my copy of TDPL then it wouldn't be stealing either, someone paid for that book. If you have a copy of a book from the library, then nobody else has that copy. This falls under fair-use. You are allowed to transfer your copy of IP to someone else (despite what EULA's try to enforce), or lend it to them as long as you are not also using it. There is a difference between copying and lending.
That being true, the practical consequences are the same: A doesn't buy the book, but reads it anyway. So according to the argument about downloading the book via torrent was "A is stealing profit from the author". If A lends the book instead of downloading it, he is still getting the knowledge but not paying from it (so the author doesn't get paid either). I really have a lot of trouble understanding why one is reasonable or fair use and why another is stealing. I'm not convinced about the argument about the paper book taking a "time-slice" to be read so it's OK to share because 2 people can't read the same book at the same time, I think libraries usually have a few copies from the same book because there is usually little people reading the same book concurrently. I'm not talking any side here, I really think authors should be encouraged to keep writing books, and for that to happen, they have to live, and to live, get some profit, but I'm not convinced the topic is so black & white. There is a lot of discussion about IP because of digital media, and it's not very clear how the future will be, but I do think the old model is exhausted (CC and FLOSS making an excellent point that there are viable alternatives). -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "Somos testigos de Jaimito, venimos a traer la salvación, el mundo va a desaparecer, somos testigos de Jaimito!". Nos enyoguizamos... Así que "somos testigos"? Te dejo el culo hecho un vino, y la conch'itumá, y la conch'itumá! -- Sidharta Kiwi
Aug 27 2010
next sibling parent Stanislav Blinov <stanislav.blinov gmail.com> writes:
Leandro Lucarella wrote:
 Steven Schveighoffer, el 27 de agosto a las 15:03 me escribiste:
 On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 13:36:44 -0400, retard <re tard.com.invalid> wrote:

 Fri, 27 Aug 2010 17:35:32 +0400, Stanislav Blinov wrote:

 Author may not lose anything, but she actually doesn't gain what she
 could, so yes, this is stealing. Pirates steal profit (and often
 prestiege as well), profit that may have paid off spent time, nerves and
 money. And torrent user is not guaranteed to buy the book if *able* to
 download a .pdf as well. It doesn't stimulate authors to share more of
 their thoughts and knowledge when they see all their efforts are simply
 taken away without any kind of thanks. A book is not a car, you don't
 need to read it ALL before buying, and most modern authors and
 publishers provide samples so potential reader may see if the book is
 worth buying (btw, a whole chapter of TDPL was recently provided for all
 willing), so I don't see any reasons for advertisement here.
Do you think the libraries also steal from the authors? If I can't afford a book or don't find it important enough, I can ask the local library to order it and later read it for free. This also encourages other member of the target audience to loan the book without paying--the libraries have lists of most recent books and all kinds of enthusiastics subscribe to those lists. This is also a great way to introduce new readers to a topic. I've noticed that books I order get lots of attention after they're available from the shelves.
No, libraries don't steal, they buy their copies or are given books that other people have bought. If I lent you my copy of TDPL then it wouldn't be stealing either, someone paid for that book. If you have a copy of a book from the library, then nobody else has that copy. This falls under fair-use. You are allowed to transfer your copy of IP to someone else (despite what EULA's try to enforce), or lend it to them as long as you are not also using it. There is a difference between copying and lending.
That being true, the practical consequences are the same: A doesn't buy the book, but reads it anyway. So according to the argument about downloading the book via torrent was "A is stealing profit from the author". If A lends the book instead of downloading it, he is still getting the knowledge but not paying from it (so the author doesn't get paid either). I really have a lot of trouble understanding why one is reasonable or fair use and why another is stealing. I'm not convinced about the argument about the paper book taking a "time-slice" to be read so it's OK to share because 2 people can't read the same book at the same time, I think libraries usually have a few copies from the same book because there is usually little people reading the same book concurrently. I'm not talking any side here, I really think authors should be encouraged to keep writing books, and for that to happen, they have to live, and to live, get some profit, but I'm not convinced the topic is so black & white. There is a lot of discussion about IP because of digital media, and it's not very clear how the future will be, but I do think the old model is exhausted (CC and FLOSS making an excellent point that there are viable alternatives).
"This could be heaven for everyone, This world could be free, This world could be won..."
Aug 27 2010
prev sibling parent reply "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 16:40:43 -0400, Leandro Lucarella <luca llucax.com.ar>  
wrote:

 Steven Schveighoffer, el 27 de agosto a las 15:03 me escribiste:

 No, libraries don't steal, they buy their copies or are given books
 that other people have bought.  If I lent you my copy of TDPL then
 it wouldn't be stealing either, someone paid for that book.  If you
 have a copy of a book from the library, then nobody else has that
 copy.  This falls under fair-use.  You are allowed to transfer your
 copy of IP to someone else (despite what EULA's try to enforce), or
 lend it to them as long as you are not also using it.  There is a
 difference between copying and lending.
That being true, the practical consequences are the same: A doesn't buy the book, but reads it anyway. So according to the argument about downloading the book via torrent was "A is stealing profit from the author". If A lends the book instead of downloading it, he is still getting the knowledge but not paying from it (so the author doesn't get paid either). I really have a lot of trouble understanding why one is reasonable or fair use and why another is stealing.
See my response to retard. The publisher prices his book with the *understanding* that libraries will buy the book and lend it to people, or that some people won't buy it and will just borrow a copy from a friend. They have done lots of research to find the correct price point so people will buy it (not to expensive) and they make a profit (not too cheap). What screws up the pricing is when people can easily get copies without paying for them, without following the "one license, one book" model. Then they lose money. Look at what it has done to the music industry. The losses are hard to comprehend, because a "non-sale" doesn't cost anything. But when you invest so much money expecting a return on the investment, only to not get your money back, the model doesn't work, the industry suffers, and the eventual beneficiaries from the industry (i.e. you) suffer. It wouldn't happen overnight, but if copyright law was abolished, eventually we would have only poetry to read :) If you bought a $20 savings bond with the promise that in 5 years, it would be worth $100, but at the end of 5 years, you were given back $20, would you consider that fair? They had your $20 for 5 years, using it to make money, and you only just got back what you invested! Is that a model that will convince people continue to buy savings bonds? Even though nobody lost any money? At the same time, nobody is going to pay $500 for a book, so copyright law was put into place to lower the prices of things, with the promise "if you lower your prices, we'll give you assurances that more people will buy your books." It's an agreement the government put in place to stimulate innovation, and it works very well.
 I'm not convinced about the argument about the paper book taking
 a "time-slice" to be read so it's OK to share because 2 people can't
 read the same book at the same time, I think libraries usually have
 a few copies from the same book because there is usually little people
 reading the same book concurrently.

 I'm not talking any side here, I really think authors should be
 encouraged to keep writing books, and for that to happen, they have to
 live, and to live, get some profit, but I'm not convinced the topic is
 so black & white. There is a lot of discussion about IP because of
 digital media, and it's not very clear how the future will be, but I do
 think the old model is exhausted (CC and FLOSS making an excellent point
 that there are viable alternatives).
FLOSS only exists because writing software is profitable :) Think about it... I write software because I can make a living doing it. If FLOSS is all that existed, then I wouldn't write software (gotta make money somehow), so I wouldn't have the skills to contribute software to the OSS community. Same for Walter, Andrei, etc. -Steve
Aug 27 2010
parent reply Leandro Lucarella <luca llucax.com.ar> writes:
Steven Schveighoffer, el 27 de agosto a las 17:34 me escribiste:
 On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 16:40:43 -0400, Leandro Lucarella
 <luca llucax.com.ar> wrote:
 
Steven Schveighoffer, el 27 de agosto a las 15:03 me escribiste:

No, libraries don't steal, they buy their copies or are given books
that other people have bought.  If I lent you my copy of TDPL then
it wouldn't be stealing either, someone paid for that book.  If you
have a copy of a book from the library, then nobody else has that
copy.  This falls under fair-use.  You are allowed to transfer your
copy of IP to someone else (despite what EULA's try to enforce), or
lend it to them as long as you are not also using it.  There is a
difference between copying and lending.
That being true, the practical consequences are the same: A doesn't buy the book, but reads it anyway. So according to the argument about downloading the book via torrent was "A is stealing profit from the author". If A lends the book instead of downloading it, he is still getting the knowledge but not paying from it (so the author doesn't get paid either). I really have a lot of trouble understanding why one is reasonable or fair use and why another is stealing.
See my response to retard. The publisher prices his book with the *understanding* that libraries will buy the book and lend it to people, or that some people won't buy it and will just borrow a copy from a friend. They have done lots of research to find the correct price point so people will buy it (not to expensive) and they make a profit (not too cheap).
Well, that's not true in Argentina, most books (and music records) explicitly forbids public loaning (on the other hand, anyone that receives any kind of subsidy from the national treasure must provide a free copy to the National Congress Library).
 What screws up the pricing is when people can easily get copies
 without paying for them, without following the "one license, one
 book" model.
I really think that what publishers really want is one fee per user, not per physical copy. Maybe they count the lending as a variable to calculate the price, but is not what they wish for, as in some countries are lobbying to put a tax to compensate for piracy.
 Then they lose money.  Look at what it has done to the music industry.
 The losses are hard to comprehend, because a "non-sale" doesn't cost
 anything.  But when you invest so much money expecting a return on the
 investment, only to not get your money back, the model doesn't work,
 the industry suffers, and the eventual beneficiaries from the industry
 (i.e. you) suffer.  It wouldn't happen overnight, but if copyright law
 was abolished, eventually we would have only poetry to read :)
You are insane, really. I don't know much about books, because I don't read much (yeah, I'm an illiterate), but I do hear a lot of music, and I'm following the development of alternative models for a long time, and music is *completely* sustainable without distribution companies. There are plenty of cases (most notably the In Rainbows Radiohead album, as a major band, for small bands is even better, because having the opportunity to sign with a big label is almost impossible while using alternative channels to distribute your music, even for free to get a wider audience that will *pay* to go to the shows, gives you a fairly good chance of earning *something*). With books is harder because there aren't shows. The music industry is desperate to cover this reality to survive a little more. [snip]
I'm not convinced about the argument about the paper book taking
a "time-slice" to be read so it's OK to share because 2 people can't
read the same book at the same time, I think libraries usually have
a few copies from the same book because there is usually little people
reading the same book concurrently.

I'm not talking any side here, I really think authors should be
encouraged to keep writing books, and for that to happen, they have to
live, and to live, get some profit, but I'm not convinced the topic is
so black & white. There is a lot of discussion about IP because of
digital media, and it's not very clear how the future will be, but I do
think the old model is exhausted (CC and FLOSS making an excellent point
that there are viable alternatives).
FLOSS only exists because writing software is profitable :) Think about it... I write software because I can make a living doing it. If FLOSS is all that existed, then I wouldn't write software (gotta make money somehow), so I wouldn't have the skills to contribute software to the OSS community. Same for Walter, Andrei, etc.
FLOSS exists because in software people found other ways to get profit with services or by request from a single user. Anyway, this is getting too long and time consuming. My point was only that this is no black or white, there are a lot of alternative models, and some have proven to be sustainable, and a lot of copyright laws are plain BS, and goes *against* innovation and society. -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Es más probable que el tomate sea perita, a que la pera tomatito. -- Peperino Pómoro
Aug 27 2010
parent reply "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 22:12:46 -0400, Leandro Lucarella <luca llucax.com.ar>  
wrote:

 Steven Schveighoffer, el 27 de agosto a las 17:34 me escribiste:

 FLOSS only exists because writing software is profitable :)  Think
 about it...  I write software because I can make a living doing it.
 If FLOSS is all that existed, then I wouldn't write software (gotta
 make money somehow), so I wouldn't have the skills to contribute
 software to the OSS community.  Same for Walter, Andrei, etc.
FLOSS exists because in software people found other ways to get profit with services or by request from a single user.
I worked in a company that had one very large customer, which accounted for more than half of our profit. The customer sort of fell in our lap, we happened to have exactly what they wanted at a point where they were desperate for it, so we got the contract. Through bending over backwards and doing anything they asked, we were able to keep that contract for years and years (I think they still are in business together). On the other side of the business, we spent (well, not exactly me, others in the company) millions of dollars and years of time developing other products, each one pretty much a failure, each one never really made any money. Some of those products were cool, and some people really liked them. But none of them proved to be the killer application that would save the company. If not for that one large customer with a guaranteed contract, we would have gone out of business long ago. After 5-6 years of listening to how this new product, or that new system was going to make us so much money, I became cynical about just about any new product we created. Each one was touted to be one of the greatest ideas and was exactly what the market needed. I never felt like they were in the right place, but nothing happened because the money we made from that one customer kept the other side of the business afloat. To say that the other side of the business was anywhere close to a success is just a complete farce. Not completely, but I liken this to FLOSS. If you look at most companies, almost none of them rely solely on open source freely available software. They also sell non-open-source software. Yes, the model works -- for a very small number of projects, and in a world where 90% of software is sold for profit. Would it work in a world where 90% of software was FLOSS? I'm not sure. I tend to think not, because like I said, if you can't make money at something, why not do something that will make money? The number of software developers will go way down, and the number of quality projects will go down too. This of course is my opinion. But I can say with 100% certainty that the current situation where most software is sold for profit works rather well. The likelihood of that changing is pretty much nil. There are exceptions, but there are exceptions in everything. I of course am not sure that FLOSS wouldn't work, and maybe some day it will be that way. But I tend to think that while things *are* working rather well, we should continue with what works.
 Anyway, this is getting too long and time consuming. My point was only
 that this is no black or white, there are a lot of alternative models,
 and some have proven to be sustainable, and a lot of copyright laws are
 plain BS, and goes *against* innovation and society.
Yes, the argument could last indefinitely -- Without a way to prove that alternative models do or do not work (one company succeeding in a world where the rest of the companies have a different model isn't proof to me), there's no way to resolve the argument. I for one, tend to think that copyright is a great method of rewarding innovation, and although it has some rough edges, it's better than not having anything. The world seems to be pretty damn innovative to me. -Steve
Aug 30 2010
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
 I for one, tend to think that copyright is a great method of rewarding 
 innovation, and although it has some rough edges, it's better than not 
 having anything.  The world seems to be pretty damn innovative to me.
I think that some categories of software will never be free open source. For example, tax prep software. That's because tax software is a load of tedious detail work with no glory. People will want to be paid to write it, and others will be willing to pay for it. Of course, custom applications will have to be paid for, too.
Aug 30 2010
next sibling parent reply dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> writes:
== Quote from Walter Bright (newshound2 digitalmars.com)'s article
 I think that some categories of software will never be free open source. For
 example, tax prep software. That's because tax software is a load of tedious
 detail work with no glory.
Aww come one, we should be able to write a few CTFE functions that generate the source code to tax prep software for you. Been working on this, but I keep running into the following bug: mixin(taxPrep(Countries.unitedStates)); // Error: Out of memory. Tax code too complicated.
Aug 30 2010
parent reply Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisprog gmail.com> writes:
On Monday 30 August 2010 18:07:43 dsimcha wrote:
 == Quote from Walter Bright (newshound2 digitalmars.com)'s article
 
 I think that some categories of software will never be free open source.
 For example, tax prep software. That's because tax software is a load of
 tedious detail work with no glory.
Aww come one, we should be able to write a few CTFE functions that generate the source code to tax prep software for you. Been working on this, but I keep running into the following bug: mixin(taxPrep(Countries.unitedStates)); // Error: Out of memory. Tax code too complicated.
It reminds me of a Tom Clancy book where they stacked all the books with the tax code in them on top of a table, and the table broke. - Jonathan M Davis
Aug 30 2010
parent reply BCS <none anon.com> writes:
Hello Jonathan,

 On Monday 30 August 2010 18:07:43 dsimcha wrote:
 
 == Quote from Walter Bright (newshound2 digitalmars.com)'s article
 
 I think that some categories of software will never be free open
 source. For example, tax prep software. That's because tax software
 is a load of tedious detail work with no glory.
 
Aww come one, we should be able to write a few CTFE functions that generate the source code to tax prep software for you. Been working on this, but I keep running into the following bug: mixin(taxPrep(Countries.unitedStates)); // Error: Out of memory. Tax code too complicated.
I've been threatening for years to do it in postscript :)
 It reminds me of a Tom Clancy book where they stacked all the books
 with the tax code in them on top of a table, and the table broke.
 
Well, Duh! Any table long enough to hold the tax code will break under it's own weight /without/ the tax code on it!
 - Jonathan M Davis
 
-- ... <IXOYE><
Aug 30 2010
parent reply Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisprog gmail.com> writes:
On Monday 30 August 2010 19:05:17 BCS wrote:
 It reminds me of a Tom Clancy book where they stacked all the books
 with the tax code in them on top of a table, and the table broke.
Well, Duh! Any table long enough to hold the tax code will break under it's own weight /without/ the tax code on it!
LOL. Well, in this case, they were stacked vertically, which is a bit different. - Jonathan M Davis
Aug 30 2010
parent BCS <none anon.com> writes:
Hello Jonathan,

 On Monday 30 August 2010 19:05:17 BCS wrote:
 
 It reminds me of a Tom Clancy book where they stacked all the books
 with the tax code in them on top of a table, and the table broke.
 
Well, Duh! Any table long enough to hold the tax code will break under it's own weight /without/ the tax code on it!
LOL. Well, in this case, they were stacked vertically, which is a bit different. - Jonathan M Davis
I was assuming they didn't use a step ladder. -- ... <IXOYE><
Aug 30 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent Daniel Gibson <metalcaedes gmail.com> writes:
Walter Bright schrieb:
 I think that some categories of software will never be free open source. 
 For example, tax prep software. That's because tax software is a load of 
 tedious detail work with no glory. People will want to be paid to write 
 it, and others will be willing to pay for it.
 
For german tax declarations there is http://www.taxbird.de/. It's supposed to be a linux-compatible alternative to the windows-only Freeware "ELSTER" provided by the government. It's not usable though, because the developer is still waiting for some information from some state office or something regarding electronic submission of the declarations (a feature offered by ELSTER). But at least it proves people are willing to provide this kind of software as open source ;-)
Aug 30 2010
prev sibling parent BCS <none anon.com> writes:
Hello Walter,

 I think that some categories of software will never be free open
 source. For example, tax prep software. That's because tax software is
 a load of tedious detail work with no glory. People will want to be
 paid to write it, and others will be willing to pay for it.
 
It won't be free as long as the tax code keeps changing. Any app that quits being a moving target, will get replaced by something that is just as good or better, and free. -- ... <IXOYE><
Aug 30 2010
prev sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
Stanislav Blinov wrote:
 Here I agree that paper books beat any ebooks.
 As for Russian translations - I don't like them since I've taken a look 
 at translated GoF book on design patterns. Translations are unbearable 
 far too often. Most of the time, people who translate such books are 
 either totally incompetent in CompSci, or know little to know aspects of 
 the particular area covered by the book. That leads to mistakes, 
 inconsistensies, errors. And often, the translation itself is hardly 
 readable compared to original. So I'd personally rather buy the book 
 from original publisher (therefore giving my monetary thanks to the 
 author) rather than pay additional sum for questionable work of 
 translators and local publishers.
In the last couple of my trips to conferences in Europe, I talked to developers who were not native english speakers about this. They were unequivocal and emphatic in wanting to do their programming in english. The thing is, the programming community is global, covering about every country and language, and english is what binds them all together. They're cut off if they are not conversant in technical english, and as you said, are unhappy with second-rate buggy translations. This wasn't true 25 years ago, when localizing the programming tools was all the rage. I use google translator a lot. Sure, it often gives very bad translations, but they are good enough that you can get what the author is saying.
Aug 27 2010
next sibling parent Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> writes:
This isn't just true for programming. Some major universities (e.g. in
Croatia) usually require the student to read textbooks written in
English. A lot of books have never been translated to a local
language, and those that have often have lousy 1:1 translation, with
not much thought given to the semantics of a sentence. Translating
technical terms is especially difficult. In fact most of our technical
terms around here are almost identical to English ones, with an added
letter or two. So when you read a translated book it feels like you're
reading in two different languages.

The good thing is that learning English is mandatory in Junior school,
at least where I come from.

On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 8:17 PM, Walter Bright
<newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote:
 Stanislav Blinov wrote:
 Here I agree that paper books beat any ebooks.
 As for Russian translations - I don't like them since I've taken a look at
 translated GoF book on design patterns. Translations are unbearable far too
 often. Most of the time, people who translate such books are either totally
 incompetent in CompSci, or know little to know aspects of the particular
 area covered by the book. That leads to mistakes, inconsistensies, errors.
 And often, the translation itself is hardly readable compared to original.
 So I'd personally rather buy the book from original publisher (therefore
 giving my monetary thanks to the author) rather than pay additional sum for
 questionable work of translators and local publishers.
In the last couple of my trips to conferences in Europe, I talked to developers who were not native english speakers about this. They were unequivocal and emphatic in wanting to do their programming in english. The thing is, the programming community is global, covering about every country and language, and english is what binds them all together. They're cut off if they are not conversant in technical english, and as you said, are unhappy with second-rate buggy translations. This wasn't true 25 years ago, when localizing the programming tools was all the rage. I use google translator a lot. Sure, it often gives very bad translations, but they are good enough that you can get what the author is saying.
Aug 27 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Don <nospam nospam.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:
 Stanislav Blinov wrote:
 Here I agree that paper books beat any ebooks.
 As for Russian translations - I don't like them since I've taken a 
 look at translated GoF book on design patterns. Translations are 
 unbearable far too often. Most of the time, people who translate such 
 books are either totally incompetent in CompSci, or know little to 
 know aspects of the particular area covered by the book. That leads to 
 mistakes, inconsistensies, errors. And often, the translation itself 
 is hardly readable compared to original. So I'd personally rather buy 
 the book from original publisher (therefore giving my monetary thanks 
 to the author) rather than pay additional sum for questionable work of 
 translators and local publishers.
In the last couple of my trips to conferences in Europe, I talked to developers who were not native english speakers about this. They were unequivocal and emphatic in wanting to do their programming in english. The thing is, the programming community is global, covering about every country and language, and english is what binds them all together. They're cut off if they are not conversant in technical english, and as you said, are unhappy with second-rate buggy translations. This wasn't true 25 years ago, when localizing the programming tools was all the rage. I use google translator a lot. Sure, it often gives very bad translations, but they are good enough that you can get what the author is saying.
I would say, though, that the most important thing is to use a language which you are reasonably fluent in. I occasionally have to maintain a body of code which was written by an Italian programmer. Some of the comments are in Italian, amd the variable names are all in Italian, but most of the comments are in his attempt at German, but they have Italian word order. Some maintenance has been done by a fellow Australian who was just learning German, he added comments in some English-German hybrid. It's hilariously incomprehensible. And unfortunately google translator only works with real languages...
Aug 27 2010
parent reply "Denis Koroskin" <2korden gmail.com> writes:
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 23:52:45 +0400, Don <nospam nospam.com> wrote:

 Walter Bright wrote:
 Stanislav Blinov wrote:
 Here I agree that paper books beat any ebooks.
 As for Russian translations - I don't like them since I've taken a  
 look at translated GoF book on design patterns. Translations are  
 unbearable far too often. Most of the time, people who translate such  
 books are either totally incompetent in CompSci, or know little to  
 know aspects of the particular area covered by the book. That leads to  
 mistakes, inconsistensies, errors. And often, the translation itself  
 is hardly readable compared to original. So I'd personally rather buy  
 the book from original publisher (therefore giving my monetary thanks  
 to the author) rather than pay additional sum for questionable work of  
 translators and local publishers.
In the last couple of my trips to conferences in Europe, I talked to developers who were not native english speakers about this. They were unequivocal and emphatic in wanting to do their programming in english. The thing is, the programming community is global, covering about every country and language, and english is what binds them all together. They're cut off if they are not conversant in technical english, and as you said, are unhappy with second-rate buggy translations. This wasn't true 25 years ago, when localizing the programming tools was all the rage. I use google translator a lot. Sure, it often gives very bad translations, but they are good enough that you can get what the author is saying.
I would say, though, that the most important thing is to use a language which you are reasonably fluent in. I occasionally have to maintain a body of code which was written by an Italian programmer. Some of the comments are in Italian, amd the variable names are all in Italian, but most of the comments are in his attempt at German, but they have Italian word order. Some maintenance has been done by a fellow Australian who was just learning German, he added comments in some English-German hybrid. It's hilariously incomprehensible. And unfortunately google translator only works with real languages...
That's funny. I was once working at a company that enforced writing English comments to avoid issues like this (even though the whole company is Russian). Since then it's plain unnatural to me to write comments in anything other that English. Many large international companies do the same, or have specially hired technical writers to write English manuals. For example, Sony Computer Entertainment has most of their code and samples commented in Japanese. Official English documentation may come weeks (or even months) after initial release of a product, and is often incomplete. In this case, using Google translator is often the only way to understand their code for non-Japanese speaking developers.
Aug 27 2010
parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Denis Koroskin" <2korden gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:op.vh4i0ceoo7cclz korden-pc...
 For example, Sony Computer Entertainment has most of their code and 
 samples commented in Japanese. Official English documentation may come 
 weeks (or even months) after initial release of a product, and is often 
 incomplete. In this case, using Google translator is often the only way to 
 understand their code for non-Japanese speaking developers.
That could actually explain, at least partly, why Epic shuns the PS3.
Aug 27 2010
prev sibling parent reply Stanislav Blinov <stanislav.blinov gmail.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:
 Stanislav Blinov wrote:
 Here I agree that paper books beat any ebooks.
 As for Russian translations - I don't like them since I've taken a 
 look at translated GoF book on design patterns. Translations are 
 unbearable far too often. Most of the time, people who translate such 
 books are either totally incompetent in CompSci, or know little to 
 know aspects of the particular area covered by the book. That leads to 
 mistakes, inconsistensies, errors. And often, the translation itself 
 is hardly readable compared to original. So I'd personally rather buy 
 the book from original publisher (therefore giving my monetary thanks 
 to the author) rather than pay additional sum for questionable work of 
 translators and local publishers.
In the last couple of my trips to conferences in Europe, I talked to developers who were not native english speakers about this. They were unequivocal and emphatic in wanting to do their programming in english. The thing is, the programming community is global, covering about every country and language, and english is what binds them all together. They're cut off if they are not conversant in technical english, and as you said, are unhappy with second-rate buggy translations. This wasn't true 25 years ago, when localizing the programming tools was all the rage.
I can tell that this wasn't true even 15 years from here. Books, interviews, movies, games - all had solid and nice translations, pleasant to read an hear. But something has changed. And not for the best. But during the time when 'localization' was not all that bad funny things did happen too. Here in Russia there's an accountant software package developed by 1C for some 10-15 years now. It has builtin language that has natural 'English' form, but is available also completely localized. All constructs, functions, keywords, everything is translated into Russian. I can say that average-skilled programmer or coder could easily catch up that language if he saw it in normal English. But catching up this 'localized' flavor is a big PITA.
 
 I use google translator a lot. Sure, it often gives very bad 
 translations, but they are good enough that you can get what the author 
 is saying.
True, and this is great mean to both stay focused and not get frustrated when you realize that what you've read in 'official' translation was a terrible mistake.
Aug 27 2010
parent reply =?iso-8859-2?B?VG9tZWsgU293afFza2k=?= <just ask.me> writes:
Dnia 27-08-2010 o 22:03:46 Stanislav Blinov <stanislav.blinov gmail.com>=
  =

napisa=B3(a):

 I can tell that this wasn't true even 15 years from here. Books,  =
 interviews, movies, games - all had solid and nice translations,  =
 pleasant to read an hear. But something has changed. And not for the  =
 best.
  But during the time when 'localization' was not all that bad funny  =
 things did happen too. Here in Russia there's an accountant software  =
 package developed by 1C for some 10-15 years now. It has builtin  =
 language that has natural 'English' form, but is available also  =
 completely localized. All constructs, functions, keywords, everything =
is =
 translated into Russian. I can say that average-skilled programmer or =
=
 coder could easily catch up that language if he saw it in normal  =
 English. But catching up this 'localized' flavor is a big PITA.
Reminds me of my previous job where I did plenty of Excel. Now, for some= = functions Polish names were natural: SUM -> SUMA AVERAGE -> =A6REDNIA LEN -> D=A3 SLOPE -> NACHYLENIE But common workhorse functions were notoriously given names so descripti= ve = that made the writer's wrists ache and the reader's eyes tear: STDEV -> ODCH.STANDARDOWE VLOOKUP -> WYSZUKAJ.PIONOWO MID -> FRAGMENT.TEKSTU TRIM -> USU=D1.ZB=CADNE.ODST=CAPY MMULT -> MACIERZ.ILOCZYN NORMSINV -> ROZK=A3AD.NORMALNY.S.ODW Oh, and if the problem called for a turbo spreadsheet, I had to re-learn= = the function names all over because in VBA they're English. :-/ Tomek
Aug 27 2010
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
Tomek Sowiski wrote:
 Oh, and if the problem called for a turbo spreadsheet, I had to re-learn 
 the function names all over because in VBA they're English. :-/
My father spent years in Japan after the war, and of course Japanese words would creep into his vocabulary. So I grew up thinking a lot of Japanese words were english <g>.
Aug 27 2010
parent Kagamin <spam here.lot> writes:
Walter Bright Wrote:

 Tomek Sowiski wrote:
 Oh, and if the problem called for a turbo spreadsheet, I had to re-learn 
 the function names all over because in VBA they're English. :-/
Yes, localized Excel is a real pain.
 My father spent years in Japan after the war, and of course Japanese words
would 
 creep into his vocabulary. So I grew up thinking a lot of Japanese words were 
 english <g>.
Japanese did assimilate many english words. Every time I hear it - what they say? - it's unnatural.
Aug 31 2010
prev sibling parent reply "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 06:48:46 -0400, digited <digited yandex.ru> wrote:

 [heavy_ot]
 Piracy is not stealing - author actually loses nothing from it, and  
 .torrent user
 is not guaranteed to buy a book if unable to download a .pdf
 Futhermore, .torrent distribution may be a good advertisement and help  
 to find out
 if a russian-speaking coder wants to actually order a 1300+ rur book in  
 english or
 not.
 [/heavy_ot]
You have this completely wrong. Book publishing, like most copyrightable material, works on an investment model -- a publisher invests a lot of money to get a book written and published, and then recoups that investment after selling N copies of the book at a much smaller price. What you are saying is that the author doesn't lose anything if someone doesn't buy their book. But when someone uses their creation without compensating them for it, then the model breaks down -- who will pay for creating books when it is going to be a losing investment? All you will get is books that people are willing to write for free, and those won't be very good. People with excellent talent for writing books won't write free books, because they can use their talents elsewhere to make money and provide for their family. The reason we make stealing IP illegal is so people will have an incentive to innovate and create IP. If you want to live in a world where all you get is what Richard Stallman gives you, you can have it. I'd rather have people do what they're best at (and Andrei is good at writing), and pay for the results than only measure the physical cost of an item, ignoring the innovative qualities of it. How many good books do you think would be produced if copyright law didn't exist? Copyright and patent laws exist to *encourage* creation, they achieve the result with an indirect requirement, because otherwise it's impossible to charge for innovation. IP is a funny thing, and most people don't see how the model works -- hey it costs you nothing to produce *this one copy*, so why should I pay for that? Well, because it didn't cost nothing to produce the *first one*, and nobody is going to pay for me to write the book in the first place if they can't charge you for this one copy! It takes some logical thinking to see why it's stealing, but trust me, it is stealing.
 as for me, i prefer paper books over reading from screen, but i'm not  
 interested
 in d2. I won't buy tdpl in english because of questionable rate of
 price/usefulness for me, but i'll buy it on russian (for collection), if  
 it will
 be translated and will have a reasonable price.
As someone who is frugal, I may not ever buy TDPL. But that's mostly because 1) I feel like I have a good understanding of D2, and I'm comfortable with the online resources, and 2) I reviewed the book already, so I already know what's mostly in it :) But I would recommend anyone who wants to learn D2 to buy the book, it's a much simpler process than the time it takes to do it the way I did. And it *is* a good book. -Steve
Aug 27 2010
parent reply dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> writes:
== Quote from Steven Schveighoffer (schveiguy yahoo.com)'s article
 On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 06:48:46 -0400, digited <digited yandex.ru> wrote:
 [heavy_ot]
 Piracy is not stealing - author actually loses nothing from it, and
 .torrent user
 is not guaranteed to buy a book if unable to download a .pdf
 Futhermore, .torrent distribution may be a good advertisement and help
 to find out
 if a russian-speaking coder wants to actually order a 1300+ rur book in
 english or
 not.
 [/heavy_ot]
You have this completely wrong. Book publishing, like most copyrightable material, works on an investment model -- a publisher invests a lot of money to get a book written and published, and then recoups that investment after selling N copies of the book at a much smaller price. What you are saying is that the author doesn't lose anything if someone doesn't buy their book. But when someone uses their creation without compensating them for it, then the model breaks down -- who will pay for creating books when it is going to be a losing investment? All you will get is books that people are willing to write for free, and those won't be very good. People with excellent talent for writing books won't write free books, because they can use their talents elsewhere to make money and provide for their family. The reason we make stealing IP illegal is so people will have an incentive to innovate and create IP. If you want to live in a world where all you get is what Richard Stallman gives you, you can have it. I'd rather have people do what they're best at (and Andrei is good at writing), and pay for the results than only measure the physical cost of an item, ignoring the innovative qualities of it. How many good books do you think would be produced if copyright law didn't exist? Copyright and patent laws exist to *encourage* creation, they achieve the result with an indirect requirement, because otherwise it's impossible to charge for innovation.
True, except when the whores in Congress retroactively extend copyright terms to "until Hell freezes over" because the media companies say so, even if the copyright owner happens to be dead or not contactable, thus discouraging innovation instead of helping it. BTW, I feel a little bad making this comment. What if you were a whore? Would you really want to be compared to Congress?
Aug 27 2010
next sibling parent reply "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 15:08:04 -0400, dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> wrote:

 == Quote from Steven Schveighoffer (schveiguy yahoo.com)'s article
 Copyright and patent laws exist to *encourage* creation, they
 achieve the result with an indirect requirement, because otherwise it's
 impossible to charge for innovation.
True, except when the whores in Congress retroactively extend copyright terms to "until Hell freezes over" because the media companies say so, even if the copyright owner happens to be dead or not contactable, thus discouraging innovation instead of helping it.
hehe, I agree there. The fact that a copyright lasts longer than anyone ever lived is sort of a perversion. But I think we'd be much worse off without any copyright protection. The good news about copyright is that the ideas are not what's protected, it's the expression of the ideas. So you can take ideas from copyrighted material and rephrase it to continue innovating. But software patents that last 17 years? That's just crap, and I hope someday we can do better than that. -Steve
Aug 27 2010
parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:op.vh32icf3eav7ka localhost.localdomain...
 The  good news about copyright is that the ideas are not what's protected, 
 it's  the expression of the ideas.  So you can take ideas from copyrighted 
 material and rephrase it to continue innovating.
Yea, until the copyright owner, which is most likely some deep-pocket corporation instead of the individual who actually created it in the first place, decides to sue you even though they know damn well they don't have a case. Since you're unlikely to be a filthy rich as them, you're forced to pay them a settlement even though you and them both know damn well that you're in the right and the courts *would* side with you *if* it were to actually go that far. This *does* happen, and it happens plenty. Even if piracy destroys the copyright system, so does corporate extortion.
Aug 27 2010
prev sibling parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
dsimcha wrote:
 True, except when the whores in Congress retroactively extend copyright terms
to
 "until Hell freezes over" because the media companies say so, even if the
 copyright owner happens to be dead or not contactable, thus discouraging
 innovation instead of helping it.
I'm all for copyright law, except that it should be limited to 20 years. No extensions. Software and business method patents should be scrapped entirely.
Aug 27 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=E1bor_Csuthy?= <csuthy gmail.com> writes:
Hi,

I live in Hungary and I preordered TDPL from Amazon.UK (there was some
discount for it). With some delay (~ 2-3 weeks after US release) but
it arrived without any problem.


Br,
Lanten

2010/8/27 Stanislav Blinov <stanislav.blinov gmail.com>:
 Hi,

 I've noticed I'm not the only one Russian here, so I've decided to ask:
 (yeah, I know I'm quite a bit late)

 Did anyone buy TDPL in Russia? If so, where from? Is Amazon a good place to
 look (there seemed to be trouble getting stuff from them)?
Aug 30 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Kagamin <spam here.lot> writes:
Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:

 Shit, just look at the  
 over-abundance of totally crappy open source software versus for-sale  
 software.
Who cares about crap if free software is still better than for-sale?
 For-sale software that sucks doesn't last very long.
Lol, I use IE6 at my workplace. MS even can't get rid of it.
 Crappy books don't sell, that's how capitalism works.  You seem to have a  
 very twisted view on reality.
They sell like hell. Even Hollywood does. What can be crappier than that? And it gets crappier every second, every sequel, and sells never drop. and they just make more crappier crap because profit is higher when they sell crap for the price of masterpiece.
Aug 30 2010
next sibling parent reply dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> writes:
== Quote from Kagamin (spam here.lot)'s article
 Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:
 Shit, just look at the
 over-abundance of totally crappy open source software versus for-sale
 software.
Who cares about crap if free software is still better than for-sale?
 For-sale software that sucks doesn't last very long.
Lol, I use IE6 at my workplace. MS even can't get rid of it.
IE6 may suck horribly by today's standards, but let's put it in perspective. It was released in 2001. The state of the art improves over time, and in the case of web browsers it improves quickly. It was actually a pretty decent browser for its time. It's just that the people using it now are stuck using it because of some legacy crapware (that probably didn't sell well and may have been developed in-house) that runs on it and hasn't been updated since back when people programmed using a magnetized needle and a steady hand.
 Crappy books don't sell, that's how capitalism works.  You seem to have a
 very twisted view on reality.
They sell like hell. Even Hollywood does. What can be crappier than that? And it
gets crappier every second, every sequel, and sells never drop. and they just make more crappier crap because profit is higher when they sell crap for the price of masterpiece. Of course everyone thinks ~60-70% of what Hollywood puts out is crap. The problem is that everyone thinks that about a **different** ~60-70% because different movies cater to different niches. Having a single centralized "this movie is crap" authority is how dictatorship works. Producing movies even if only a minority thinks they're worth watching, as long as that minority can pay enough to make it profitable is how capitalism works.
Aug 30 2010
next sibling parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
dsimcha wrote:
 Of course everyone thinks ~60-70% of what Hollywood puts out is crap.  The
problem
 is that everyone thinks that about a **different** ~60-70% because different
 movies cater to different niches.
Reminds me of the old joke about advertising. Businessmen know that half of their advertising budget is wasted, they just don't know which half.
 Having a single centralized "this movie is
 crap" authority is how dictatorship works.  Producing movies even if only a
 minority thinks they're worth watching, as long as that minority can pay
enough to
 make it profitable is how capitalism works.
Hollywood moguls don't set out to make crap. They set out to make what sells. When they're investing $50 million in a project, they want some assurance that it will sell. Therefore, they look at movies that did sell well and make their new movie like them - that's why sequels are produced, and why stars get big salaries. For all the drek that this does produce, it still produces far more good stuff than ones where a government agency decides what will be produced. For example, there's all that crap on TV, and then there's "Breaking Bad".
Aug 30 2010
prev sibling parent reply Kagamin <spam here.lot> writes:
dsimcha Wrote:

 Of course everyone thinks ~60-70% of what Hollywood puts out is crap.  The
problem
 is that everyone thinks that about a **different** ~60-70% because different
 movies cater to different niches.  Having a single centralized "this movie is
 crap" authority is how dictatorship works.  Producing movies even if only a
 minority thinks they're worth watching, as long as that minority can pay
enough to
 make it profitable is how capitalism works.
I know, there's a niche for crap. You can replace the question of quality with question of profit. I call it ignorance.
Aug 30 2010
parent reply BCS <none anon.com> writes:
Hello Kagamin,

 dsimcha Wrote:
 
 Of course everyone thinks ~60-70% of what Hollywood puts out is crap.
 The problem is that everyone thinks that about a **different**
 ~60-70% because different movies cater to different niches.  Having a
 single centralized "this movie is crap" authority is how dictatorship
 works.  Producing movies even if only a minority thinks they're worth
 watching, as long as that minority can pay enough to make it
 profitable is how capitalism works.
 
I know, there's a niche for crap. You can replace the question of quality with question of profit. I call it ignorance.
Everything you like, someone else thinks is crap and someone else thinks is offensive. Same goes for me. And everyone else. Any standard chosen by /a man/ is arbitrary and not inherently any better than any other. -- ... <IXOYE><
Aug 30 2010
parent reply Torarin <torarind gmail.com> writes:
So reviews are useless?

2010/8/31 BCS <none anon.com>:
 Hello Kagamin,

 dsimcha Wrote:

 Of course everyone thinks ~60-70% of what Hollywood puts out is crap.
 The problem is that everyone thinks that about a **different**
 ~60-70% because different movies cater to different niches. =A0Having a
 single centralized "this movie is crap" authority is how dictatorship
 works. =A0Producing movies even if only a minority thinks they're worth
 watching, as long as that minority can pay enough to make it
 profitable is how capitalism works.
I know, there's a niche for crap. You can replace the question of quality with question of profit. I call it ignorance.
Everything you like, someone else thinks is crap and someone else thinks =
is
 offensive. Same goes for me. And everyone else. Any standard chosen by /a
 man/ is arbitrary and not inherently any better than any other.

 --
 ... <IXOYE><
Aug 31 2010
parent reply BCS <none anon.com> writes:
Hello Torarin,

 So reviews are useless?
 
Without context, yes they are useless. With context, your just looking at correlation: i.e "we like/dislike the same things".
 2010/8/31 BCS <none anon.com>:
 
 Hello Kagamin,
 
 dsimcha Wrote:
 
 Of course everyone thinks ~60-70% of what Hollywood puts out is
 crap. The problem is that everyone thinks that about a
 **different** ~60-70% because different movies cater to different
 niches.  Having a single centralized "this movie is crap" authority
 is how dictatorship works.  Producing movies even if only a
 minority thinks they're worth watching, as long as that minority
 can pay enough to make it profitable is how capitalism works.
 
I know, there's a niche for crap. You can replace the question of quality with question of profit. I call it ignorance.
Everything you like, someone else thinks is crap and someone else thinks is offensive. Same goes for me. And everyone else. Any standard chosen by /a man/ is arbitrary and not inherently any better than any other. -- ... <IXOYE><
-- ... <IXOYE><
Aug 31 2010
parent reply Torarin <torarind gmail.com> writes:
2010/8/31 BCS <none anon.com>:
 Hello Torarin,

 So reviews are useless?
Without context, yes they are useless. With context, your just looking at correlation: i.e "we like/dislike the same things".
I can understand the premise of the view that art cannot be quality-assessed, but I think there are still clich=E9s, formulas, poor execution like bad acting, unrealistic dialog, etc., that can be pointed out by experienced reviewers. Torarin
Aug 31 2010
next sibling parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 8/31/10 9:09 CDT, Torarin wrote:
 2010/8/31 BCS<none anon.com>:
 Hello Torarin,

 So reviews are useless?
Without context, yes they are useless. With context, your just looking at correlation: i.e "we like/dislike the same things".
I can understand the premise of the view that art cannot be quality-assessed, but I think th
parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 Relevant reading:
 
 http://www.paulgraham.com/taste.html
 
 Art is indeed a relational value (has value only defined jointly by a 
 creator and a recipient) but that doesn't make it wholly relative.
Where I draw the line is when someone tries to impose their taste upon others. My father was in the Air Force, and so often lived on military bases in base housing. On one, all the base housing furnishings were selected by the base commander's wife. Whether she had good taste or not was irrelevant, all the officers' wives *loathed* her picking out their furnishings and imposing it on them.
Aug 31 2010
prev sibling parent BCS <none anon.com> writes:
Hello Torarin,

 2010/8/31 BCS <none anon.com>:
 
 Hello Torarin,
 
 So reviews are useless?
 
Without context, yes they are useless. With context, your just looking at correlation: i.e "we like/dislike the same things".
I can understand the premise of the view that art cannot be quality-assessed, but I think th
prev sibling parent reply "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 16:43:27 -0400, Kagamin <spam here.lot> wrote:

 Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:

 Shit, just look at the
 over-abundance of totally crappy open source software versus for-sale
 software.
Who cares about crap if free software is still better than for-sale?
 For-sale software that sucks doesn't last very long.
Lol, I use IE6 at my workplace. MS even can't get rid of it.
 Crappy books don't sell, that's how capitalism works.  You seem to have  
 a
 very twisted view on reality.
They sell like hell. Even Hollywood does. What can be crappier than that? And it gets crappier every second, every sequel, and sells never drop. and they just make more crappier crap because profit is higher when they sell crap for the price of masterpiece.
This is all based on your opinion. And unfortunately it's all wrong -- I know what is good and what is bad, you should just stop posting. -Steve
Aug 31 2010
parent Don <nospam nospam.com> writes:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
 On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 16:43:27 -0400, Kagamin <spam here.lot> wrote:
 
 Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:

 Shit, just look at the
 over-abundance of totally crappy open source software versus for-sale
 software.
Who cares about crap if free software is still better than for-sale?
 For-sale software that sucks doesn't last very long.
Lol, I use IE6 at my workplace. MS even can't get rid of it.
 Crappy books don't sell, that's how capitalism works.  You seem to 
 have a
 very twisted view on reality.
They sell like hell. Even Hollywood does. What can be crappier than that? And it gets crappier every second, every sequel, and sells never drop. and they just make more crappier crap because profit is higher when they sell crap for the price of masterpiece.
This is all based on your opinion. And unfortunately it's all wrong -- I know what is good and what is bad, you should just stop posting. -Steve
"Please, please, kids, stop fighting. Maybe Lisa's right about America being the land of opportunity, and maybe Adil's got a point about the machinery of capitalism being oiled with the blood of the workers." -Homer Simpson
Aug 31 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Kagamin <spam here.lot> writes:
Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:

 This is all based on your opinion.  And unfortunately it's all wrong -- I  
 know what is good and what is bad, you should just stop posting.
 
We both know, what is good, so we both should stop posting.
Aug 31 2010
parent reply "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Wed, 01 Sep 2010 02:59:42 -0400, Kagamin <spam here.lot> wrote:

 Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:

 This is all based on your opinion.  And unfortunately it's all wrong --  
 I
 know what is good and what is bad, you should just stop posting.
We both know, what is good, so we both should stop posting.
I was just employing irony and sarcasm to demonstrate why your arguments were meaningless :) The only measurable factor for "good" art is how many people use it/buy it. For-sale software, books, movies do rather well, so I'm inclined to believe they are pretty good. There are also some open source/free materials that do rather well, but they are not nearly as common as free materials that are crappy. My point was that for-sale art by far outperforms freely available art in popularity and usage. When you get paid to make something, you can do it more often, you get better at it, and your quality of work goes up. Anyways, we can stop debating, clearly it's not going anywhere. -Steve
Sep 01 2010
next sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
 I was just employing irony and sarcasm to demonstrate why your arguments 
 were meaningless :)  The only measurable factor for "good" art is how 
 many people use it/buy it.  For-sale software, books, movies do rather 
 well, so I'm inclined to believe they are pretty good.  There are also 
 some open source/free materials that do rather well, but they are not 
 nearly as common as free materials that are crappy.  My point was that 
 for-sale art by far outperforms freely available art in popularity and 
 usage.  When you get paid to make something, you can do it more often, 
 you get better at it, and your quality of work goes up.
Someone once told me that "capitalism doesn't support the arts". I asked him how the Beatles got rich. Oops! There's a subgroup of the theater crowd around here who regard producers as "sellouts" if their plays actually attract an audience.
Sep 01 2010
next sibling parent reply Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisprog gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, September 01, 2010 12:15:24 Walter Bright wrote:
 Someone once told me that "capitalism doesn't support the arts". I asked
 him how the Beatles got rich. Oops!
Capitalism is going to tend to support what is generally popular or what is popular with the affluent crowd. Anything that doesn't fall in either of those categories isn't necessarily going to do well. So, the artsy stuff that appeals primarily to artsy people isn't necessarily going to do well. The Beatles managed general popularity, so capitalism supported them just fine. Music and movies are huge industries. Capitalism definitely supports them. However, if you're dealing with less well-known, less generally-liked stuff, then capitalism isnt't really going to support it. Of course, arguably, that's for the better, since if it doesn't do well that means that it's not something that the majority supports, but there is good stuff out there that never becomes particularly popular or successful. However, since art is generally in the eye of the beholder, there will always be people unhappy with how it gets handled regardless of the economic system in use.
 There's a subgroup of the theater crowd around here who regard producers as
 "sellouts" if their plays actually attract an audience.
I hear that this sort of thing tends to happen with Indie artists as well. There are fans who like them until they get popular. I guess that there are people who _like_ it when the stuff that they like is niche. - Jonathan M Davis
Sep 01 2010
next sibling parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisprog gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:mailman.35.1283369617.858.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...
 On Wednesday, September 01, 2010 12:15:24 Walter Bright wrote:
 There's a subgroup of the theater crowd around here who regard producers 
 as
 "sellouts" if their plays actually attract an audience.
I hear that this sort of thing tends to happen with Indie artists as well. There are fans who like them until they get popular. I guess that there are people who _like_ it when the stuff that they like is niche.
From some interview I read awhile ago, that's what happened to the band Green Day (Not that I'm a big fan or anything, but they're not bad). Their first couple albums were very indie, got moderate sales, and gained a strong cult following. Then they put out the "Dookie" album, and got better promotion from their label, and it was a big mainstream hit. The old fans actually got pissed at them for that and labeled them "sellouts". Apparently that was a big part of the motivation behind the songs on their following album, "Insomniac" (but most rock lyrics never make any sence to me anyway, so it's not like I can actually tell). (Moral of the story: People is stoopid.)
Sep 01 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent reply BCS <none anon.com> writes:
Hello Jonathan,

 Capitalism definitely supports
 them. However, if you're dealing with less well-known, less
 generally-liked stuff, then capitalism isnt't really going to support
 it. 
Amazon.com enters, stage right.
 There's a subgroup of the theater crowd around here who regard
 producers as "sellouts" if their plays actually attract an audience.
 
I hear that this sort of thing tends to happen with Indie artists as well. There are fans who like them until they get popular. I guess that there are people who _like_ it when the stuff that they like is niche.
And there are people who will buy $5 a cup coffee when they really do like the $.50 stuff better. They are called snobs. -- ... <IXOYE><
Sep 01 2010
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
BCS wrote:
 And there are people who will buy $5 a cup coffee when they really do 
 like the $.50 stuff better. They are called snobs.
I had fun at a wine tasting when I picked the cheapest wine of the lot as my favorite. Hilarity ensued.
Sep 01 2010
next sibling parent BCS <none anon.com> writes:
Hello Walter,

 BCS wrote:
 
 And there are people who will buy $5 a cup coffee when they really do
 like the $.50 stuff better. They are called snobs.
 
I had fun at a wine tasting when I picked the cheapest wine of the lot as my favorite. Hilarity ensued.
Think of all the money you can save! -- ... <IXOYE><
Sep 01 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Walter Bright" <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
news:i5n8b6$14uo$2 digitalmars.com...
 BCS wrote:
 And there are people who will buy $5 a cup coffee when they really do 
 like the $.50 stuff better. They are called snobs.
I had fun at a wine tasting when I picked the cheapest wine of the lot as my favorite. Hilarity ensued.
Wish I could have seen that :) My favorite type of grape wine is ordinary White Zinfandel. And I *still* like grape juice 10x better.
Sep 01 2010
prev sibling parent reply retard <re tard.com.invalid> writes:
Wed, 01 Sep 2010 21:14:20 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:

 BCS wrote:
 And there are people who will buy $5 a cup coffee when they really do
 like the $.50 stuff better. They are called snobs.
I had fun at a wine tasting when I picked the cheapest wine of the lot as my favorite. Hilarity ensued.
The price of wine often doesn't correlate with its quality, at least very linearly. When I was in Spain, a local wine "expert" could easily find good wine and the price was 4..10 euros per bottle. It's the same thing in Greece or Bulgaria or other cheaper wine-producing countries. The cheapest wine is actually cheaper than bottled water. In more expensive countries the same quality costs 5..20 times as much.
Sep 02 2010
parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
retard wrote:
 In more expensive countries the same quality costs 5..20 times as much.
Import duties and liquor taxes may play a role in that.
Sep 02 2010
prev sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
Jonathan M Davis wrote:
 Music and movies are huge industries. Capitalism definitely supports them. 
 However, if you're dealing with less well-known, less generally-liked stuff,
then 
 capitalism isnt't really going to support it. Of course, arguably, that's for 
 the better, since if it doesn't do well that means that it's not something
that 
 the majority supports, but there is good stuff out there that never becomes 
 particularly popular or successful. However, since art is generally in the eye 
 of the beholder, there will always be people unhappy with how it gets handled 
 regardless of the economic system in use.
Try hiring someone to do some artwork for a web site or your program. Artists are definitely capitalists and don't work for free, even for small stuff.
 I hear that this sort of thing tends to happen with Indie artists as well.
There 
 are fans who like them until they get popular. I guess that there are people
who 
 _like_ it when the stuff that they like is niche.
I bet that deep down they know that they don't actually like it, they just like being in the in crowd where they all smugly congratulate each other about how they get it and nobody else does :-) I love the case of Teri Horton who has an unauthenticated Pollock painting. If it is a real Pollock, it is worth millions. If not, it's just some paint dribbled on canvas. It matters not if it's a good painting or not.
Sep 01 2010
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Walter Bright" <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
news:i5n87k$14uo$1 digitalmars.com...
 Jonathan M Davis wrote:
 I hear that this sort of thing tends to happen with Indie artists as 
 well. There are fans who like them until they get popular. I guess that 
 there are people who _like_ it when the stuff that they like is niche.
I bet that deep down they know that they don't actually like it, they just like being in the in crowd where they all smugly congratulate each other about how they get it and nobody else does :-)
I hope not. If that's so, what would that mean about those of us who have been here in the D crowd for the last few years? ;)
 I love the case of Teri Horton who has an unauthenticated Pollock 
 painting. If it is a real Pollock, it is worth millions. If not, it's just 
 some paint dribbled on canvas. It matters not if it's a good painting or 
 not.
Classic :)
Sep 01 2010
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "Walter Bright" <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
 news:i5n87k$14uo$1 digitalmars.com...
 Jonathan M Davis wrote:
 I hear that this sort of thing tends to happen with Indie artists as 
 well. There are fans who like them until they get popular. I guess that 
 there are people who _like_ it when the stuff that they like is niche.
I bet that deep down they know that they don't actually like it, they just like being in the in crowd where they all smugly congratulate each other about how they get it and nobody else does :-)
I hope not. If that's so, what would that mean about those of us who have been here in the D crowd for the last few years? ;)
If you leave when D goes mainstream, then you're here for all the wrong reasons!
Sep 01 2010
next sibling parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Walter Bright" <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
news:i5ncem$1bp6$1 digitalmars.com...
 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "Walter Bright" <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
 news:i5n87k$14uo$1 digitalmars.com...
 Jonathan M Davis wrote:
 I hear that this sort of thing tends to happen with Indie artists as 
 well. There are fans who like them until they get popular. I guess that 
 there are people who _like_ it when the stuff that they like is niche.
I bet that deep down they know that they don't actually like it, they just like being in the in crowd where they all smugly congratulate each other about how they get it and nobody else does :-)
I hope not. If that's so, what would that mean about those of us who have been here in the D crowd for the last few years? ;)
If you leave when D goes mainstream, then you're here for all the wrong reasons!
How's that for lock-in? :)
Sep 01 2010
prev sibling parent BCS <none anon.com> writes:
Hello Walter,

 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 
 "Walter Bright" <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote in message
 news:i5n87k$14uo$1 digitalmars.com...
 
 Jonathan M Davis wrote:
 
 I hear that this sort of thing tends to happen with Indie artists
 as well. There are fans who like them until they get popular. I
 guess that there are people who _like_ it when the stuff that they
 like is niche.
 
I bet that deep down they know that they don't actually like it, they just like being in the in crowd where they all smugly congratulate each other about how they get it and nobody else does :-)
I hope not. If that's so, what would that mean about those of us who have been here in the D crowd for the last few years? ;)
If you leave when D goes mainstream, then you're here for all the wrong reasons!
s/when/because/ ??? -- ... <IXOYE><
Sep 02 2010
prev sibling parent reply BCS <none anon.com> writes:
Hello Walter,

 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
 
 I was just employing irony and sarcasm to demonstrate why your
 arguments were meaningless :)  The only measurable factor for "good"
 art is how many people use it/buy it.  For-sale software, books,
 movies do rather well, so I'm inclined to believe they are pretty
 good.  There are also some open source/free materials that do rather
 well, but they are not nearly as common as free materials that are
 crappy.  My point was that for-sale art by far outperforms freely
 available art in popularity and usage.  When you get paid to make
 something, you can do it more often, you get better at it, and your
 quality of work goes up.
 
Someone once told me that "capitalism doesn't support the arts". I asked him how the Beatles got rich. Oops! There's a subgroup of the theater crowd around here who regard producers as "sellouts" if their plays actually attract an audience.
OTOH try and write a play that no one will watch. I'd be very surprised if it can be done. -- ... <IXOYE><
Sep 01 2010
next sibling parent Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisprog gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, September 01, 2010 18:56:03 BCS wrote:
 OTOH try and write a play that no one will watch. I'd be very surprised if
 it can be done.
LOL. There would always be someone who would want to watch it simply because no one else wants to. - Jonathan M Davis
Sep 01 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"BCS" <none anon.com> wrote in message 
news:a6268ff1b3e78cd181e75ec7828 news.digitalmars.com...
 OTOH try and write a play that no one will watch. I'd be very surprised if 
 it can be done.
Zero Mostel and Gene Wilder tried that once. Hilarity ensued.
Sep 01 2010
prev sibling parent reply Brad Roberts <braddr puremagic.com> writes:
On 9/1/2010 6:56 PM, BCS wrote:
 OTOH try and write a play that no one will watch. I'd be very surprised if it
 can be done.
There's a book that was purposely written (by a collaboration of good authors) to be as bad as it could be. So, of course, I just had to get a copy. I couldn't make it past the second chapter, if I remember right. It'd take a seriously determined person to actually finish it. Reading it might well void any life insurance policies you might have. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta_Nights Good luck, Brad
Sep 01 2010
next sibling parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Brad Roberts" <braddr puremagic.com> wrote in message 
news:mailman.60.1283405205.858.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...
 On 9/1/2010 6:56 PM, BCS wrote:
 OTOH try and write a play that no one will watch. I'd be very surprised 
 if it
 can be done.
There's a book that was purposely written (by a collaboration of good authors) to be as bad as it could be.
There was a videogame (freeware) a few years ago that was deliberately designed to serve as an example of all the typical "worst practices" in game design. The great thing though, was that a lot of people found it to fall into the "so bad it's good" category :) I wish I could remember what it was.
 So, of course, I just had to get a copy.  I
 couldn't make it past the second chapter, if I remember right.  It'd take 
 a
 seriously determined person to actually finish it.  Reading it might well 
 void
 any life insurance policies you might have.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta_Nights
That sounds awesome :) The history and reasons behind it are really interesting, and I got a kick out of these parts of what Wikipedia said about it: ------------------------ ...obvious grammatical errors, nonsensical passages, and a complete lack of a coherent plot.... The distinctive flaws of Atlanta Nights include nonidentical chapters written by two different authors from the same segment of outline (13 and 15), a missing chapter (21), two chapters that are word-for-word identical to each other (4 and 17), two different chapters with the same chapter number (12 and 12), and a chapter "written" by a computer program that generated random text based on patterns found in the previous chapters (34). Characters change gender and race; they die and reappear without explanation. Spelling and grammar are nonstandard and the formatting is inconsistent. The initials of characters who were named in the book spelled out the phrase "PublishAmerica is a vanity press."[7] Under Macdonald's direction, the finale revealed that all the previous events of the plot had been a dream, although the book continues for several more chapters. ------------------------ That had to have been a really fun book to write.
Sep 01 2010
prev sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Brad Roberts" <braddr puremagic.com> wrote in message 
news:mailman.60.1283405205.858.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...
 On 9/1/2010 6:56 PM, BCS wrote:
 OTOH try and write a play that no one will watch. I'd be very surprised 
 if it
 can be done.
There's a book that was purposely written (by a collaboration of good authors) to be as bad as it could be. So, of course, I just had to get a copy. I couldn't make it past the second chapter, if I remember right. It'd take a seriously determined person to actually finish it. Reading it might well void any life insurance policies you might have. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta_Nights
I hope it started with "It was a dark and stormy night" :)
Sep 01 2010
parent reply Brad Roberts <braddr puremagic.com> writes:
On 9/1/2010 11:28 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "Brad Roberts" <braddr puremagic.com> wrote in message 
 news:mailman.60.1283405205.858.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...
 On 9/1/2010 6:56 PM, BCS wrote:
 OTOH try and write a play that no one will watch. I'd be very surprised 
 if it
 can be done.
There's a book that was purposely written (by a collaboration of good authors) to be as bad as it could be. So, of course, I just had to get a copy. I couldn't make it past the second chapter, if I remember right. It'd take a seriously determined person to actually finish it. Reading it might well void any life insurance policies you might have. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta_Nights
I hope it started with "It was a dark and stormy night" :)
Sadly no.. that'd be cliched but not bad enough. Hopefully this doesn't push the bounds of fair use too far. The first several lines: Chapter 1 Pain. Whispering voices. Pain. Pain. Pain. Pain. Need pee -- new pain -- what are they sticking in me? ... Sleep. Pain. Whispering voices. "As you know, Nurse Eastman, the government spooks controlling this hospital will not permit me to give this patient the care I think he needs." "Yes, doctor." The voice was breathy, sweet, so sweet and sexy. --- Actually, that part's not THAT bad, by itself.. but it certainly isn't anywhere near good.
Sep 01 2010
parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Brad Roberts" <braddr puremagic.com> wrote in message 
news:mailman.61.1283409922.858.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...
 On 9/1/2010 11:28 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 I hope it started with "It was a dark and stormy night" :)
Sadly no.. that'd be cliched but not bad enough. Hopefully this doesn't push the bounds of fair use too far. The first several lines: Chapter 1 Pain. Whispering voices. Pain. Pain. Pain. Pain. Need pee -- new pain -- what are they sticking in me? ... Sleep. Pain. Whispering voices. "As you know, Nurse Eastman, the government spooks controlling this hospital will not permit me to give this patient the care I think he needs." "Yes, doctor." The voice was breathy, sweet, so sweet and sexy. --- Actually, that part's not THAT bad, by itself.. but it certainly isn't anywhere near good.
lol, Oh man, that's great (in a bad way, of course) :) Now you've got me *really* wanting to read it. I haven't laughed that hard at, umm, "literature" since Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. I keep laughing harder every time I re-read it, He said. His voice breathy, sweet, so sweet and sexy. Pain. Need pee :)
Sep 02 2010
prev sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:op.victz4b5eav7ka localhost.localdomain...
 The only measurable factor for "good" art is how many  people use it/buy 
 it.
That's not a bad point - I can't think of many other metrics for art. Quality certainly can positively influence popularity. But I think we have to be careful not to conflate "popularity" with "quality" too much. Similar to the old saying: "What's popular is not always right. What's right is not always popular." PHP is wildly popular, but for anyone actually familiar with a variety of languages, the quality is undeniably poor, so again, we have to be careful with assuming connections between popularity and quality.
 For-sale software, books, movies do rather well, so  I'm inclined to 
 believe they are pretty good.  There are also some open  source/free 
 materials that do rather well, but they are not nearly as  common as free 
 materials that are crappy.  My point was that for-sale art  by far 
 outperforms freely available art in popularity and usage.  When you  get 
 paid to make something, you can do it more often, you get better at  it, 
 and your quality of work goes up.
I'm not disagreeing with the phenomenon you describe, but I think there are other contrary factors in play as well: - For-sale anything tends to have more marketing behind it than free (because if you're trying to get money for it, you're more motivated to get it out in front of people), so that can be a factor in the popularity/usage of for-sale things. If you're trying to sell your paintings, you're more likely to try to go as as many art fairs as you can, get business cards made out to hand out, get a spot and display that people will really notice, push your website, etc. If your work is free, you have less reason to do all that, which in turn, works against popularity and usage. - Free stuff is more likely to be a labor of love (because if you're not getting paid for it, why else bother if not because you truly care?), while for-sale tends to involve people who just don't give a crap about anything but the paycheck. They know something will sell as-is, so why waste the resources making it as good as they can make it, like the "labor of love" people would do? Businessmen have long ago learned that, contrary to the old saying, "If you build a better mousetrap, the world will NOT beat a path to your door". Especially if the world doesn't even know you've done so. They'll just keep using their inferior, but popular, mousetraps. But if you can *convince* them you've built a better one, regardless of whether or not it's actualy true, then they *will*, metaphorically, beat a path to your door.
Sep 01 2010
next sibling parent reply "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Wed, 01 Sep 2010 15:34:00 -0400, Nick Sabalausky <a a.a> wrote:

 "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message
 news:op.victz4b5eav7ka localhost.localdomain...
 The only measurable factor for "good" art is how many  people use it/buy
 it.
That's not a bad point - I can't think of many other metrics for art. Quality certainly can positively influence popularity. But I think we have to be careful not to conflate "popularity" with "quality" too much. Similar to the old saying: "What's popular is not always right. What's right is not always popular." PHP is wildly popular, but for anyone actually familiar with a variety of languages, the quality is undeniably poor, so again, we have to be careful with assuming connections between popularity and quality.
Imagine if you had to pay for it ;)
 For-sale software, books, movies do rather well, so  I'm inclined to
 believe they are pretty good.  There are also some open  source/free
 materials that do rather well, but they are not nearly as  common as  
 free
 materials that are crappy.  My point was that for-sale art  by far
 outperforms freely available art in popularity and usage.  When you  get
 paid to make something, you can do it more often, you get better at  it,
 and your quality of work goes up.
I'm not disagreeing with the phenomenon you describe, but I think there are other contrary factors in play as well: - For-sale anything tends to have more marketing behind it than free (because if you're trying to get money for it, you're more motivated to get it out in front of people), so that can be a factor in the popularity/usage of for-sale things. If you're trying to sell your paintings, you're more likely to try to go as as many art fairs as you can, get business cards made out to hand out, get a spot and display that people will really notice, push your website, etc. If your work is free, you have less reason to do all that, which in turn, works against popularity and usage.
There is that part of it. Some companies can sell whatever they want because of marketing, i.e. Microsoft. But one thing that for-sale art does is weed out the unpopular artists. Make a crappy product, and many people won't buy your next one. Look how hard Vista hit Microsoft despite their huge marketing machine. As far as free software advertisement though, most of that is negated by google these days :) Just yesterday I wanted to find a tool that diff'd mysql database schemas so I could sync one to the other. In about 10 minutes I found 2-3 candidates that were free and I didn't use any of them, because they seemed unfinished, or required installing other stuff just to get it to work. What I ended up using is advise on a forum that said to just diff the results of the mysqldump. But I think you would agree the truly great free products/software don't have a problem with marketing because growth today is viral when someone finds something that is awesome, free or not.
 - Free stuff is more likely to be a labor of love (because if you're not
 getting paid for it, why else bother if not because you truly care?),  
 while
 for-sale tends to involve people who just don't give a crap about  
 anything
 but the paycheck. They know something will sell as-is, so why waste the
 resources making it as good as they can make it, like the "labor of love"
 people would do?
I think most good products are labors of love, even ones that are not free. There are many cases that are not, and are "just there for the money," but those usually aren't as successful. As you say, not as much effort is put into those. But if something is good, and people will pay for it, why wouldn't you want to charge for it so you can continue doing it? I don't understand the thought process that necessarily links love for a job or quality of art to working for free. I love programming, but love or not, it would just be a toy hobby if I had to spend the majority of my day doing something else in order to support myself and my family.
 Businessmen have long ago learned that, contrary to the old saying, "If  
 you
 build a better mousetrap, the world will NOT beat a path to your door".
 Especially if the world doesn't even know you've done so. They'll just  
 keep
 using their inferior, but popular, mousetraps. But if you can *convince*
 them you've built a better one, regardless of whether or not it's actualy
 true, then they *will*, metaphorically, beat a path to your door.
Yes, there are plenty examples of that. -Steve
Sep 01 2010
next sibling parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:op.vidd20ldeav7ka localhost.localdomain...
 On Wed, 01 Sep 2010 15:34:00 -0400, Nick Sabalausky <a a.a> wrote:

 PHP is wildly popular, but for anyone actually familiar
 with a variety of languages, the quality is undeniably poor, so again, we
 have to be careful with assuming connections between popularity and 
 quality.
Imagine if you had to pay for it ;)
There's a commerical web-app package for colleges called Blackboard. Hugely, enormously popular among college IT departments (ie, the target buyers). But it's undeniably total crap. Damn thing barely even works at all, and that's not just my observation, but the observation of many students at the colleges that use it. Other commercial things that have been heavily used or popular and I would argue to have been of relatively poor quality (relative to either their price or to competing offerings) even at the time they were either heavily used or well-regarded (though I admit some might be debatable): Oracle DBMS, Lotus Notes, MS Visual SourceSafe, iPod, Cadillac/Oldsmobile, Visual Basic 6, Classic ASP, Flash IDE, Photoshop, XBox 360.
 But one thing that for-sale art  does is weed out the unpopular artists.
I don't know, maybe, maybe not. I would argue that there were far more people who very vocally hated NSync, Spice Girls and the Macarena, then there were people who actually liked them. Those music acts were successful for a short while (at least for their labels), but I don't know about popular. Disliking and making fun of them was certainly very, very popular - far more popular than actually listening to them, from everything I could tell.
 Make a crappy product, and many  people won't buy your next one.  Look how 
 hard Vista hit Microsoft despite  their huge marketing machine.
Well, in many ways, Microsoft is unpopular ;) Although they're really a bit of an odd beast: They're heavily hated, but also heavily used. You could say they're both popular and unpopular at the same time. And I don't know about "make a crappy product, and many people won't buy your next one": Vista didn't seem to prevent people from buying Win7 en masse.
 But I think you would agree the truly great free products/software don't 
 have a problem with marketing because growth today is viral when someone 
 finds something that is awesome, free or not.
True, but there's still a lot of difficulty in getting that viral ball rolling in the first place, it has to reach a certain critical mass first. D had faced an uphill battle for mindshare for a long time and the viral effect is only now starting to produce results.
 I think most good products are labors of love, even ones that are not 
 free.
Agreed.
 But if something is good, and people will pay  for it, why wouldn't you 
 want to charge for it so you can continue doing  it?  I don't understand 
 the thought process that necessarily links love  for a job or quality of 
 art to working for free.
In many cases I agree, but sometimes the market just isn't there, or maybe it's something that would just be very difficult to market as a commercial offering. In those cases getting it used by more than a handful of people (if any) requires it be free. For instance, the market for commercial languages is pretty much dead. D's reference compiler *needed* to be free or else it never would have gotten serious attention. Or it could be a vehicle for something else: Like how MS doesn't even charge for their compilers (just their IDEs and platforms) because their real products are their platforms. Same with Apple and the iTunes software: it's free to help boost iPod and music/video sales. (Of course, there is still room for commercial compilers: like the Intel C/C++ one, because it supposedly produces far better optimized code than the free C/C++ compilers. But a language that doesn't have at least some good free compiler is doomed to failure these days.)
Sep 01 2010
prev sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
 As far as free software advertisement though, most of that is negated by 
 google these days :)
Paid advertising worked extremely well in the 80's. Sales definitely correlated with it. No longer. Want to waste money? Buy a print ad. You're likely to get zero response on it. I know, I've tried. What does work is writing interesting articles and papers about the product, etc.
Sep 01 2010
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Walter Bright" <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
news:i5n8t9$162c$1 digitalmars.com...
 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
 As far as free software advertisement though, most of that is negated by 
 google these days :)
Paid advertising worked extremely well in the 80's. Sales definitely correlated with it. No longer. Want to waste money? Buy a print ad. You're likely to get zero response on it. I know, I've tried. What does work is writing interesting articles and papers about the product, etc.
I don't know anything about print ads, or technology ads, but I wouldn't be surprised if modern TV ads are ineffective. They never seem to have anything to do with the product/service being offered...and those are the *good* ones...
Sep 01 2010
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 I don't know anything about print ads, or technology ads, but I wouldn't be 
 surprised if modern TV ads are ineffective. They never seem to have anything 
 to do with the product/service being offered...and those are the *good* 
 ones...
I wouldn't know, I ff over all of them.
Sep 01 2010
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Walter Bright" <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
news:i5ncg8$1bp6$2 digitalmars.com...
 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 I don't know anything about print ads, or technology ads, but I wouldn't 
 be surprised if modern TV ads are ineffective. They never seem to have 
 anything to do with the product/service being offered...and those are the 
 *good* ones...
I wouldn't know, I ff over all of them.
I only rarely see them now. I don't have any of that DVR stuff (never thought it made sense to buy a device, as opposed to a service, on a subscription model), so not only do I get the increasingly irritating and patronizing commercials (I don't normally have a problem with commercials, just the irritating and patronizing ones, which are most of them these days), but I also get those ads that stations have injected *over-top* of the shows themselves as a backlash against DVRs (Which I don't even have! And I have to be punished anyway!) So I've just said "fuck them, and fuck playing fair, since they obviously aren't" and I only watch shows on library DVDs now, or if the libraries either don't have it or don't have it unscratched then downlaod (but not Hulu - fuck web browsers, fuck flash video, and fuck "TV on a PC"). So usually the only times I do see ads is when a roomate watches TV.
Sep 01 2010
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 I only rarely see them now. I don't have any of that DVR stuff (never 
 thought it made sense to buy a device, as opposed to a service, on a 
 subscription model), so not only do I get the increasingly irritating and 
 patronizing commercials (I don't normally have a problem with commercials, 
 just the irritating and patronizing ones, which are most of them these 
 days), but I also get those ads that stations have injected *over-top* of 
 the shows themselves as a backlash against DVRs (Which I don't even have! 
 And I have to be punished anyway!) So I've just said "fuck them, and fuck 
 playing fair, since they obviously aren't" and I only watch shows on library 
 DVDs now, or if the libraries either don't have it or don't have it 
 unscratched then downlaod (but not Hulu - fuck web browsers, fuck flash 
 video, and fuck "TV on a PC"). So usually the only times I do see ads is 
 when a roomate watches TV. 
Me very satisfied Netflix customer.
Sep 01 2010
parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Walter Bright" <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
news:i5ndre$1e09$2 digitalmars.com...
 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 I only rarely see them now. I don't have any of that DVR stuff (never 
 thought it made sense to buy a device, as opposed to a service, on a 
 subscription model), so not only do I get the increasingly irritating and 
 patronizing commercials (I don't normally have a problem with 
 commercials, just the irritating and patronizing ones, which are most of 
 them these days), but I also get those ads that stations have injected 
 *over-top* of the shows themselves as a backlash against DVRs (Which I 
 don't even have! And I have to be punished anyway!) So I've just said 
 "fuck them, and fuck playing fair, since they obviously aren't" and I 
 only watch shows on library DVDs now, or if the libraries either don't 
 have it or don't have it unscratched then downlaod (but not Hulu - fuck 
 web browsers, fuck flash video, and fuck "TV on a PC"). So usually the 
 only times I do see ads is when a roomate watches TV.
Me very satisfied Netflix customer.
For videos and music, north-eastern Ohio's library systems are absolutely phenomenal. And unless you're *ridiculously* irresponsible, the late fees are an order of magnitude cheaper than any netflix subscription. If I lived anywhere else, I would probably be a Netflix user. (But unfortunately, these libraries are horrible for non-fiction books, unless all you ever want is "For Dummies"-level stuff, or if you just happen to be paying thousands of dollars to a college, or work for a college - *then* they give you the *cough* "privilege" of using the OhioLINK library system which is great for non-fiction books. But frankly, an enterprise-level MSDN subscription would probably be cheaper (literally))
Sep 01 2010
prev sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 PHP is wildly popular, but for anyone actually familiar 
 with a variety of languages, the quality is undeniably poor, so again, we 
 have to be careful with assuming connections between popularity and quality.
On the other hand, PHP may have a quality that other languages utterly lack and fail to recognize. The book "The Innovator's Dilemma" explains many examples of this.
 I'm not disagreeing with the phenomenon you describe, but I think there are 
 other contrary factors in play as well:
 
 - For-sale anything tends to have more marketing behind it than free 
 (because if you're trying to get money for it, you're more motivated to get 
 it out in front of people), so that can be a factor in the popularity/usage 
 of for-sale things. If you're trying to sell your paintings, you're more 
 likely to try to go as as many art fairs as you can, get business cards made 
 out to hand out, get a spot and display that people will really notice, push 
 your website, etc. If your work is free, you have less reason to do all 
 that, which in turn, works against popularity and usage.
 
 - Free stuff is more likely to be a labor of love (because if you're not 
 getting paid for it, why else bother if not because you truly care?), while 
 for-sale tends to involve people who just don't give a crap about anything 
 but the paycheck. They know something will sell as-is, so why waste the 
 resources making it as good as they can make it, like the "labor of love" 
 people would do?
There's the old saw in making a product that the last 10% takes 90% of the time and money. If you're doing something for free, you tend to not bother with that. If you're doing it for pay, you spend the time and money to make it a quality product.
Sep 01 2010
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Walter Bright" <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
news:i5n8lu$15kq$1 digitalmars.com...
 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 PHP is wildly popular, but for anyone actually familiar with a variety of 
 languages, the quality is undeniably poor, so again, we have to be 
 careful with assuming connections between popularity and quality.
On the other hand, PHP may have a quality that other languages utterly lack and fail to recognize. The book "The Innovator's Dilemma" explains many examples of this.
Yea, may be so in a lot of cases, but with PHP, I really can't even fathom that.
 There's the old saw in making a product that the last 10% takes 90% of the 
 time and money. If you're doing something for free, you tend to not bother 
 with that. If you're doing it for pay, you spend the time and money to 
 make it a quality product.
Then it would seem most of the tech world either hadn't heard that saying or doesn't beleive it. It seems like every time I turn around there's another completely unpolished commercial tech offering. I can't even think of the last time I saw a commercial tech product (hardware or software) that seemed to have gone that final 10% - or even the first half of that final 5% (not counting digital mars, of course ;) ). The Apple II is the first thing that comes to mind - but I might be biased since that's what I started on. Resident Evil 4 or Megaman 9, maybe, if videogames count. The graffitti-1-era PalmOS devces, maybe? That's all I can think of. Certainly nothing from Apple since Woz left, and that's the company most people try to point to as a shining example of alleged "polish".
Sep 01 2010
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 That's all I can think of. Certainly 
 nothing from Apple since Woz left, and that's the company most people try to 
 point to as a shining example of alleged "polish". 
All I can say is you need to look at the product before it was polished to see if progress was made during the polishing process. Looking at just the end result doesn't tell much.
Sep 01 2010
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Walter Bright" <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
news:i5nco0$1bp6$3 digitalmars.com...
 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 That's all I can think of. Certainly nothing from Apple since Woz left, 
 and that's the company most people try to point to as a shining example 
 of alleged "polish".
All I can say is you need to look at the product before it was polished to see if progress was made during the polishing process. Looking at just the end result doesn't tell much.
The pre-release iterations are completely irrelevant. If the end result is something with nearly-zero tactile feedback, super-ultra-hyperly-modal interface, and can't be turned off with the "power" button, but only by holding "Up" for five seconds, or has tiny ui elements that can't be accessed with a stylus or fingernail but is far too small to do reliably with a finger, or is a closed-locked-down-platform, or is branded as being a PDA-like device but still doesn't support something as basic as copy-paste that PalmOS devices already had nearly ten years prior even in smartphone form (Handspring Treo), then yes, the polish is crap no matter how much crappier the early iterations were. Apple's "polish" exists as nothing more than aesthetic-oriented graphic design, and it fools most people.
Sep 01 2010
next sibling parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> wrote in message 
news:i5ne55$1efe$1 digitalmars.com...
 Apple's "polish" exists as nothing more than aesthetic-oriented graphic 
 design
...and gimmicks.
Sep 01 2010
prev sibling parent reply "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 01:53:41 -0400, Nick Sabalausky <a a.a> wrote:

 "Walter Bright" <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote in message
 news:i5nco0$1bp6$3 digitalmars.com...
 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 That's all I can think of. Certainly nothing from Apple since Woz left,
 and that's the company most people try to point to as a shining example
 of alleged "polish".
All I can say is you need to look at the product before it was polished to see if progress was made during the polishing process. Looking at just the end result doesn't tell much.
The pre-release iterations are completely irrelevant. If the end result is something with nearly-zero tactile feedback, super-ultra-hyperly-modal interface, and can't be turned off with the "power" button, but only by holding "Up" for five seconds, or has tiny ui elements that can't be accessed with a stylus or fingernail but is far too small to do reliably with a finger, or is a closed-locked-down-platform, or is branded as being a PDA-like device but still doesn't support something as basic as copy-paste that PalmOS devices already had nearly ten years prior even in smartphone form (Handspring Treo), then yes, the polish is crap no matter how much crappier the early iterations were. Apple's "polish" exists as nothing more than aesthetic-oriented graphic design, and it fools most people.
Love my iPhone. Love it. My last two phones were a Palm Treo and a Samsung touch-screen (w/stylus) smartphone with Windows mobile 6. They are absolute garbage compared to this. Granted, I started with the 3gs, and upgraded to iOS4 about a month after I got it, so my phone is the result of 3 years of polish, but I feel apple has the right focus for it. iPhone is hands down the best phone I've ever used. I thought when I got it, I would have a hard time accessing small things like the on-screen keyboard keys, but I'm surprised at how accurate I am with it, even after only having it for a few months. I regularly go to webnews on digitalmars and can click the minuscule links pretty accurately. You can not like them if you want, you are entitled to your opinion, but it seems like you have a very negative view of almost everything :) I bet your glass is half empty, huh... -Steve
Sep 02 2010
next sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
 iPhone is hands down the best phone I've ever used.  I thought when I 
 got it, I would have a hard time accessing small things like the 
 on-screen keyboard keys, but I'm surprised at how accurate I am with it, 
 even after only having it for a few months.  I regularly go to webnews 
 on digitalmars and can click the minuscule links pretty accurately.
There's a special style sheet on digitalmars.com for printing which redoes the layout to make it print nicer. I looked in to doing a special style sheet for the iPod, but couldn't find a consistent way to make it work. I want such a style sheet to reorganize it as the 3-pane style is not the best for the tiny screen.
Sep 02 2010
parent reply Michel Fortin <michel.fortin michelf.com> writes:
On 2010-09-02 15:05:26 -0400, Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> said:

 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
 iPhone is hands down the best phone I've ever used.  I thought when I 
 got it, I would have a hard time accessing small things like the 
 on-screen keyboard keys, but I'm surprised at how accurate I am with 
 it, even after only having it for a few months.  I regularly go to 
 webnews on digitalmars and can click the minuscule links pretty 
 accurately.
There's a special style sheet on digitalmars.com for printing which redoes the layout to make it print nicer. I looked in to doing a special style sheet for the iPod, but couldn't find a consistent way to make it work. I want such a style sheet to reorganize it as the 3-pane style is not the best for the tiny screen.
Basically, you wanted to do what I did with my website. What was the problem exactly? Creating a style sheet that displays the contents well when read linearly? Or was it about how to trigger this particular style sheet for iPhone and iPods? The later's quite simple, just use this media attribute: media="handheld, only screen and (max-device-width: 480px)" The "handheld, " part isn't really relevant for iOS devices, but it'll trigger the stylesheet with Opera-based handheld browsers. -- Michel Fortin michel.fortin michelf.com http://michelf.com/
Sep 02 2010
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
Michel Fortin wrote:
 Basically, you wanted to do what I did with my website. What was the 
 problem exactly? Creating a style sheet that displays the contents well 
 when read linearly? Or was it about how to trigger this particular style 
 sheet for iPhone and iPods? The later's quite simple, just use this 
 media attribute:
 
     media="handheld, only screen and (max-device-width: 480px)"
 
 The "handheld, " part isn't really relevant for iOS devices, but it'll 
 trigger the stylesheet with Opera-based handheld browsers.
The problem was that I googled it and every hit used a radically different method and they'd refer to it as "seems" to work. I'm not comfortable using such hacks. I'd like one that officially works and is standards compliant.
Sep 02 2010
next sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Walter Bright" <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
news:i5pl44$jfi$2 digitalmars.com...
 Michel Fortin wrote:
 Basically, you wanted to do what I did with my website. What was the 
 problem exactly? Creating a style sheet that displays the contents well 
 when read linearly? Or was it about how to trigger this particular style 
 sheet for iPhone and iPods? The later's quite simple, just use this media 
 attribute:

     media="handheld, only screen and (max-device-width: 480px)"

 The "handheld, " part isn't really relevant for iOS devices, but it'll 
 trigger the stylesheet with Opera-based handheld browsers.
The problem was that I googled it and every hit used a radically different method and they'd refer to it as "seems" to work. I'm not comfortable using such hacks. I'd like one that officially works and is standards compliant.
Then you're best off avoiding the web enitrely, or else you're in for a world of hurt ;) The web has no such things.
Sep 02 2010
parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "Walter Bright" <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
 news:i5pl44$jfi$2 digitalmars.com...
 Michel Fortin wrote:
 Basically, you wanted to do what I did with my website. What was the 
 problem exactly? Creating a style sheet that displays the contents well 
 when read linearly? Or was it about how to trigger this particular style 
 sheet for iPhone and iPods? The later's quite simple, just use this media 
 attribute:

     media="handheld, only screen and (max-device-width: 480px)"

 The "handheld, " part isn't really relevant for iOS devices, but it'll 
 trigger the stylesheet with Opera-based handheld browsers.
The problem was that I googled it and every hit used a radically different method and they'd refer to it as "seems" to work. I'm not comfortable using such hacks. I'd like one that officially works and is standards compliant.
Then you're best off avoiding the web enitrely, or else you're in for a world of hurt ;) The web has no such things.
The print style sheet is standard and works great.
Sep 02 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent reply BCS <none anon.com> writes:
Hello Walter,

 Michel Fortin wrote:
 
 Basically, you wanted to do what I did with my website. What was the
 problem exactly? Creating a style sheet that displays the contents
 well when read linearly? Or was it about how to trigger this
 particular style sheet for iPhone and iPods? The later's quite
 simple, just use this media attribute:
 
 media="handheld, only screen and (max-device-width: 480px)"
 
 The "handheld, " part isn't really relevant for iOS devices, but
 it'll trigger the stylesheet with Opera-based handheld browsers.
 
The problem was that I googled it and every hit used a radically different method and they'd refer to it as "seems" to work. I'm not comfortable using such hacks. I'd like one that officially works and is standards compliant.
Setup a mobile.digitalmars.com that has hosts the same files as www.* but a different .css? A little work with the config files and you might even need only one copy of the files on the server. -- ... <IXOYE><
Sep 03 2010
parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
BCS wrote:
 Setup a mobile.digitalmars.com that has hosts the same files as www.* 
 but a different .css?
 
 A little work with the config files and you might even need only one 
 copy of the files on the server.
That might work.
Sep 03 2010
prev sibling parent reply Michel Fortin <michel.fortin michelf.com> writes:
On 2010-09-02 22:04:39 -0400, Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> said:

 Michel Fortin wrote:
 Basically, you wanted to do what I did with my website. What was the 
 problem exactly? Creating a style sheet that displays the contents well 
 when read linearly? Or was it about how to trigger this particular 
 style sheet for iPhone and iPods? The later's quite simple, just use 
 this media attribute:
 
     media="handheld, only screen and (max-device-width: 480px)"
 
 The "handheld, " part isn't really relevant for iOS devices, but it'll 
 trigger the stylesheet with Opera-based handheld browsers.
The problem was that I googled it and every hit used a radically different method and they'd refer to it as "seems" to work. I'm not comfortable using such hacks. I'd like one that officially works and is standards compliant.
Call it a hack if you want, but this is the most standard-compliant solution as it is based on the CSS3 Media Queries specification: <http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-mediaqueries/> It'll be officially standard-compliant once the specification becomes a W3C recommendation (it's currently a candidate recommendation). Currently, WebKit (Safari, Chrome), Gecko (Firefox) and Opera all support media queries. <https://developer.mozilla.org/en/css/media_queries> <http://www.opera.com/docs/specs/presto25/css/mediaqueries/> IE 9 will support media queries too when it ships (I believe it's in beta currently) so it'll probably work with Windows Phone 7 too (when it becomes available). Here's a showcase they've made: <http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/HTML5/85CSS3_MediaQueries/Default.html> So good luck finding something more standard-compliant. -- Michel Fortin michel.fortin michelf.com http://michelf.com/
Sep 04 2010
parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
Michel Fortin wrote:
 On 2010-09-02 22:04:39 -0400, Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> 
 said:
 
 Michel Fortin wrote:
 Basically, you wanted to do what I did with my website. What was the 
 problem exactly? Creating a style sheet that displays the contents 
 well when read linearly? Or was it about how to trigger this 
 particular style sheet for iPhone and iPods? The later's quite 
 simple, just use this media attribute:

     media="handheld, only screen and (max-device-width: 480px)"

 The "handheld, " part isn't really relevant for iOS devices, but 
 it'll trigger the stylesheet with Opera-based handheld browsers.
The problem was that I googled it and every hit used a radically different method and they'd refer to it as "seems" to work. I'm not comfortable using such hacks. I'd like one that officially works and is standards compliant.
Call it a hack if you want, but this is the most standard-compliant solution as it is based on the CSS3 Media Queries specification: <http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-mediaqueries/> It'll be officially standard-compliant once the specification becomes a W3C recommendation (it's currently a candidate recommendation). Currently, WebKit (Safari, Chrome), Gecko (Firefox) and Opera all support media queries. <https://developer.mozilla.org/en/css/media_queries> <http://www.opera.com/docs/specs/presto25/css/mediaqueries/> IE 9 will support media queries too when it ships (I believe it's in beta currently) so it'll probably work with Windows Phone 7 too (when it becomes available). Here's a showcase they've made: <http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/HTML5/85CSS3_MediaQueries/Default.html> So good luck finding something more standard-compliant.
This is good information. Thanks!
Sep 04 2010
prev sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:op.vieozxaleav7ka localhost.localdomain...
 On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 01:53:41 -0400, Nick Sabalausky <a a.a> wrote:

 The pre-release iterations are completely irrelevant. If the end result 
 is
 something with nearly-zero tactile feedback, super-ultra-hyperly-modal
 interface, and can't be turned off with the "power" button, but only by
 holding "Up" for five seconds, or has tiny ui elements that can't be
 accessed with a stylus or fingernail but is far too small to do reliably
 with a finger, or is a closed-locked-down-platform, or is branded as 
 being a
 PDA-like device but still doesn't support something as basic as 
 copy-paste
 that PalmOS devices already had nearly ten years prior even in smartphone
 form (Handspring Treo), then yes, the polish is crap no matter how much
 crappier the early iterations were. Apple's "polish" exists as nothing 
 more
 than aesthetic-oriented graphic design, and it fools most people.
Love my iPhone. Love it. My last two phones were a Palm Treo and a Samsung touch-screen (w/stylus) smartphone with Windows mobile 6. They are absolute garbage compared to this. Granted, I started with the 3gs, and upgraded to iOS4 about a month after I got it, so my phone is the result of 3 years of polish, but I feel apple has the right focus for it. iPhone is hands down the best phone I've ever used. I thought when I got it, I would have a hard time accessing small things like the on-screen keyboard keys, but I'm surprised at how accurate I am with it, even after only having it for a few months. I regularly go to webnews on digitalmars and can click the minuscule links pretty accurately. You can not like them if you want, you are entitled to your opinion, but it seems like you have a very negative view of almost everything :) I bet your glass is half empty, huh...
I'm a "technical-ist": The glass is half-empty and half-full at the same time. Problem is, most glasses I've seen are only a quarter full and with overly-sweetened content (or three-quarters empty if you prefer ;) ). I just have standards. A. Search "you're holding it wrong". B. Closed platforms are evil (not to be confused with closed source). C. Gatekeeping is evil. See also http://www.paulgraham.com/apple.html D. Service provider lock-in is evil. My phone works with *any* service provider (and didn't become uselessly obsolete after a year or two): http://www.uniden.com/products/productdetail.cfm?product=EXAI398 And I really do like this phone a lot. E. A die-hard Apple fan I know recently showed me his beloved iPad. Accurately setting the text-cursor was nearly impossible. But that would have been an incredibly simple fix: Use a screen that worked with a stylus or fingernail. There's millions of them out there. Even if that would have prevented multi-touch (and I don't know that it would or would not have), after using the multi-touch, I felt it added no real value other than a "gee-whiz" gimmick factor. Stylus/fingernail support would have added at least some real value. F. Like all Apple software, the software on the iPad/iPhone are appallingly slim on settings/options. G. A *phone* without tactile dial buttons is just plain wrong. What is it with Apple's long-standing war against tactile feedback? It detracts from usability and the only thing it adds is high-tech-gee-whiz-gimmick. H. What's there to protect the highly-prominent screen? I. I don't give a crap how thin they can make it. But Apple seems to think I should care. Heck, I don't want to spend hundreds of dollars on something that I'll constantly feel I'm about to accidentally snap in half. But that's exactly how I felt with the iPad. That's a lot of issues for something that's supposedly well-polished.
Sep 02 2010
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> wrote in message 
news:i5ov60$2c5c$1 digitalmars.com...
 "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message 
 news:op.vieozxaleav7ka localhost.localdomain...
 Love my iPhone.  Love it.  My last two phones were a Palm Treo and a 
 Samsung touch-screen (w/stylus) smartphone with Windows mobile 6.  They 
 are absolute garbage compared to this.  Granted, I started with the 3gs, 
 and upgraded to iOS4 about a month after I got it, so my phone is the 
 result of 3 years of polish, but I feel apple has the right focus for it.

 iPhone is hands down the best phone I've ever used.  I thought when I got 
 it, I would have a hard time accessing small things like the on-screen 
 keyboard keys, but I'm surprised at how accurate I am with it, even after 
 only having it for a few months.  I regularly go to webnews on 
 digitalmars and can click the minuscule links pretty accurately.

 You can not like them if you want, you are entitled to your opinion, but 
 it seems like you have a very negative view of almost everything :)  I 
 bet your glass is half empty, huh...
I'm a "technical-ist": The glass is half-empty and half-full at the same time. Problem is, most glasses I've seen are only a quarter full and with overly-sweetened content (or three-quarters empty if you prefer ;) ). I just have standards. A. Search "you're holding it wrong". B. Closed platforms are evil (not to be confused with closed source). C. Gatekeeping is evil. See also http://www.paulgraham.com/apple.html D. Service provider lock-in is evil. My phone works with *any* service provider (and didn't become uselessly obsolete after a year or two): http://www.uniden.com/products/productdetail.cfm?product=EXAI398 And I really do like this phone a lot. E. A die-hard Apple fan I know recently showed me his beloved iPad. Accurately setting the text-cursor was nearly impossible. But that would have been an incredibly simple fix: Use a screen that worked with a stylus or fingernail. There's millions of them out there. Even if that would have prevented multi-touch (and I don't know that it would or would not have), after using the multi-touch, I felt it added no real value other than a "gee-whiz" gimmick factor. Stylus/fingernail support would have added at least some real value. F. Like all Apple software, the software on the iPad/iPhone are appallingly slim on settings/options. G. A *phone* without tactile dial buttons is just plain wrong. What is it with Apple's long-standing war against tactile feedback? It detracts from usability and the only thing it adds is high-tech-gee-whiz-gimmick. H. What's there to protect the highly-prominent screen? I. I don't give a crap how thin they can make it. But Apple seems to think I should care. Heck, I don't want to spend hundreds of dollars on something that I'll constantly feel I'm about to accidentally snap in half. But that's exactly how I felt with the iPad. That's a lot of issues for something that's supposedly well-polished.
J. What happens when the battery gets old and won't hold a charge?
Sep 02 2010
next sibling parent reply retard <re tard.com.invalid> writes:
Thu, 02 Sep 2010 16:03:59 -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 J. What happens when the battery gets old and won't hold a charge?
You buy a new one, of course. Why this will never happen is that once a new model of the iShit comes out, as a die hard Apple fan you simply MUST buy it and get rid of the old one. I heard they don't even replace the batteries in Apple's repair services. They just hand you a new phone.
Sep 02 2010
next sibling parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"retard" <re tard.com.invalid> wrote in message 
news:i5pc2e$2lm$1 digitalmars.com...
 Thu, 02 Sep 2010 16:03:59 -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 J. What happens when the battery gets old and won't hold a charge?
You buy a new one, of course. Why this will never happen is that once a new model of the iShit comes out, as a die hard Apple fan you simply MUST buy it and get rid of the old one. I heard they don't even replace the batteries in Apple's repair services. They just hand you a new phone.
Yup. Exactly my point. ------------------------------- Not sent from an iPhone.
Sep 02 2010
prev sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
retard wrote:
 Thu, 02 Sep 2010 16:03:59 -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 
 J. What happens when the battery gets old and won't hold a charge?
You buy a new one, of course. Why this will never happen is that once a new model of the iShit comes out, as a die hard Apple fan you simply MUST buy it and get rid of the old one. I heard they don't even replace the batteries in Apple's repair services. They just hand you a new phone.
It's the subscription model for hardware. It also effectively kills the market for used iPods.
Sep 02 2010
parent reply Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> writes:
Walter Bright Wrote:

 retard wrote:
 Thu, 02 Sep 2010 16:03:59 -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 
 J. What happens when the battery gets old and won't hold a charge?
You buy a new one, of course. Why this will never happen is that once a new model of the iShit comes out, as a die hard Apple fan you simply MUST buy it and get rid of the old one. I heard they don't even replace the batteries in Apple's repair services. They just hand you a new phone.
It's the subscription model for hardware. It also effectively kills the market for used iPods.
Then the model is broken somewhere, because Apple hardware has an incredibly high resale value.
Sep 02 2010
next sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
Sean Kelly wrote:
 Walter Bright Wrote:
 
 retard wrote:
 Thu, 02 Sep 2010 16:03:59 -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 J. What happens when the battery gets old and won't hold a charge?
You buy a new one, of course. Why this will never happen is that once a new model of the iShit comes out, as a die hard Apple fan you simply MUST buy it and get rid of the old one. I heard they don't even replace the batteries in Apple's repair services. They just hand you a new phone.
It's the subscription model for hardware. It also effectively kills the market for used iPods.
Then the model is broken somewhere, because Apple hardware has an incredibly high resale value.
I wouldn't buy a used ipod because of the non-replaceable battery. One has no idea how much life is left in it. I've had a number of gadgets become useless once the battery would no longer take a charge.
Sep 02 2010
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Walter Bright" <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
news:i5q1u1$1bf3$1 digitalmars.com...
 Sean Kelly wrote:
 Walter Bright Wrote:

 retard wrote:
 Thu, 02 Sep 2010 16:03:59 -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 J. What happens when the battery gets old and won't hold a charge?
You buy a new one, of course. Why this will never happen is that once a new model of the iShit comes out, as a die hard Apple fan you simply MUST buy it and get rid of the old one. I heard they don't even replace the batteries in Apple's repair services. They just hand you a new phone.
It's the subscription model for hardware. It also effectively kills the market for used iPods.
Then the model is broken somewhere, because Apple hardware has an incredibly high resale value.
I wouldn't buy a used ipod because of the non-replaceable battery. One has no idea how much life is left in it. I've had a number of gadgets become useless once the battery would no longer take a charge.
I miss the days when there was such a thing as standard battery types. [old guy swinging a cane at some kids] Why, when *I* was a lad (*cough* *wheeze*), all the battery and device manufacturers...(*hack*)...well they got together, and they decided on what they called these "standards". Yup, that was the name a' 'em (*hack* *wheeze*) And then, you could go into any store...didn't matter where ([blows nose])...and get a gadget. Any company's gadget, ain't never mattered. And when the batteries run out...well, we'd go and we'd get us s'more batteries. Yessirree. And those batteries would work with ([leans foreward]) ANYTHIN'! Ya hear me? Anythin'! Didn't matter where ya got 'em or who's name was on 'em . They'd just werk, dernnit. And you could bet on that! Yup. ([lights a pipe]) And they didn't cost no arm or leg, nether! Or void your warranty. They *made* them to werk that way. Not like you kinds these days and yer ten-packs of disposable telleyphones and single-use laptops and whatnot. Now go fetch me my pillow, boy, I'm tired!
Sep 02 2010
parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 I miss the days when there was such a thing as standard battery types.
Me too. My first bad experience with custom batteries was my trusty TI SR-50A calculator, vintage 1975. After a year, it would no longer hold a charge, but I could still use it with the charger plugged in. And so I used it that way for the next 6 years or so. Then the battery got so bad even that didn't work anymore, and an EE friend of mine devised a load that behaved like a battery. I soldered that in in place of the battery, and got a few more years out of the calculator until it completely expired. Of course, this was in the years before there were desktop computers with calculator apps. Gosh I'm old! (Just for grins, I pulled it out of a drawer and plugged it in. Random led's flash. Still busted. Oh well!)
Sep 02 2010
prev sibling parent domino <effect none.org> writes:
Sean Kelly Wrote:

 Walter Bright Wrote:
 
 retard wrote:
 Thu, 02 Sep 2010 16:03:59 -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 
 J. What happens when the battery gets old and won't hold a charge?
You buy a new one, of course. Why this will never happen is that once a new model of the iShit comes out, as a die hard Apple fan you simply MUST buy it and get rid of the old one. I heard they don't even replace the batteries in Apple's repair services. They just hand you a new phone.
It's the subscription model for hardware. It also effectively kills the market for used iPods.
Then the model is broken somewhere, because Apple hardware has an incredibly high resale value.
Apple faggots buy legacy expensive hardware even when it's broken because it compensates the lacking in their dick department.
Sep 06 2010
prev sibling parent reply "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 16:03:59 -0400, Nick Sabalausky <a a.a> wrote:

 "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> wrote in message
 news:i5ov60$2c5c$1 digitalmars.com...
 "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message
 news:op.vieozxaleav7ka localhost.localdomain...
 Love my iPhone.  Love it.  My last two phones were a Palm Treo and a
 Samsung touch-screen (w/stylus) smartphone with Windows mobile 6.  They
 are absolute garbage compared to this.  Granted, I started with the  
 3gs,
 and upgraded to iOS4 about a month after I got it, so my phone is the
 result of 3 years of polish, but I feel apple has the right focus for  
 it.

 iPhone is hands down the best phone I've ever used.  I thought when I  
 got
 it, I would have a hard time accessing small things like the on-screen
 keyboard keys, but I'm surprised at how accurate I am with it, even  
 after
 only having it for a few months.  I regularly go to webnews on
 digitalmars and can click the minuscule links pretty accurately.

 You can not like them if you want, you are entitled to your opinion,  
 but
 it seems like you have a very negative view of almost everything :)  I
 bet your glass is half empty, huh...
I'm a "technical-ist": The glass is half-empty and half-full at the same time. Problem is, most glasses I've seen are only a quarter full and with overly-sweetened content (or three-quarters empty if you prefer ;) ). I just have standards. A. Search "you're holding it wrong".
Not a problem on my 3gs, and no longer a problem on 4 (free case). Though I understand the issue people have with the statement, Jobs is as arrogant as they come...
 B. Closed platforms are evil (not to be confused with closed source).
s/evil/stable. It's one of the reasons my previous company was in business. They built server appliances. When you control everything on the platform, there's less things to test, less things that can go wrong, and any bugs you fix for one customer automatically translate to all other customers.
 C. Gatekeeping is evil. See also http://www.paulgraham.com/apple.html
This I agree with. It should be enough that the developers follow the technical requirements. Still, the apps that are available are pretty cool. My new favorite is netflix. When I'm waiting for something somewhere and I can continue watching a movie I was streaming at home, that's just awesome...
 D. Service provider lock-in is evil. My phone works with *any* service
 provider (and didn't become uselessly obsolete after a year or two):
 http://www.uniden.com/products/productdetail.cfm?product=EXAI398  And I
 really do like this phone a lot.
Then I guess 99% of phones are evil? I also have co-workers and friends who use jailbroken iphones on other GSM networks. I could never do that with most of my verizon phones. Besides, who switches phone service providers within the life of a phone? Not to mention that the two biggest service providers are incompatible with eachother, so you couldn't switch between them even if you wanted to.
 E. A die-hard Apple fan I know recently showed me his beloved iPad.
 Accurately setting the text-cursor was nearly impossible. But that would
 have been an incredibly simple fix: Use a screen that worked with a  
 stylus
 or fingernail. There's millions of them out there. Even if that would  
 have
 prevented multi-touch (and I don't know that it would or would not  
 have),
 after using the multi-touch, I felt it added no real value other than a
 "gee-whiz" gimmick factor. Stylus/fingernail support would have added at
 least some real value.
Your friend is doing it wrong. I can accurately set the cursor whenever I want using the magnifying glass. See an example here: http://my.safaribooksonline.com/9781430231295/typing_numbers_and_symbols
 F. Like all Apple software, the software on the iPad/iPhone are
 appallingly slim on settings/options.
*shrug* Most of the settings suit me well. What options do you miss?
 G. A *phone* without tactile dial buttons is just plain wrong. What is  
 it
 with Apple's long-standing war against tactile feedback? It detracts  
 from
 usability and the only thing it adds is high-tech-gee-whiz-gimmick.
What do you need tactile feedback for? You get audible feedback, and the phone number buttons are extremely responsive. Plus, if you want to dial without looking at the phone, you can use voice-activation. Blackberry tried a touch-screen with tactile feedback, it sucked.
 H. What's there to protect the highly-prominent screen?
The screen is made of pretty durable glass. Like all touch-screen phones, it's highly advisable to get a screen protector for it. I don't get what your problem is here, do you want a screen or not? If you do, then what possible way could a manufacturer design a destruction-proof screen? Put little airbags around it in case you drop it?
 I. I don't give a crap how thin they can make it. But Apple seems to  
 think
 I should care. Heck, I don't want to spend hundreds of dollars on
 something that I'll constantly feel I'm about to accidentally snap in
 half. But that's exactly how I felt with the iPad.
This is petty :) I can't speak for the ipad, but the iphone feels more durable than any phone I've had. Maybe you'd prefer this phone: http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20100829/BIZ/708299922/1005/biz Note that the ipad directly competes with e-Reader devices, so they need to appeal to those people too.

 J. What happens when the battery gets old and won't hold a charge?
When I was looking at getting a palm pre as a verizon customer, and I discovered that palm pre doesn't support voice dialing, I mentioned I'd just be switching to AT&T for the iPhone. The Verizon guy identified the battery issue as a reason not to get one. So I looked up the details. I think apple provides a $100 service to change your battery. I don't know the details, but I think they just swap out your entire phone. If they don't swap out your phone, that's crappy, but I can't complain yet because it hasn't happened to me ;) $100 is pretty steep, but most phone batteries cost $40-60, so it's not unreasonable. I think by making the battery internal they can make it more powerful and make the device smaller (sorry, some of us like the small size ;). I also have read if you don't care about your warranty or your warranty is expired, you can buy an actual iphone battery online for about $20 and a kit for $10 more so you can change it yourself.
 That's a lot of issues for something that's supposedly well-polished.
Wait, most of these aren't actual problems, but just design decisions you disagree with. In fact, only one is a bug (the iphone 4 antenna problem), which has already been addressed. "I hate how they think they're so cool because their devices are thin" isn't even a problem, its just a form of name calling. Note that for all these "problems" you mentioned, the iphone's good features are *really* good. Even the tiny details have thought put into them. One example: I listen to music at work with the enclosed headphones (w/ mic and volume control inline on the wire), and I listen to it low, so I can hear when other people want to talk to me. When I get in the car, I have to turn the volume on the iphone all the way up to normalize the input to the stereo. I noticed that once I set the respective volumes, I didn't have to change them -- the iphone knows the difference between the two headphone types and auto-adjusts the volume to the last setting. It's one of those features that is trivial, but just make the iphone a pleasant experience. I'll tell you a few things that I've found annoying: 1. I disabled downloading graphics in emails (as everyone should), but in emails I know are not spam, I want to download the images. There is no button for that... 2. A couple times, the phone had a hard time connecting to a wireless network that it previously had no problem with. It mistakes a bad signal with a bad password, so it asks you for the password. If you don't hit "cancel" and just hit "ok", it forgets the password that it used to have. I then have to go look up the password as it's some hex string. 3. The calendar app doesn't allow you to jump ahead quickly by months or years. This is annoying when setting a future appointment. You can quickly scroll via the day, they should give you wheels to do the month and year also. -Steve
Sep 03 2010
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:op.vigl6wxpeav7ka localhost.localdomain...
 On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 16:03:59 -0400, Nick Sabalausky <a a.a> wrote:

 "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> wrote in message
 news:i5ov60$2c5c$1 digitalmars.com...
 B. Closed platforms are evil (not to be confused with closed source).
s/evil/stable. It's one of the reasons my previous company was in business. They built server appliances. When you control everything on the platform, there's less things to test, less things that can go wrong, and any bugs you fix for one customer automatically translate to all other customers.
In theory. In practice, I really don't believe it's quite so simple. And there's still the ethical issue.
 D. Service provider lock-in is evil. My phone works with *any* service
 provider (and didn't become uselessly obsolete after a year or two):
 http://www.uniden.com/products/productdetail.cfm?product=EXAI398  And I
 really do like this phone a lot.
Then I guess 99% of phones are evil?
99% of phones? Certainly not. 99% of *cell* phones? Absolutely, yes. Service provider lock-in is one of the primary reasons I've never bought one.
 I also have co-workers and friends  who use jailbroken iphones on other 
 GSM networks.
In an allegedly capitalist society (or "mixed-economy with capitalist leanings" as the case may be), no one should ever have any reason to devise or use such hacks for such a basic freedom as consumer choice.
 I could never do that  with most of my verizon phones.
Verizon is one of the worst cell companies out there anyway.
 Besides, who switches phone service  providers within the life of a phone?
No one, but you're overlooking the *reasons* that doesn't happen: contract lock-in and hardware that's not built to last.
 Not to mention that the two biggest  service providers are incompatible 
 with eachother, so you couldn't switch  between them even if you wanted 
 to.
If there's a fundamental difference in protocols (as opposed to the artificially-created incompatibilities), then yes, of course that's fine. However, outside the cell phone world, such situations are likely to result in dual-use devices: DVD-R and DVD+R were incompatible, but both widely used. So instead of going the absolutely idiotic cell-phone route of *maintaining* a dividing chasm, they just made devices support both. And I don't believe "extra cost" is necessarily a good argument against this practice, because of how quickly dual+/- DVD player/burner prices became dirt cheap.
 E. A die-hard Apple fan I know recently showed me his beloved iPad.
 Accurately setting the text-cursor was nearly impossible. But that would
 have been an incredibly simple fix: Use a screen that worked with a 
 stylus
 or fingernail. There's millions of them out there. Even if that would 
 have
 prevented multi-touch (and I don't know that it would or would not 
 have),
 after using the multi-touch, I felt it added no real value other than a
 "gee-whiz" gimmick factor. Stylus/fingernail support would have added at
 least some real value.
Your friend is doing it wrong.
Well, I was the one using it and noticing that.
 I can accurately set the cursor whenever I  want using the magnifying 
 glass.

 See an example here: 
 http://my.safaribooksonline.com/9781430231295/typing_numbers_and_symbols
That's nothing more than a workaround. How is that *not* worse than being able to just use the tip of your fingernail?
 F. Like all Apple software, the software on the iPad/iPhone are
 appallingly slim on settings/options.
*shrug* Most of the settings suit me well. What options do you miss?
I admit, "I don't remember" and "I'd have to use it more to see". But I have spent a fair amount of time with other Apple products. I even used OSX as my primary system for about a year or two. And (aside from the Apple II, which obviously doesn't quite count) there has never been a piece of Apple software I've used more than a little for which I haven't found large amounts of things that would be ideal as setting or even obvious as settings but were sorely lacking. Same goes for features (such as the iPod/iTunes's inexcusable lack of Vorbis support, and for a *long* time iTunes couldn't read CD audio if track 1 was data (which was not entirely uncommon) but everything else could). So judging by the very sparse options on the iPad, I have fairly strong reason to believe it would be the same.
 G. A *phone* without tactile dial buttons is just plain wrong. What is 
 it
 with Apple's long-standing war against tactile feedback? It detracts 
 from
 usability and the only thing it adds is high-tech-gee-whiz-gimmick.
What do you need tactile feedback for?
See, now I just can't even fathom that kind of stance, so it's difficult for me to argue against it. For me it's just a fundamental thing: With tactile feedback > without tactile feedback, by a large degree.
 You get audible feedback, and the  phone number buttons are extremely 
 responsive.
 Plus, if you want to dial  without looking at the phone, you can use 
 voice-activation.
That hardly makes it better to not have tactile feedback.
 Blackberry tried a touch-screen with tactile feedback, it sucked.
Which is exactly why it's idiotic for Apple to make the entire interface touchscreen. You do that and you lose tactile feedback and you can't just hack it back in. If you took my Palm Pilot, replaced the up/down/left/right and app buttons with touchscreen input, that would be a step *backwards*. You'd gain nothing but a questionable "cool factor", and the UI would just simply be worse.
 H. What's there to protect the highly-prominent screen?
The screen is made of pretty durable glass. Like all touch-screen phones, it's highly advisable to get a screen protector for it. I don't get what your problem is here, do you want a screen or not? If you do, then what possible way could a manufacturer design a destruction-proof screen? Put little airbags around it in case you drop it?
Oh, please, it's not that difficult to come up with ways around it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laptop http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_Boy_Advance_SP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_DS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flip_phone Or a different approach: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tablet_PC#Convertibles And other things can no doubt be thought up, especially if Apple is as clever as people claim they are. Or hell, a built-in or even just pre-packaged protector. This is *far* from an insurmountable obstacle.
 I. I don't give a crap how thin they can make it. But Apple seems to 
 think
 I should care. Heck, I don't want to spend hundreds of dollars on
 something that I'll constantly feel I'm about to accidentally snap in
 half. But that's exactly how I felt with the iPad.
This is petty :)
In and of itself, maybe. But thinness typically necessitates other design compromises, all for a "benefit" that is, as you say, petty.
 I can't speak for the ipad, but the iphone feels more  durable than any 
 phone I've had.  Maybe you'd prefer this phone: 
 http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20100829/BIZ/708299922/1005/biz
I don't understand what you mean. According to that it's even thinner than Apple's stuff. But it does make me think of another thing: a perfectly flat rectangle (with a touchscreen on the side against your head) is a rather awkward form factor for a phone (and I have tried such phones, like my sister's Palm...umm, the other WebOS one that isn't a Pre). My phone is far more comfortable: http://www.uniden.com/products/productdetail.cfm?product=EXAI398
 Note that the ipad directly competes with e-Reader devices, so they need 
 to appeal to those people too.
That still doesn't necessitate "as thin as conceivably possible".
 J. What happens when the battery gets old and won't hold a charge?
When I was looking at getting a palm pre as a verizon customer, and I discovered that palm pre doesn't support voice dialing, I mentioned I'd just be switching to AT&T for the iPhone. The Verizon guy identified the battery issue as a reason not to get one. So I looked up the details. I think apple provides a $100 service to change your battery. I don't know the details, but I think they just swap out your entire phone. If they don't swap out your phone, that's crappy, but I can't complain yet because it hasn't happened to me ;) $100 is pretty steep, but most phone batteries cost $40-60, so it's not unreasonable. I think by making the battery internal they can make it more powerful and make the device smaller (sorry, some of us like the small size ;).
I honestly find the vast majority of cell phones to be *too* small. Problematically so. (And yes, I *have* used a number of cell phones, even though I've never owned one) Small is obviously good to a certain point...but...well, only to a certain point. Sorry, but some of us don't like super-small ;)
 I also have read if you don't care about your warranty or your warranty is 
 expired, you can buy an actual iphone battery online for about $20 and a 
 kit for $10 more so you can change it yourself.
Which only goes to prove that the typical $40-100 you mentioned above *is* exorbitant. Furthermore, there is absolutely *no* excuse for a company pushing a device that you actually have to *hack* just to change the damn battery.
 That's a lot of issues for something that's supposedly well-polished.
Wait, most of these aren't actual problems, but just design decisions you disagree with. In fact, only one is a bug (the iphone 4 antenna problem), which has already been addressed.
I didn't say it was buggy, I said it wasn't polished. A big part of polish *is* having solid *design decisions*. Many people seem to think polish is just gloss, glitz and gimmick.
 "I hate how they think they're so cool  because their devices are thin" 
 isn't even a problem, its just a form of  name calling.
My stance did *not* amount to that, and I've added another reason above.
 Note that for all these "problems" you mentioned, the iphone's good 
 features are *really* good.  Even the tiny details have thought put into 
 them.  One example: I listen to music at work with the enclosed headphones 
 (w/ mic and volume control inline on the wire), and I listen to it low, so 
 I can hear when other people want to talk to me.  When I get in the car, I 
 have to turn the volume on the iphone all the way up to normalize the 
 input to the stereo.

 I noticed that once I set the respective volumes, I didn't have to change 
 them -- the iphone knows the difference between the two headphone types 
 and auto-adjusts the volume to the last setting.  It's one of those 
 features that is trivial, but just make the iphone a pleasant experience.
Yea, I never said there wasn't anything good about it. Hell, I'll even admit the iPad was a lot better than I expected. I'd still never buy one though. Oh, I completely forgot, there's another iPad issue: http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/04/ipad-fails-networking-101-how-to-earn-it-a-passing-grade.ars The guy I know that has an iPad, he was at a hotel once where there just happend to be a bunch of other iPad users on the hotel's WiFi network. It brought the whole network to a crawl - slower than dial-up from what he was saying.
 I'll tell you a few things that I've found annoying:

 1. I disabled downloading graphics in emails (as everyone should), but in 
 emails I know are not spam, I want to download the images.  There is no 
 button for that...
Lack of basic settings, features or any sort of customizability.
 2. A couple times, the phone had a hard time connecting to a wireless 
 network that it previously had no problem with.  It mistakes a bad signal 
 with a bad password, so it asks you for the password.  If you don't hit 
 "cancel" and just hit "ok", it forgets the password that it used to have. 
 I then have to go look up the password as it's some hex string.
Lack of polish, and frankly, sounds downright rushed.
 3. The calendar app doesn't allow you to jump ahead quickly by months or 
 years.  This is annoying when setting a future appointment.  You can 
 quickly scroll via the day, they should give you wheels to do the month 
 and year also.
Very *blatant* lack of polish. Jumping by month/year is just plain obvious for any calender app. It's exactly these sorts of appallingly *obvious* things that Apple constantly gets wrong anyway, and in fairly large quantities, that make me say "Apple's sense of 'polish' is little more than gimmicks and graphic design." Showing attention to detail on one or two things here and there, but then utterly failing on the basics (consistently) - that's not polish. ------------------------------- Not sent from an iPhone.
Sep 03 2010
next sibling parent reply "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Fri, 03 Sep 2010 16:36:55 -0400, Nick Sabalausky <a a.a> wrote:

 "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message
 Then I guess 99% of phones are evil?
99% of phones? Certainly not. 99% of *cell* phones? Absolutely, yes. Service provider lock-in is one of the primary reasons I've never bought one.
Yes, that's what I meant :) I thought we were talking cell phones here... And OMG, you've never bought a cell phone? Why are you punishing yourself ;) I suppose with the attitude you have towards them it would just raise your blood pressure carrying it around... Your lack of experience with cell phones does not give any boost to your position...
 I also have co-workers and friends  who use jailbroken iphones on other
 GSM networks.
In an allegedly capitalist society (or "mixed-economy with capitalist leanings" as the case may be), no one should ever have any reason to devise or use such hacks for such a basic freedom as consumer choice.
Huh? Why should verizon go out of its way to allow you to use its phones with other services? Maybe you don't understand capitalism...
 I could never do that  with most of my verizon phones.
Verizon is one of the worst cell companies out there anyway.
[purposely ignoring]
 Besides, who switches phone service  providers within the life of a  
 phone?
No one, but you're overlooking the *reasons* that doesn't happen: contract lock-in and hardware that's not built to last.
Contract lock-in only happens if you want to buy a phone cheap. If you absolutely don't want a 2-yr contract, you can pay full price for the phone. These days, hardware is not built to last no matter what it is. And it's because people don't *want* old hardware. As a manufacturer, you have a choice: 1. build something that's more expensive, but outlasts its usefulness or 2. build something that's cheaper, may not last as long, but lasts at least until the next gen version is available. And I like to buy things once and keep them as long as possible (my stereo has an input for laser disc to give you an idea). But cell phones and computers change so fast that the hardware is obsolete before it's broken.
 Not to mention that the two biggest  service providers are incompatible
 with eachother, so you couldn't switch  between them even if you wanted
 to.
If there's a fundamental difference in protocols (as opposed to the artificially-created incompatibilities), then yes, of course that's fine.
Yes, Verizon uses CDMA and AT&T uses GSM. Different protocols, different chips required.
 However, outside the cell phone world, such situations are likely to  
 result
 in dual-use devices
There were some phones like that. Nobody cared ;)
 E. A die-hard Apple fan I know recently showed me his beloved iPad.
 Accurately setting the text-cursor was nearly impossible. But that  
 would
 have been an incredibly simple fix: Use a screen that worked with a
 stylus
 or fingernail. There's millions of them out there. Even if that would
 have
 prevented multi-touch (and I don't know that it would or would not
 have),
 after using the multi-touch, I felt it added no real value other than  
 a
 "gee-whiz" gimmick factor. Stylus/fingernail support would have added  
 at
 least some real value.
Your friend is doing it wrong.
Well, I was the one using it and noticing that.
 I can accurately set the cursor whenever I  want using the magnifying
 glass.

 See an example here:
 http://my.safaribooksonline.com/9781430231295/typing_numbers_and_symbols
That's nothing more than a workaround. How is that *not* worse than being able to just use the tip of your fingernail?
Be....cause... it's better? At least I think it is :) What if you don't have a long fingernail? Even if you do have a fingernail, and are using an old-style screen that could detect the fingernail, it's probably going to be more inaccurate, and without a way to tune into the right position. I've had two old-style touch screen phones before this. They suck. They break, require calibration, and require a stylus. My samsung phone got to be so inaccurate that I pretty much avoided using the touch screen as much as possible. I'll pay the price of lost accuracy when positioning a cursor in order to avoid having to pop out a stylus to press on-screen buttons. And once you get used to it (the cursor positioning), it's fast.
 G. A *phone* without tactile dial buttons is just plain wrong. What is
 it
 with Apple's long-standing war against tactile feedback? It detracts
 from
 usability and the only thing it adds is high-tech-gee-whiz-gimmick.
What do you need tactile feedback for?
See, now I just can't even fathom that kind of stance, so it's difficult for me to argue against it. For me it's just a fundamental thing: With tactile feedback > without tactile feedback, by a large degree.
ok then :)
 You get audible feedback, and the  phone number buttons are extremely
 responsive.
 Plus, if you want to dial  without looking at the phone, you can use
 voice-activation.
That hardly makes it better to not have tactile feedback.
I guess. It doesn't really bother me to not have tactile feedback. One thing I can say for the iphone, it's *very* reliable that when you push a button it registers. So the assurance that "yes you are pushing the button" isn't usually necessary. The sounds also help.
 Blackberry tried a touch-screen with tactile feedback, it sucked.
Which is exactly why it's idiotic for Apple to make the entire interface touchscreen. You do that and you lose tactile feedback and you can't just hack it back in. If you took my Palm Pilot, replaced the up/down/left/right and app buttons with touchscreen input, that would be a step *backwards*. You'd gain nothing but a questionable "cool factor", and the UI would just simply be worse.
But PalmOS is not iOS. I've had about 5 palms, starting with the palm III, and I like the apple interface significantly more.
 H. What's there to protect the highly-prominent screen?
The screen is made of pretty durable glass. Like all touch-screen phones, it's highly advisable to get a screen protector for it. I don't get what your problem is here, do you want a screen or not? If you do, then what possible way could a manufacturer design a destruction-proof screen? Put little airbags around it in case you drop it?
Oh, please, it's not that difficult to come up with ways around it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laptop http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_Boy_Advance_SP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_DS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flip_phone
So you mean, it should fold? You can just say that you know :) Palm III also had a plastic cover. I eventually left it off, it was kind of annoying. Just a different style I guess. Most smart phones have a outward facing screen these days, even the touch-screen ones. Note that with a folding device, it's probably *less* durable because the folding part can break, and wires can more easily come loose. Less moving parts == more reliable.
 Or a different approach:
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tablet_PC#Convertibles

 And other things can no doubt be thought up, especially if Apple is as
 clever as people claim they are.

 Or hell, a built-in or even just pre-packaged protector.

 This is *far* from an insurmountable obstacle.
No, but its *far* from a failed design also :) Protecting the screen from breakage by having a hard cover detracts from the usability. Besides, I think the phone is pretty darned durable, it's not a cheap feeling thing. I'm not going to throw it against the wall, but I wouldn't do that with a folding phone either. I also have a rubber protective case on it too (but the screen is exposed).
 I. I don't give a crap how thin they can make it. But Apple seems to
 think
 I should care. Heck, I don't want to spend hundreds of dollars on
 something that I'll constantly feel I'm about to accidentally snap in
 half. But that's exactly how I felt with the iPad.
This is petty :)
In and of itself, maybe. But thinness typically necessitates other design compromises, all for a "benefit" that is, as you say, petty.
What compromises? What is it missing that could be there if it were thicker?
 I can't speak for the ipad, but the iphone feels more  durable than any
 phone I've had.  Maybe you'd prefer this phone:
 http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20100829/BIZ/708299922/1005/biz
I don't understand what you mean. According to that it's even thinner than Apple's stuff.
It's a larger phone, I thought that meant it was thicker. I guess I didn't read it well enough. Nevermind.
 But it does make me think of another thing: a perfectly flat rectangle  
 (with
 a touchscreen on the side against your head) is a rather awkward form  
 factor
 for a phone (and I have tried such phones, like my sister's Palm...umm,  
 the
 other WebOS one that isn't a Pre).
Pixi
 My phone is far more comfortable:
 http://www.uniden.com/products/productdetail.cfm?product=EXAI398
again, *shrug*. It's pretty comfortable to me.
 Note that the ipad directly competes with e-Reader devices, so they need
 to appeal to those people too.
That still doesn't necessitate "as thin as conceivably possible".
It doesn't necessitate it, but it does score points with that crowd. People want a thin book-sized device to read all their books. Now if only iBooks had some decent material...
 J. What happens when the battery gets old and won't hold a charge?
When I was looking at getting a palm pre as a verizon customer, and I discovered that palm pre doesn't support voice dialing, I mentioned I'd just be switching to AT&T for the iPhone. The Verizon guy identified the battery issue as a reason not to get one. So I looked up the details. I think apple provides a $100 service to change your battery. I don't know the details, but I think they just swap out your entire phone. If they don't swap out your phone, that's crappy, but I can't complain yet because it hasn't happened to me ;) $100 is pretty steep, but most phone batteries cost $40-60, so it's not unreasonable. I think by making the battery internal they can make it more powerful and make the device smaller (sorry, some of us like the small size ;).
I honestly find the vast majority of cell phones to be *too* small. Problematically so. (And yes, I *have* used a number of cell phones, even though I've never owned one) Small is obviously good to a certain point...but...well, only to a certain point. Sorry, but some of us don't like super-small ;)
You might like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-Cm8MFqxWw&feature=fvst I agree, smaller isn't always better. But I mean smaller as in, if it was an external battery, then it would have to be larger than you would like. The iPhone size isn't too small.
 I also have read if you don't care about your warranty or your warranty  
 is
 expired, you can buy an actual iphone battery online for about $20 and a
 kit for $10 more so you can change it yourself.
Which only goes to prove that the typical $40-100 you mentioned above *is* exorbitant.
Yes, I feel it is too. They got you by the balls also, since if your battery is dead, you have one option.
 Furthermore, there is absolutely *no* excuse for a company pushing a  
 device
 that you actually have to *hack* just to change the damn battery.
Well, I think the excuse is the size. Which doesn't fly with you, so I guess you're right.
 That's a lot of issues for something that's supposedly well-polished.
Wait, most of these aren't actual problems, but just design decisions you disagree with. In fact, only one is a bug (the iphone 4 antenna problem), which has already been addressed.
I didn't say it was buggy, I said it wasn't polished. A big part of polish *is* having solid *design decisions*. Many people seem to think polish is just gloss, glitz and gimmick.
No, polish is making something behave the way it should behave. This includes fixing bugs and usability issues, but not "designs you don't like." For example, the cursor positioning is a usability issue that was solved by polish (I don't think it was in the original iphone). Because you don't like the solution doesn't mean it's not finished in 99% of users minds. I don't think anyone complains about that.
 "I hate how they think they're so cool  because their devices are thin"
 isn't even a problem, its just a form of  name calling.
My stance did *not* amount to that, and I've added another reason above.
Well, I did misunderstand your stance, but my point is that "thin is better" *is* a major selling point for most people. Apple is trying to sell as many phones as possible, not as many phones as possible to Nick S. It also diminishes the substance of your other arguments. It appears that apple could make a perfect phone and you'd still not want it, which means the rest of your points could just be overblown gripes.
 Note that for all these "problems" you mentioned, the iphone's good
 features are *really* good.  Even the tiny details have thought put into
 them.  One example: I listen to music at work with the enclosed  
 headphones
 (w/ mic and volume control inline on the wire), and I listen to it low,  
 so
 I can hear when other people want to talk to me.  When I get in the  
 car, I
 have to turn the volume on the iphone all the way up to normalize the
 input to the stereo.

 I noticed that once I set the respective volumes, I didn't have to  
 change
 them -- the iphone knows the difference between the two headphone types
 and auto-adjusts the volume to the last setting.  It's one of those
 features that is trivial, but just make the iphone a pleasant  
 experience.
Yea, I never said there wasn't anything good about it. Hell, I'll even admit the iPad was a lot better than I expected. I'd still never buy one though. Oh, I completely forgot, there's another iPad issue: http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/04/ipad-fails-networking-101-how-to-earn-it-a-passing-grade.ars The guy I know that has an iPad, he was at a hotel once where there just happend to be a bunch of other iPad users on the hotel's WiFi network. It brought the whole network to a crawl - slower than dial-up from what he was saying.
I think they've fixed the network issues, but I'm not sure. I remember reading articles about how some colleges banned ipads because they would take down the network :) Definitely not a problem you want to have out of the gate, but this is a bug, it gets fixed.
 I'll tell you a few things that I've found annoying:

 1. I disabled downloading graphics in emails (as everyone should), but  
 in
 emails I know are not spam, I want to download the images.  There is no
 button for that...
Lack of basic settings, features or any sort of customizability.
I wouldn't go that far :) Oh, one other thing that's annoying, but I think it's because of pressure from the phone companies who want to charge you an extra $15/month for "enterprise access", it doesn't read ics calendar appointments unless you use microsoft exchange. That is *extremely* crappy and pointless.
 2. A couple times, the phone had a hard time connecting to a wireless
 network that it previously had no problem with.  It mistakes a bad  
 signal
 with a bad password, so it asks you for the password.  If you don't hit
 "cancel" and just hit "ok", it forgets the password that it used to  
 have.
 I then have to go look up the password as it's some hex string.
Lack of polish, and frankly, sounds downright rushed.
Yes, it needs polish here.
 3. The calendar app doesn't allow you to jump ahead quickly by months or
 years.  This is annoying when setting a future appointment.  You can
 quickly scroll via the day, they should give you wheels to do the month
 and year also.
Very *blatant* lack of polish. Jumping by month/year is just plain obvious for any calender app.
I know, right?
 It's exactly these sorts of appallingly *obvious* things that Apple
 constantly gets wrong anyway, and in fairly large quantities, that make  
 me
 say "Apple's sense of 'polish' is little more than gimmicks and graphic
 design." Showing attention to detail on one or two things here and there,
 but then utterly failing on the basics (consistently) - that's not  
 polish.
Well, it's just that they haven't got to it yet, or maybe they don't feel it's as important as other issues. If something is 99% perfect and you want to point out the 1%, I guess you're entitled to it. But if everything else out there is only 90% perfect, then it's just pointless griping. It's a phone, it calls just fine (best in-call interface by far I've seen), it surfs the internet very well (best web browser experience on a phone I've had by far), and has lots of attention to detail. The frilly petty stuff isn't what makes the phone bad or good. My opinion is that the obvious stuff *does* work well, it's the niche stuff that has issues, and they are issues I'm willing to live with. Compare this to my list of issues with Windows mobile 6, you will find they haven't even opened the polish can yet :) BTW, I'm done with this, because I think it's getting way way too long :) Good debate, see you on the next one. -Steve
Sep 03 2010
next sibling parent Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 9/3/10 16:51 CDT, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
 Well, it's just that they haven't got to it yet, or maybe they don't
 feel it's as important as other issues. If something is 99% perfect and
 you want to point out the 1%, I guess you're entitled to it. But if
 everything else out there is only 90% perfect, then it's just pointless
 griping. It's a phone, it calls just fine (best in-call interface by far
 I've seen), it surfs the internet very well (best web browser experience
 on a phone I've had by far), and has lots of attention to detail. The
 frilly petty stuff isn't what makes the phone bad or good. My opinion is
 that the obvious stuff *does* work well, it's the niche stuff that has
 issues, and they are issues I'm willing to live with.
I totally agree. Before the iPhone, I'd always complained that cell phones were designed by villains who made them tedious to use on purpose. When criticizing it's always good to keep in mind what baseline we're talking about. Andrei
Sep 03 2010
prev sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:op.vig8crpreav7ka localhost.localdomain...
 And OMG, you've never bought a cell phone?  Why are you punishing yourself 
 ;)  I suppose with the attitude you have towards them it would just raise 
 your blood pressure carrying it around...
It would :) But I have other reasons for not having one. One of them is that I just don't do anywhere near enough yapping (outside of NG text, of course ;) ) for it to be worthwhile. Cell companies don't even have a plan that would be small enough to be appropriate for me. But the landlines do, and with the tiny amount of talking I do, waiting until I get home to use the phone is a complete non-issue (especially since I'd be the only cell owner in the world to that would refuse to use it while driving). And I don't even *want* to be reachable 24/7. Unlimited minutes? Forget it. Back when pay phones still existed, my away-from-home phone usage never totaled more than $5/yr. Try finding a cell plan that competes with that.
 Your lack of experience with cell phones does not give any boost to your 
 position...
I never said I lacked experience with them, I said I never owned one. I've used them plenty, and I've even done WAP/WML sites (I'm glad that's gone!) and C/J2ME on Symbian.
 Huh?  Why should verizon go out of its way to allow you to use its phones 
 with other services?  Maybe you don't understand capitalism...
1. Anti-competitive practices are illegal under capitalism (...but then again, so is having the government in your company's pocket). In any case, the destruction of consumer choice is a hallmark of communism, not capitalism. Contrary to popular belief, capitalism doesn't bean bending over a table and taking it so big business can make a couple extra bucks. 2. Companies like Verizon doesn't make phones. They pay companies like Nokia and Samsung to slap on branded stickers, or just commission them to build proprietary phones. People used to rent phones from the land-line companies. Then cross-provider for-purchase phones came around. That was a good thing. Now people want to go backwards.
 But cell phones and  computers change so fast that the hardware is 
 obsolete before it's broken.
That just absurd. Just because a newer fizzbarwidget comes out doesn't mean you can't keep using your old one...unless you happen to be an Apple customer. Do I need to link to my phone again? I've had that probably close to ten years and all the cell phones and smart phone features in the world aren't doing a damn thing to make my phone suddenly cease functioning. How would they? Seek-and-destroy mini-missiles? Obsolescence comes from three things: 1. Forced by big business strong-arming people into buying products via subscription model. 2. Physical breaking down. 3. The consumer *themself* deciding to get the new one *despite* the old one still working fine (If it didn't still work fine, it would fall under #1 or #2) . Notice that "a newer one came out and proceeded to break all the old ones" isn't in there.
 However, outside the cell phone world, such situations are likely to 
 result
 in dual-use devices
There were some phones like that. Nobody cared ;)
Yea, widespread contract lock-in, along with cable-card-style sweeping-it-under-the-rug will do that. (You don't expect me to believe the carriers didn't try to steer people away from those phones, do you?)
 I've had two old-style touch screen phones before this.  They suck.  They 
 break, require calibration, and require a stylus.  My samsung phone got to 
 be so inaccurate that I pretty much avoided using the touch screen as much 
 as possible.  I'll pay the price of lost accuracy when positioning a 
 cursor in order to avoid having to pop out a stylus to press on-screen 
 buttons.
*Shrug* Both of my PalmOS devices still work fine, the accuracy always worked fine, calibration takes about two seconds and is a one-time deal, I never had a problem with a fingernail, and I like syluses (stylii?).
 Which is exactly why it's idiotic for Apple to make the entire interface
 touchscreen.  You do that and you lose tactile feedback and you can't 
 just
 hack it back in. If you took my Palm Pilot, replaced the 
 up/down/left/right
 and app buttons with touchscreen input, that would be a step *backwards*.
 You'd gain nothing but a questionable "cool factor", and the UI would 
 just
 simply be worse.
But PalmOS is not iOS. I've had about 5 palms, starting with the palm III, and I like the apple interface significantly more.
Just to be clear, I wasn't suggesting iOS used the exact same buttonset as PalmOS.
 The screen is made of pretty durable glass.  Like all touch-screen 
 phones,
 it's highly advisable to get a screen protector for it.  I don't get 
 what
 your problem is here, do you want a screen or not?  If you do, then what
 possible way could a manufacturer design a destruction-proof screen? 
 Put
 little airbags around it in case you drop it?
Oh, please, it's not that difficult to come up with ways around it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laptop http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_Boy_Advance_SP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_DS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flip_phone
So you mean, it should fold? You can just say that you know :)
While I would consider that an improvement, I was just pointing that out your implication that there were no other realistic options was absurd.
 Note that with a folding device, it's probably *less* durable because the 
 folding part can break, and wires can more easily come loose.  Less moving 
 parts == more reliable.
That's kind of like saying "VMs are better than native-code because native-code languages tend to lack high-level expressiveness." So what, avoid the whole group just because *some* aren't up to par? I've had a laptop for about 10 years. It's dead now, but the screen and hinge still work flawlessly. And I have an original-model DS from one of the first few production runs (no more than half a year after initial release). To this day, I've never had any hinged-screen-related problem. I've never even heard of a case of a non-abused original-model DS "Phat" having hinge problems. The DS Lite was known to have that problem, but the fact that the particular model makes such a difference indicates that it's *not* an inevitable problem for hinged-screens in general. Just like native-code languages and high-level features.
 No, but its *far* from a failed design also :)  Protecting the screen from 
 breakage by having a hard cover detracts from the usability.  Besides, I 
 think the phone is pretty darned durable, it's not a cheap feeling thing. 
 I'm not going to throw it against the wall, but I wouldn't do that with a 
 folding phone either.  I also have a rubber protective case on it too (but 
 the screen is exposed).
You've never had stray button presses? Anyway, I'm just saying, exposed-screen isn't perfect.
 In and of itself, maybe. But thinness typically necessitates other design
 compromises, all for a "benefit" that is, as you say, petty.
What compromises? What is it missing that could be there if it were thicker?
Compromises that often need to be made for ultra-thin devices: - Low battery life. - Inability to self-service the battery. - Low storage space due to lack of room for hard drive. - Reduced variety of i/o ports. - Reduced or eliminated potential for expandability. That's just off the top of my head. There's probably others.
 Note that the ipad directly competes with e-Reader devices, so they need
 to appeal to those people too.
That still doesn't necessitate "as thin as conceivably possible".
It doesn't necessitate it, but it does score points with that crowd. People want a thin book-sized device to read all their books.
Heh, well, most of the dead-tree books I own or have read are far thicker than any ultra-thin device (0.75" to 1.5"). And a lot of them have roughly 8.5"x11" pages, which is bigger than any book reader I've seen. I think my old Pentium 2 laptop would technically qualify as "book-sized" ;) (I have books that are still bigger than it.)
 You might like this: 
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-Cm8MFqxWw&feature=fvst
Heh, yea, that's good. The MacBook Wheel was really good too. Funnier, but didn't make quite the variety of good jabs as that Mactini does :)
 I agree, smaller isn't always better.  But I mean smaller as in, if it was 
 an external battery, then it would have to be larger than you would like. 
 The iPhone size isn't too small.
I do agree the iPhone isn't too small. But I'd rather have a 1" thick handheld with a hard drive, buttons, good variety of i/o and a replaceable battery than a 0.3" with none of that. If some company took the first-generation Zune, ripped out all the arbitrary lock-outs, added a stylus touchscreen and maybe a convertible-tablet-style keyboard, and added PDA software, I would buy it in a heartbeat (well, poverty notwithstanding ;) ) Or, better yet, if they took the best features of the Palm Zire 71 and 72, updated it for PalmOS 6 (not WebOS), gave it roughly the size of the original Zune, a replaceable battery, and tossed in a hard drive and an option to go back to v1 of Grafitti, I'd be in love :)
 No, polish is making something behave the way it should behave.  This 
 includes fixing bugs and usability issues, but not "designs you don't 
 like."
Polish is attention to detail and a lack of (metaphorical) rough edges. I still maintain that implies quality in both technical *and* design issues, but I suppose we're both running out of ways to effectively debate the meaning of "polish".
 Well, I did misunderstand your stance, but my point is that "thin is 
 better" *is* a major selling point for most people.
I'm convinced that's mostly just because they've been lead to blindly believe that "thinner is always better" and don't think for themselves. If you start asking random people if wireless or wired is better, most won't hesitate to say "wireless". If they're asked to explain why, they'll either say something about "convenience", or in a lot of cases (and I've observed this) they'll admit they believe wireless is better just because that's what they've heard. But *very* few people will know that wired is generally faster, more reliable, and more secure. But they don't know that because all they've heard is "Wireless wireless wireless!! Get yours here! Cheap! Everyone else wants wireless, you should too!" Oh really? They do? Well shit! I want to be just like all the other people that the obviously biased ad told me about! I see the same happening with size and thinness. People just assume it's better because all the marketing subtly implies it's inherently better. It's brainwash marketing, and that people are stupid enough to fall for it doesn't excuse it.
 Oh, one other thing that's annoying, but I think it's because of pressure 
 from the phone companies who want to charge you an extra $15/month for 
 "enterprise access", it doesn't read ics calendar appointments unless you 
 use microsoft exchange.  That is *extremely* crappy and pointless.
I've had an eye on the cell scene since pagers died out, and this sort of thing is one constant that never seems to go away. It'll change forms - at one point it'll be the ringtones, then maybe your photos, maybe your appointment book, or maybe something else. But there's always something they arbitrarily restrict and then charge for. I don't reward such scams by buying into them. PalmOS never pulled that crap. Desktops, laptops and netbooks don't either.
 Compare this to my list of issues with Windows mobile 6, you will find 
 they haven't even opened the polish can yet :)
If someone lined up twenty piles of dog doo, and one of them seemed less stinky then the others, I'm not going to jump up and say "This one smells great!". Even if the iPhone is the best cell phone in history (and I'm not saying I think it is or isn't), that's still how I see the situation.
Sep 04 2010
next sibling parent reply BCS <none anon.com> writes:
Hello Nick,

 "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message

 Obsolescence comes from three things:
 
 1. Forced by big business strong-arming people into buying products
 via subscription model.
 
 2. Physical breaking down.
 
 3. The consumer *themself* deciding to get the new one *despite* the
 old one still working fine (If it didn't still work fine, it would
 fall under #1 or #2) .
 
 Notice that "a newer one came out and proceeded to break all the old
 ones" isn't in there.
 
However #3 can easily turn into the old one being such a small fraction of the market that it's not worth anyone's time to support it.
 In and of itself, maybe. But thinness typically necessitates other
 design compromises, all for a "benefit" that is, as you say, petty.
 
What compromises? What is it missing that could be there if it were thicker?
Compromises that often need to be made for ultra-thin devices: - Low storage space due to lack of room for hard drive.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=32+gb+micro+sd&x=0&y=0
 - Reduced variety of i/o ports.
In this day and age, you would be hard pressed to suggest a cell phone needs more than a 1 maybe 2 USB ports.
 - Reduced or eliminated potential for expandability.
Aside from a memeory card, name one things you've ever known someone else to want to add to a phone? -- ... <IXOYE><
Sep 06 2010
next sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
BCS wrote:
 Aside from a memeory card, name one things you've ever known someone 
 else to want to add to a phone?
A keyboard.
Sep 06 2010
parent reply BCS <none anon.com> writes:
Hello Walter,

 BCS wrote:
 
 Aside from a memeory card, name one things you've ever known someone
 else to want to add to a phone?
 
A keyboard.
People want a phone that has a key board from the get go. How many people actually want to /add/ one to the phone they have? -- ... <IXOYE><
Sep 06 2010
parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
BCS wrote:
 People want a phone that has a key board from the get go. How many 
 people actually want to /add/ one to the phone they have?
I like being able now and then to attach a full size keyboard.
Sep 07 2010
prev sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"BCS" <none anon.com> wrote in message 
news:a6268ff1b9068cd1bc36b696570 news.digitalmars.com...
 Hello Nick,

 In and of itself, maybe. But thinness typically necessitates other
 design compromises, all for a "benefit" that is, as you say, petty.
What compromises? What is it missing that could be there if it were thicker?
Compromises that often need to be made for ultra-thin devices: - Low storage space due to lack of room for hard drive.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=32+gb+micro+sd&x=0&y=0
Ugh, don't even get me started on MicroSD. Ordinary SD is already too small if you ask me, although I still put up with it anyway. Now MicroSD, well I can't say anything about it without raising my blood pressure... Besides: http://www.microcenter.com/search/search_results.phtml?N=4294966955+4294953566&sht=Any&prt=NewProduct&
 - Reduced variety of i/o ports.
In this day and age, you would be hard pressed to suggest a cell phone needs more than a 1 maybe 2 USB ports.
I consider there to be a big difference between a cell phone and a smart phone. A cell phone is for making calls, and for those, I agree with you. But a smartphone is a PDA that also makes cell calls, and that changes things. Plus, I was kind of talking both smartphone and iPad-style stuff.
 - Reduced or eliminated potential for expandability.
Aside from a memeory card, name one things you've ever known someone else to want to add to a phone?
- Headphone jack - Audio line-input - User's choice of portable Keyboard - TV Out (for picture/video-viewing, and there's a million different kinds of TV-Out these days) - GPS - Back before built-in cameras became common, I could have said "camera". All just off the top of my head, there's probably others.
Sep 06 2010
next sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> wrote in message 
news:i63jvb$29fu$1 digitalmars.com...
 "BCS" <none anon.com> wrote in message 
 news:a6268ff1b9068cd1bc36b696570 news.digitalmars.com...
 Hello Nick,

 In and of itself, maybe. But thinness typically necessitates other
 design compromises, all for a "benefit" that is, as you say, petty.
What compromises? What is it missing that could be there if it were thicker?
Compromises that often need to be made for ultra-thin devices: - Low storage space due to lack of room for hard drive.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=32+gb+micro+sd&x=0&y=0
Ugh, don't even get me started on MicroSD. Ordinary SD is already too small if you ask me, although I still put up with it anyway. Now MicroSD, well I can't say anything about it without raising my blood pressure... Besides: http://www.microcenter.com/search/search_results.phtml?N=4294966955+4294953566&sht=Any&prt=NewProduct&
 - Reduced variety of i/o ports.
In this day and age, you would be hard pressed to suggest a cell phone needs more than a 1 maybe 2 USB ports.
I consider there to be a big difference between a cell phone and a smart phone. A cell phone is for making calls, and for those, I agree with you. But a smartphone is a PDA that also makes cell calls, and that changes things. Plus, I was kind of talking both smartphone and iPad-style stuff.
 - Reduced or eliminated potential for expandability.
Aside from a memeory card, name one things you've ever known someone else to want to add to a phone?
- Headphone jack - Audio line-input - User's choice of portable Keyboard - TV Out (for picture/video-viewing, and there's a million different kinds of TV-Out these days) - GPS - Back before built-in cameras became common, I could have said "camera". All just off the top of my head, there's probably others.
And domain-specific things, like various kinds of sensors for in-field scientific data gathering, or barcode scanning, for instance.
Sep 06 2010
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> wrote in message 
news:i63k4d$29qm$1 digitalmars.com...
 "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> wrote in message 
 news:i63jvb$29fu$1 digitalmars.com...
 "BCS" <none anon.com> wrote in message 
 news:a6268ff1b9068cd1bc36b696570 news.digitalmars.com...
 Aside from a memeory card, name one things you've ever known someone 
 else to want to add to a phone?
- Headphone jack - Audio line-input - User's choice of portable Keyboard - TV Out (for picture/video-viewing, and there's a million different kinds of TV-Out these days) - GPS - Back before built-in cameras became common, I could have said "camera". All just off the top of my head, there's probably others.
And domain-specific things, like various kinds of sensors for in-field scientific data gathering, or barcode scanning, for instance.
*Alternate* types of memory card...
Sep 06 2010
parent BCS <none anon.com> writes:
Hello Nick,

 "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> wrote in message
 news:i63k4d$29qm$1 digitalmars.com...
 
 "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> wrote in message
 news:i63jvb$29fu$1 digitalmars.com...
 
 "BCS" <none anon.com> wrote in message
 news:a6268ff1b9068cd1bc36b696570 news.digitalmars.com...
 
 Aside from a memeory card, name one things you've ever known
 someone else to want to add to a phone?
 
- Headphone jack - Audio line-input - User's choice of portable Keyboard - TV Out (for picture/video-viewing, and there's a million different kinds of TV-Out these days) - GPS - Back before built-in cameras became common, I could have said "camera". All just off the top of my head, there's probably others.
And domain-specific things, like various kinds of sensors for in-field scientific data gathering, or barcode scanning, for instance.
*Alternate* types of memory card...
Consumer choice (in form factors) is a good thing for new markets, but at some point it just drive up prices and causes compatibility problems. At some point it's cheaper to just pick a good enough standard and make it a commodity. -- ... <IXOYE><
Sep 06 2010
prev sibling parent reply BCS <none anon.com> writes:
Hello Nick,

 "BCS" <none anon.com> wrote in message
 news:a6268ff1b9068cd1bc36b696570 news.digitalmars.com...
 
 Hello Nick,
 
 In and of itself, maybe. But thinness typically necessitates other
 design compromises, all for a "benefit" that is, as you say,
 petty.
 
What compromises? What is it missing that could be there if it were thicker?
Compromises that often need to be made for ultra-thin devices: - Low storage space due to lack of room for hard drive.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-k eywords=32+gb+micro+sd&x=0&y=0
Ugh, don't even get me started on MicroSD. Ordinary SD is already too small if you ask me, although I still put up with it anyway. Now MicroSD, well I can't say anything about it without raising my blood pressure...
My point was that space (volume) is not what limits how much space (GB) a phone has.
 Besides:
 http://www.microcenter.com/search/search_results.phtml?N=4294966955+42
 94953566&sht=Any&prt=NewProduct&
If I wanted more sortage than I can put on flash cards, I'd breing a lap-top. OTOH: this is the class of phone I use: http://www.motorola.com/Consumers/US-EN/Consumer-Product-and-Services/Mobile-Phones/Motorola-Stature-i9-US-EN
 - Reduced variety of i/o ports.
 
In this day and age, you would be hard pressed to suggest a cell phone needs more than a 1 maybe 2 USB ports.
I consider there to be a big difference between a cell phone and a smart phone. A cell phone is for making calls, and for those, I agree with you. But a smartphone is a PDA that also makes cell calls, and that changes things. Plus, I was kind of talking both smartphone and iPad-style stuff.
In this day and age, you would be hard pressed to suggest a smart phone/PDA needs more than a 1 maybe 2 USB ports. You might, just maybe, talk me into believing that an HDMI port could be handy. But that would really push it.
 - Reduced or eliminated potential for expandability.
 
Aside from a memeory card, name one things you've ever known someone else to want to add to a phone?
- Headphone jack - Audio line-input
Many have the first and the second wouldn't be hard to add to the same jack
 - User's choice of portable Keyboard
USB
 - TV Out (for picture/video-viewing, and there's a million different
 kinds
 of TV-Out these days)
USB can do that, and at the image quality a smart phone can drive it wouldn't be a bottle neck.
 - GPS
You would be hard pressed to find a (cell) phone that doesn't have that hardware already.
 - Back before built-in cameras became common, I could have said
 "camera".
 All just off the top of my head, there's probably others.
 
And as I pointed out to Walter, are those things you want to ADD or do you want them in there to begin with? -- ... <IXOYE><
Sep 06 2010
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"BCS" <none anon.com> wrote in message 
news:a6268ff1b9958cd1bfa012970d8 news.digitalmars.com...
 Hello Nick,

 Ugh, don't even get me started on MicroSD. Ordinary SD is already too
 small if you ask me, although I still put up with it anyway. Now
 MicroSD, well I can't say anything about it without raising my blood
 pressure...
My point was that space (volume) is not what limits how much space (GB) a phone has.
And my link dispelled that myth. Try putting 200GB+ into a MicroSD form factor at the cost of a 2.5" HDD. Yea, eventually that'll happen, but by then I could get a HDD many times bigger than that for the same price.
 Besides:
 http://www.microcenter.com/search/search_results.phtml?N=4294966955+42
 94953566&sht=Any&prt=NewProduct&
If I wanted more sortage than I can put on flash cards, I'd breing a lap-top. OTOH: this is the class of phone I use: http://www.motorola.com/Consumers/US-EN/Consumer-Product-and-Services/Mobile-Phones/Motorola-Stature-i9-US-EN
You're not everyone. Some people would rather have HDD-level storage capacity.
 In this day and age, you would be hard pressed to suggest a smart 
 phone/PDA needs more than a 1 maybe 2 USB ports. You might, just maybe, 
 talk me into believing that an HDMI port could be handy. But that would 
 really push it.
Ugh, I hate HDMI, but that's a whole other discussion ;)
 - TV Out (for picture/video-viewing, and there's a million different
 kinds
 of TV-Out these days)
USB can do that, and at the image quality a smart phone can drive it wouldn't be a bottle neck.
News to me.
 - Back before built-in cameras became common, I could have said
 "camera".
 All just off the top of my head, there's probably others.
And as I pointed out to Walter, are those things you want to ADD or do you want them in there to begin with?
1. I don't want to pay for features I don't need, or don't need right away. And I'm the only one who can effectively decide what I do or don't need/want and when. Therefore, a system that's based around expandability beats the hell out of "You get whatever we choose to pre-package together for you." 2. Expandability provides a level of future-proofing (much moreso if you don't limit it to USB). Unlike all the sheep out there, I'm not interested in disposable gadgets.
Sep 06 2010
parent reply BCS <none anon.com> writes:
Hello Nick,

 "BCS" <none anon.com> wrote in message
 news:a6268ff1b9958cd1bfa012970d8 news.digitalmars.com...
 
 Hello Nick,
 
 Ugh, don't even get me started on MicroSD. Ordinary SD is already
 too small if you ask me, although I still put up with it anyway. Now
 MicroSD, well I can't say anything about it without raising my blood
 pressure...
 
My point was that space (volume) is not what limits how much space (GB) a phone has.
And my link dispelled that myth. Try putting 200GB+ into a MicroSD form factor at the cost of a 2.5" HDD. Yea, eventually that'll happen, but by then I could get a HDD many times bigger than that for the same price.
I wouldn't. I'd put it in a package about 4-5 times as big and mount it on the PC board. Besides, what the heck do you need more than about 32GB for on a phone? If you need to shoot that much video, get a real camera!
 Besides:
 http://www.microcenter.com/search/search_results.phtml?N=4294966955+
 42 94953566&sht=Any&prt=NewProduct&
 
If I wanted more sortage than I can put on flash cards, I'd breing a lap-top. OTOH: this is the class of phone I use: http://www.motorola.com/Consumers/US-EN/Consumer-Product-and-Services /Mobile-Phones/Motorola-Stature-i9-US-EN
You're not everyone. Some people would rather have HDD-level storage capacity.
1) I don't want an HDD in my phone. Moving parts? Ouch! 2) That will always be cheaper as an external HDD. Some people will want to use their phone as a weapon, should that also be a design criteria?
 In this day and age, you would be hard pressed to suggest a smart
 phone/PDA needs more than a 1 maybe 2 USB ports. You might, just
 maybe, talk me into believing that an HDMI port could be handy. But
 that would really push it.
 
Ugh, I hate HDMI, but that's a whole other discussion ;)
I just picked the smallest video connector I could think of.
 - TV Out (for picture/video-viewing, and there's a million different
 kinds
 of TV-Out these days)
USB can do that, and at the image quality a smart phone can drive it wouldn't be a bottle neck.
News to me.
Which part: http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=usb+video+card http://www.acousticpc.com/images/a_zalman_rhs88_heatsink_instaled_views.jpg (yes, I know you don't need that big a heatsink but, video sinks lots of watts.
 - Back before built-in cameras became common, I could have said
 "camera".
 All just off the top of my head, there's probably others.
And as I pointed out to Walter, are those things you want to ADD or do you want them in there to begin with?
1. I don't want to pay for features I don't need, or don't need right away. And I'm the only one who can effectively decide what I do or don't need/want and when. Therefore, a system that's based around expandability beats the hell out of "You get whatever we choose to pre-package together for you."
YAGNI: The trade off for expandability is increased size (off hand, I'd say 2-3x) and cost (??x) and MOST people will never use it. And I'm including the people who think they will like you. Unless you can say up front what you will be adding and when, I'd bet money you would never add anything to a phone. OTOH factory options... Maybe.
 
 2. Expandability provides a level of future-proofing (much moreso if
 you don't limit it to USB). Unlike all the sheep out there, I'm not
 interested in disposable gadgets.
Neither am I and I still think you are on a wild goose chase. -- ... <IXOYE><
Sep 06 2010
next sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"BCS" <none anon.com> wrote in message 
news:a6268ff1b9ca8cd1c2c66c866ba news.digitalmars.com...
 Hello Nick,

 "BCS" <none anon.com> wrote in message
 news:a6268ff1b9958cd1bfa012970d8 news.digitalmars.com...

 Hello Nick,

 Ugh, don't even get me started on MicroSD. Ordinary SD is already
 too small if you ask me, although I still put up with it anyway. Now
 MicroSD, well I can't say anything about it without raising my blood
 pressure...
My point was that space (volume) is not what limits how much space (GB) a phone has.
And my link dispelled that myth. Try putting 200GB+ into a MicroSD form factor at the cost of a 2.5" HDD. Yea, eventually that'll happen, but by then I could get a HDD many times bigger than that for the same price.
I wouldn't. I'd put it in a package about 4-5 times as big and mount it on the PC board. Besides, what the heck do you need more than about 32GB for on a phone? If you need to shoot that much video, get a real camera!
Like I said, there's two kinds of "phones": "phone" phones, and PDA "phones". For the former, I *still* agree with you. For the latter: If I were going to blow the money on a "smartphone" (as they're calling them now) or on some sort of iPad-like device (which is the other thing I've been talking about), I would expect it to replace a dedicated camera and a dedicated portable music player. And they can easily do so just by slapping a HDD in there. (BTW, by current music player, which also does video - a feature I rather like is 40GB and I find it uncomfortably tight. Plus, with that tightness, I can't really use it as an external HDD, which I used to do, and found very helpful.) I'm not interested in toting around twenty different gadgets. There can be only one!
Sep 07 2010
parent reply BCS <none anon.com> writes:
Hello Nick,

 "BCS" <none anon.com> wrote in message
 news:a6268ff1b9ca8cd1c2c66c866ba news.digitalmars.com...
 
 Hello Nick,
 
 "BCS" <none anon.com> wrote in message
 news:a6268ff1b9958cd1bfa012970d8 news.digitalmars.com...
 Hello Nick,
 
 Ugh, don't even get me started on MicroSD. Ordinary SD is already
 too small if you ask me, although I still put up with it anyway.
 Now MicroSD, well I can't say anything about it without raising my
 blood pressure...
 
My point was that space (volume) is not what limits how much space (GB) a phone has.
And my link dispelled that myth. Try putting 200GB+ into a MicroSD form factor at the cost of a 2.5" HDD. Yea, eventually that'll happen, but by then I could get a HDD many times bigger than that for the same price.
I wouldn't. I'd put it in a package about 4-5 times as big and mount it on the PC board. Besides, what the heck do you need more than about 32GB for on a phone? If you need to shoot that much video, get a real camera!
Like I said, there's two kinds of "phones": "phone" phones, and PDA "phones". For the former, I *still* agree with you. For the latter: If I were going to blow the money on a "smartphone" (as they're calling them now) or on some sort of iPad-like device (which is the other thing I've been talking about), I would expect it to replace a dedicated camera and a dedicated portable music player. And they can easily do so just by slapping a HDD in there. (BTW, by current music player, which also does video - a feature I rather like is 40GB and I find it uncomfortably tight. Plus, with that tightness, I can't really use it as an external HDD, which I used to do, and found very helpful.) I'm not interested in toting around twenty different gadgets. There can be only one!
Stuff a person has to store expands to fit the space they have to store it in. It's some kind of immutable law of nature that transcends computers and closet space. If you had 4.5TB of storage space, then you'd just want to store 5TB. The solution isn't more storage space as that just stalls the problem for about 10min/Mb. -- ... <IXOYE><
Sep 07 2010
parent reply domino <effect sitemine.org> writes:
BCS Wrote:

 Hello Nick,
 
 "BCS" <none anon.com> wrote in message
 news:a6268ff1b9ca8cd1c2c66c866ba news.digitalmars.com...
 
 Hello Nick,
 
 "BCS" <none anon.com> wrote in message
 news:a6268ff1b9958cd1bfa012970d8 news.digitalmars.com...
 Hello Nick,
 
 Ugh, don't even get me started on MicroSD. Ordinary SD is already
 too small if you ask me, although I still put up with it anyway.
 Now MicroSD, well I can't say anything about it without raising my
 blood pressure...
 
My point was that space (volume) is not what limits how much space (GB) a phone has.
And my link dispelled that myth. Try putting 200GB+ into a MicroSD form factor at the cost of a 2.5" HDD. Yea, eventually that'll happen, but by then I could get a HDD many times bigger than that for the same price.
I wouldn't. I'd put it in a package about 4-5 times as big and mount it on the PC board. Besides, what the heck do you need more than about 32GB for on a phone? If you need to shoot that much video, get a real camera!
Like I said, there's two kinds of "phones": "phone" phones, and PDA "phones". For the former, I *still* agree with you. For the latter: If I were going to blow the money on a "smartphone" (as they're calling them now) or on some sort of iPad-like device (which is the other thing I've been talking about), I would expect it to replace a dedicated camera and a dedicated portable music player. And they can easily do so just by slapping a HDD in there. (BTW, by current music player, which also does video - a feature I rather like is 40GB and I find it uncomfortably tight. Plus, with that tightness, I can't really use it as an external HDD, which I used to do, and found very helpful.) I'm not interested in toting around twenty different gadgets. There can be only one!
Stuff a person has to store expands to fit the space they have to store it in. It's some kind of immutable law of nature that transcends computers and closet space. If you had 4.5TB of storage space, then you'd just want to store 5TB. The solution isn't more storage space as that just stalls the problem for about 10min/Mb.
That's only true when you're working for Google and steal personal wifi data. Ordinary man cannot have 5 TB of data because ALL standard movie/audio CD/DVD/Bluray/HD-DVD discs have DRM copy protection. According to DMCA breaking the encryption is illegal. Online shops only rent the same material. Software developers may need more space, but 99.9% of people are not software developers. Thus q.e.d, you don't need that much space.
Sep 07 2010
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
domino wrote:
 Ordinary man cannot have 5 TB of data because ALL standard movie/audio
 CD/DVD/Bluray/HD-DVD discs have DRM copy protection.
CDs are not copy protected. I'm running around .5 TB these days, and none of it is DRM'd material. (Family movies eat up space like you wouldn't believe, too.)
Sep 07 2010
parent reply domino <effect sitemine.org> writes:
Walter Bright Wrote:

 domino wrote:
 Ordinary man cannot have 5 TB of data because ALL standard movie/audio
 CD/DVD/Bluray/HD-DVD discs have DRM copy protection.
CDs are not copy protected.
False. I have 10--20 discs with cactus data protection. Two with sony bmg rootkit protection system. And several with mediamax protection. At least the cactus shit is annoying. They corrupted the audio on purpose and it's audible even with a legal authentic cd audio player. If you place these discs in a standard PC cd/dvd drive, it just spins and spins and spins and spins and the OS either hangs or refuses to open the cd tray. I'm 100% sure you are not allowed to break these.
Sep 07 2010
next sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"domino" <effect sitemine.org> wrote in message 
news:i666vt$1581$1 digitalmars.com...
 Walter Bright Wrote:

 domino wrote:
 Ordinary man cannot have 5 TB of data because ALL standard movie/audio
 CD/DVD/Bluray/HD-DVD discs have DRM copy protection.
CDs are not copy protected.
False. I have 10--20 discs with cactus data protection. Two with sony bmg rootkit protection system. And several with mediamax protection. At least the cactus shit is annoying. They corrupted the audio on purpose and it's audible even with a legal authentic cd audio player. If you place these discs in a standard PC cd/dvd drive, it just spins and spins and spins and spins and the OS either hangs or refuses to open the cd tray. I'm 100% sure you are not allowed to break these.
The vast majority of CDs don't have that. I have approx 250 commercial audio CDs, and not a single one of them has any DRM. And if I did want something that only came on a DRMed CD, I'd just say "Fuck you Sony" and pirate it.
Sep 07 2010
next sibling parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 The vast majority of CDs don't have that. I have approx 250 commercial audio 
 CDs, and not a single one of them has any DRM. And if I did want something 
 that only came on a DRMed CD, I'd just say "Fuck you Sony" and pirate it. 
I have around 400 CDs, and also exactly zero of them have any form of DRM on them. I ripped them with Windows Media Player, not exactly a cracking tool.
Sep 07 2010
prev sibling parent reply BCS <none anon.com> writes:
Hello Nick,

 "domino" <effect sitemine.org> wrote in message
 news:i666vt$1581$1 digitalmars.com...
 
 Walter Bright Wrote:
 
 domino wrote:
 
 Ordinary man cannot have 5 TB of data because ALL standard
 movie/audio CD/DVD/Bluray/HD-DVD discs have DRM copy protection.
 
CDs are not copy protected.
False. I have 10--20 discs with cactus data protection. Two with sony bmg rootkit protection system. And several with mediamax protection. At least the cactus shit is annoying. They corrupted the audio on purpose and it's audible even with a legal authentic cd audio player. If you place these discs in a standard PC cd/dvd drive, it just spins and spins and spins and spins and the OS either hangs or refuses to open the cd tray. I'm 100% sure you are not allowed to break these.
The vast majority of CDs don't have that. I have approx 250 commercial audio CDs, and not a single one of them has any DRM. And if I did want something that only came on a DRMed CD, I'd just say "Fuck you Sony" and pirate it.
I'd buy the disk, put it on the shelf and let it collect dust with the rest and download the tracks I really care about. -- ... <IXOYE><
Sep 07 2010
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"BCS" <none anon.com> wrote in message 
news:a6268ff1bb248cd1ce96dc11abc news.digitalmars.com...
 Hello Nick,

 "domino" <effect sitemine.org> wrote in message
 news:i666vt$1581$1 digitalmars.com...

 Walter Bright Wrote:

 domino wrote:

 Ordinary man cannot have 5 TB of data because ALL standard
 movie/audio CD/DVD/Bluray/HD-DVD discs have DRM copy protection.
CDs are not copy protected.
False. I have 10--20 discs with cactus data protection. Two with sony bmg rootkit protection system. And several with mediamax protection. At least the cactus shit is annoying. They corrupted the audio on purpose and it's audible even with a legal authentic cd audio player. If you place these discs in a standard PC cd/dvd drive, it just spins and spins and spins and spins and the OS either hangs or refuses to open the cd tray. I'm 100% sure you are not allowed to break these.
The vast majority of CDs don't have that. I have approx 250 commercial audio CDs, and not a single one of them has any DRM. And if I did want something that only came on a DRMed CD, I'd just say "Fuck you Sony" and pirate it.
I'd buy the disk, put it on the shelf and let it collect dust with the rest and download the tracks I really care about.
That's what I've mostly been doing lately (Except I rip the disc. Everything online is MP3 - meh).
Sep 08 2010
parent BCS <none anon.com> writes:
Hello Nick,

 "BCS" <none anon.com> wrote in message
 news:a6268ff1bb248cd1ce96dc11abc news.digitalmars.com...
 
 Hello Nick,
 
 "domino" <effect sitemine.org> wrote in message
 news:i666vt$1581$1 digitalmars.com...
 Walter Bright Wrote:
 
 domino wrote:
 
 Ordinary man cannot have 5 TB of data because ALL standard
 movie/audio CD/DVD/Bluray/HD-DVD discs have DRM copy protection.
 
CDs are not copy protected.
False. I have 10--20 discs with cactus data protection. Two with sony bmg rootkit protection system. And several with mediamax protection. At least the cactus shit is annoying. They corrupted the audio on purpose and it's audible even with a legal authentic cd audio player. If you place these discs in a standard PC cd/dvd drive, it just spins and spins and spins and spins and the OS either hangs or refuses to open the cd tray. I'm 100% sure you are not allowed to break these.
The vast majority of CDs don't have that. I have approx 250 commercial audio CDs, and not a single one of them has any DRM. And if I did want something that only came on a DRMed CD, I'd just say "Fuck you Sony" and pirate it.
I'd buy the disk, put it on the shelf and let it collect dust with the rest and download the tracks I really care about.
That's what I've mostly been doing lately (Except I rip the disc. Everything online is MP3 - meh).
That's what I do, assuming I can read the disk. -- ... <IXOYE><
Sep 09 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent reply BCS <none anon.com> writes:
Hello domino,

 Walter Bright Wrote:
 
 domino wrote:
 
 Ordinary man cannot have 5 TB of data because ALL standard
 movie/audio CD/DVD/Bluray/HD-DVD discs have DRM copy protection.
 
CDs are not copy protected.
False. I have 10--20 discs with cactus data protection. Two with sony bmg rootkit protection system. And several with mediamax protection. At least the cactus shit is annoying. They corrupted the audio on purpose and it's audible even with a legal authentic cd audio player. If you place these discs in a standard PC cd/dvd drive, it just spins and spins and spins and spins and the OS either hangs or refuses to open the cd tray. I'm 100% sure you are not allowed to break these.
I've never owned a CD player that wasn't a CD-ROM drive. I've never come across a disk I couldn't play. -- ... <IXOYE><
Sep 07 2010
parent reply retard <re tard.com.invalid> writes:
Wed, 08 Sep 2010 04:17:33 +0000, BCS wrote:

 Hello domino,
 
 Walter Bright Wrote:
 
 domino wrote:
 
 Ordinary man cannot have 5 TB of data because ALL standard
 movie/audio CD/DVD/Bluray/HD-DVD discs have DRM copy protection.
 
CDs are not copy protected.
False. I have 10--20 discs with cactus data protection. Two with sony bmg rootkit protection system. And several with mediamax protection. At least the cactus shit is annoying. They corrupted the audio on purpose and it's audible even with a legal authentic cd audio player. If you place these discs in a standard PC cd/dvd drive, it just spins and spins and spins and spins and the OS either hangs or refuses to open the cd tray. I'm 100% sure you are not allowed to break these.
I've never owned a CD player that wasn't a CD-ROM drive. I've never come across a disk I couldn't play.
You must be young then. I got my first CD-ROM drive with my Pentium 75. The first 1x external CD-ROM drives were pretty expensive. I think one used to cost around $600..800. Before 1994 I only had a CD walkman and a moderately cheap entry level hi-fi system. On top of that, the first CD-ROM drives provided ridiculously bad audio quality and connectivity. Also the 16-bit SB clones were trash.
Sep 08 2010
next sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
retard wrote:
 You must be young then. I got my first CD-ROM drive with my Pentium 75. 
 The first 1x external CD-ROM drives were pretty expensive. I think one 
 used to cost around $600..800.
Eh, my first CD-ROM drive was $1100 or so.
 Before 1994 I only had a CD walkman and a moderately cheap entry level hi-fi
system.
I had a Sony Discman back in the early 80's. Still have it somewhere.
Sep 08 2010
next sibling parent reply retard <re tard.com.invalid> writes:
Wed, 08 Sep 2010 19:15:15 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:

 retard wrote:
 You must be young then. I got my first CD-ROM drive with my Pentium 75.
 The first 1x external CD-ROM drives were pretty expensive. I think one
 used to cost around $600..800.
Eh, my first CD-ROM drive was $1100 or so.
Was it that expensive? Anyway, the world has changed so much. You can probably find a decent dvd+rw drive for $30 or $40 now. My original point was that people like us who listened to CDs in the 80's quite likely still possess real hi-fi cd players or integrated cd/amp/tuner systems. These systems are unaffected by the cd copy protection methods.
Sep 08 2010
parent reply Daniel Gibson <metalcaedes gmail.com> writes:
retard schrieb:
 Wed, 08 Sep 2010 19:15:15 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:
 
 retard wrote:
 You must be young then. I got my first CD-ROM drive with my Pentium 75.
 The first 1x external CD-ROM drives were pretty expensive. I think one
 used to cost around $600..800.
Eh, my first CD-ROM drive was $1100 or so.
Was it that expensive? Anyway, the world has changed so much. You can probably find a decent dvd+rw drive for $30 or $40 now. My original point was that people like us who listened to CDs in the 80's quite likely still possess real hi-fi cd players or integrated cd/amp/tuner systems. These systems are unaffected by the cd copy protection methods.
Not necessarily - I've heard of "copy protections" (they should actually be called listening preventions) that caused trouble on old as well as some new CD players (not CD ROM drives). Also Car CD player seem to be massively affected by such problems. Why the hell should someone buy a CD he can't listen to in his car?! I'd never buy a CD with copy protection - I like to rip them so I don't have to mess around with the discs (and also my car radio has a USB port and plays MP3s). As mentioned before ripping copy protected CDs is illegal (also in Germany where I live) - so if I gotta do something illegal just to listen to the CD I just payed 15EUR for I can as well download it for free. Fortunately the kind of music I listen to (Heavy Metal) is mostly unaffected by copy protection and DRM on CDs. Metallica is probably one of the few exceptions, because they're so big or at the wrong lable or something.
Sep 08 2010
next sibling parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Daniel Gibson" <metalcaedes gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:i69lsq$20gt$2 digitalmars.com...
 Fortunately the kind of music I listen to (Heavy Metal) is mostly 
 unaffected by copy protection and DRM on CDs.
 Metallica is probably one of the few exceptions, because they're so big or 
 at the wrong lable or something.
Metallica are well-known for being strongly against file sharing. There was even a big PR fiasco a while back where they sued a number of their fans over it. So I'm sure they're pro-DRM. (I'm more a Megadeth kinda guy, anyway :P ) But yea, it's mostly just whatever mainstream pop/rock the labels (mainly Sony) are heavily pushing that get the DRM. Heavy metal is sort of non-mainstream almost by definition.
Sep 08 2010
prev sibling parent reply retard <re tard.com.invalid> writes:
Thu, 09 Sep 2010 05:55:46 +0200, Daniel Gibson wrote:

 retard schrieb:
 Wed, 08 Sep 2010 19:15:15 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:
 
 retard wrote:
 You must be young then. I got my first CD-ROM drive with my Pentium
 75. The first 1x external CD-ROM drives were pretty expensive. I
 think one used to cost around $600..800.
Eh, my first CD-ROM drive was $1100 or so.
Was it that expensive? Anyway, the world has changed so much. You can probably find a decent dvd+rw drive for $30 or $40 now. My original point was that people like us who listened to CDs in the 80's quite likely still possess real hi-fi cd players or integrated cd/amp/tuner systems. These systems are unaffected by the cd copy protection methods.
Not necessarily - I've heard of "copy protections" (they should actually be called listening preventions) that caused trouble on old as well as some new CD players (not CD ROM drives). Also Car CD player seem to be massively affected by such problems. Why the hell should someone buy a CD he can't listen to in his car?!
Ah, true. The reason (IIRC) was that the DRMed CDs also had a data cd TOC or multiple sessions or something like that. If the car CD player supported MP3 CDs via the data cd format, that made it "too intelligent" to play the disks.
Sep 08 2010
parent Daniel Gibson <metalcaedes gmail.com> writes:
retard schrieb:
 Thu, 09 Sep 2010 05:55:46 +0200, Daniel Gibson wrote:
 
 retard schrieb:
 Wed, 08 Sep 2010 19:15:15 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:

 retard wrote:
 You must be young then. I got my first CD-ROM drive with my Pentium
 75. The first 1x external CD-ROM drives were pretty expensive. I
 think one used to cost around $600..800.
Eh, my first CD-ROM drive was $1100 or so.
Was it that expensive? Anyway, the world has changed so much. You can probably find a decent dvd+rw drive for $30 or $40 now. My original point was that people like us who listened to CDs in the 80's quite likely still possess real hi-fi cd players or integrated cd/amp/tuner systems. These systems are unaffected by the cd copy protection methods.
Not necessarily - I've heard of "copy protections" (they should actually be called listening preventions) that caused trouble on old as well as some new CD players (not CD ROM drives). Also Car CD player seem to be massively affected by such problems. Why the hell should someone buy a CD he can't listen to in his car?!
Ah, true. The reason (IIRC) was that the DRMed CDs also had a data cd TOC or multiple sessions or something like that. If the car CD player supported MP3 CDs via the data cd format, that made it "too intelligent" to play the disks.
Yeah, and there also was this tric with manipulating the CIRC checksums, resulting in read errors that are ignored/interpolated by (most?) CD players, but CD ROM drives fail and apparently car radios fail as well. Those "CDs" are not CDs anyway, because they violate the red book standard.
Sep 09 2010
prev sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Walter Bright" <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
news:i69g05$2cbt$2 digitalmars.com...
 retard wrote:
 You must be young then. I got my first CD-ROM drive with my Pentium 75. 
 The first 1x external CD-ROM drives were pretty expensive. I think one 
 used to cost around $600..800.
Eh, my first CD-ROM drive was $1100 or so.
 Before 1994 I only had a CD walkman and a moderately cheap entry level 
 hi-fi system.
I had a Sony Discman back in the early 80's. Still have it somewhere.
I must be young. My first CD player was a $200 (IIRC) Sega CD (Mega CD for those outside the states and Canada).
Sep 08 2010
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 I must be young. My first CD player was a $200 (IIRC) Sega CD (Mega CD for 
 those outside the states and Canada).
I also remember paying $600 for 64K (that's K, not M) of memory. It was worth every penny at the time, too!
Sep 09 2010
parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Walter Bright" <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
news:i6a576$19jv$2 digitalmars.com...
 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 I must be young. My first CD player was a $200 (IIRC) Sega CD (Mega CD 
 for those outside the states and Canada).
I also remember paying $600 for 64K (that's K, not M) of memory. It was worth every penny at the time, too!
Heh. The most I ever paid per-byte was $180 for 4MB.
Sep 09 2010
prev sibling parent BCS <none anon.com> writes:
Hello retard,

 Wed, 08 Sep 2010 04:17:33 +0000, BCS wrote:
 
 I've never owned a CD player that wasn't a CD-ROM drive. I've never
 come across a disk I couldn't play.
 
You must be young then.
Nope, just cheap. The first CD-ROM drive I got was after high school. -- ... <IXOYE><
Sep 09 2010
prev sibling parent reply "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 16:23:25 -0400, domino <effect sitemine.org> wrote:

 Walter Bright Wrote:

 domino wrote:
 Ordinary man cannot have 5 TB of data because ALL standard movie/audio
 CD/DVD/Bluray/HD-DVD discs have DRM copy protection.
CDs are not copy protected.
False. I have 10--20 discs with cactus data protection. Two with sony bmg rootkit protection system. And several with mediamax protection. At least the cactus shit is annoying. They corrupted the audio on purpose and it's audible even with a legal authentic cd audio player. If you place these discs in a standard PC cd/dvd drive, it just spins and spins and spins and spins and the OS either hangs or refuses to open the cd tray. I'm 100% sure you are not allowed to break these.
perhaps it's time for a new CD drive? FWIW, Metallica's Garage Inc (the second disc) has some sort of anti-copy distortion. You can actually see a pattern on the data side of the disc. The result when you encode it via MP3 is some slight distortion, even at 160kb/s. It's pretty bearable though. I would expect that a bit-for-bit copy would not have any issues though. It's not copy protection, it's ripping protection. -Steve
Sep 08 2010
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
 FWIW, Metallica's Garage Inc (the second disc) has some sort of 
 anti-copy distortion.  You can actually see a pattern on the data side 
 of the disc.  The result when you encode it via MP3 is some slight 
 distortion, even at 160kb/s.  It's pretty bearable though.  I would 
 expect that a bit-for-bit copy would not have any issues though.  It's 
 not copy protection, it's ripping protection.
Given that Metallica uses heavily distorted guitars anyway, who would notice?
Sep 08 2010
next sibling parent reply retard <re tard.com.invalid> writes:
Wed, 08 Sep 2010 11:58:39 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:

 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
 FWIW, Metallica's Garage Inc (the second disc) has some sort of
 anti-copy distortion.  You can actually see a pattern on the data side
 of the disc.  The result when you encode it via MP3 is some slight
 distortion, even at 160kb/s.  It's pretty bearable though.  I would
 expect that a bit-for-bit copy would not have any issues though.  It's
 not copy protection, it's ripping protection.
Given that Metallica uses heavily distorted guitars anyway, who would notice?
That particular album consists of covers, but in general Metallica also has pretty calm ballads. Ever heard of 'Nothing else matters'? Even my grandmother used to love it.
Sep 08 2010
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"retard" <re tard.com.invalid> wrote in message 
news:i68qac$7l0$1 digitalmars.com...
 Wed, 08 Sep 2010 11:58:39 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:

 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
 FWIW, Metallica's Garage Inc (the second disc) has some sort of
 anti-copy distortion.  You can actually see a pattern on the data side
 of the disc.  The result when you encode it via MP3 is some slight
 distortion, even at 160kb/s.  It's pretty bearable though.  I would
 expect that a bit-for-bit copy would not have any issues though.  It's
 not copy protection, it's ripping protection.
Given that Metallica uses heavily distorted guitars anyway, who would notice?
That particular album consists of covers, but in general Metallica also has pretty calm ballads. Ever heard of 'Nothing else matters'? Even my grandmother used to love it.
Weird. 'Nothing else matters' is such a depressing-sounding song, I still can't imagine any grandmothers liking it. (But then who am I to talk? My granda's in her 80's, drives a Celica, and is the only person in my family to own an HDTV.)
Sep 08 2010
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 Weird. 'Nothing else matters' is such a depressing-sounding song, I still 
 can't imagine any grandmothers liking it. (But then who am I to talk? My 
 granda's in her 80's, drives a Celica, and is the only person in my family 
 to own an HDTV.)
I talked my dad into getting a 60" HDTV. He loves it, as his vision is poor and he can see it easily. Big TV sets are a godsend for the elderly.
Sep 09 2010
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Walter Bright" <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
news:i6a52a$19jv$1 digitalmars.com...
 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 Weird. 'Nothing else matters' is such a depressing-sounding song, I still 
 can't imagine any grandmothers liking it. (But then who am I to talk? My 
 granda's in her 80's, drives a Celica, and is the only person in my 
 family to own an HDTV.)
I talked my dad into getting a 60" HDTV. He loves it, as his vision is poor and he can see it easily. Big TV sets are a godsend for the elderly.
My grandma's HDTV is only about 13". Actually, the only reason she got it was because her old small bedroom TV finally died (And by "old" I mean it had two knobs: one for VHF, one for UHF - hardware wasn't always designed to be disposable like it is now) and the only new ones available were HD. Interesting thing to note is that this HD set with a rather expensive brand-new antenna and digital broadcast gets her *fewer* watchable channels than that ultra-old set did back before the analog cutoff. My dad's been even more worse off - since the switch he gets about one realistically watchable channel if he's lucky (used to get most of the local channels). And he's understandably pissed about it (partly because now he can't watch Letterman.) Neither of them live in rural areas. Broadcast DTV is shit. I honestly can't believe anyone was ever stupid enough to buy into the "DTV will give you more channels at better quality" bullshit. I mean seriously: you get interference on an analog signal and you get a little static overlaid - you get interference on digital signal and you get a dead fucking signal. Basic fucking electronic signaling. I saw through it from the start, but it's not like there was a damn thing I could have done about it - the overwhelming hordes of corporate lobbyists and consumer whores (Just visit "engadget") had spoken.
Sep 09 2010
parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 09/09/2010 03:40 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 Broadcast DTV is shit. I
 honestly can't believe anyone was ever stupid enough to buy into the "DTV
 will give you more channels at better quality" bullshit. I mean seriously:
 you get interference on an analog signal and you get a little static
 overlaid - you get interference on digital signal and you get a dead fucking
 signal. Basic fucking electronic signaling. I saw through it from the start,
 but it's not like there was a damn thing I could have done about it - the
 overwhelming hordes of corporate lobbyists and consumer whores (Just visit
 "engadget") had spoken.
Actually DTV has error correction capabilities that are simply impossible with analog signal. Clearly at a point you do end up simply losing the carrier (I'm not sure what the noise margins are for digital vs. analog) but clearly an ok-signal DTV broadcast is much better than an ok-signal analog broadcast. Andrei
Sep 09 2010
parent reply dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> writes:
== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org)'s article
 On 09/09/2010 03:40 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 Broadcast DTV is shit. I
 honestly can't believe anyone was ever stupid enough to buy into the "DTV
 will give you more channels at better quality" bullshit. I mean seriously:
 you get interference on an analog signal and you get a little static
 overlaid - you get interference on digital signal and you get a dead fucking
 signal. Basic fucking electronic signaling. I saw through it from the start,
 but it's not like there was a damn thing I could have done about it - the
 overwhelming hordes of corporate lobbyists and consumer whores (Just visit
 "engadget") had spoken.
Actually DTV has error correction capabilities that are simply impossible with analog signal. Clearly at a point you do end up simply losing the carrier (I'm not sure what the noise margins are for digital vs. analog) but clearly an ok-signal DTV broadcast is much better than an ok-signal analog broadcast. Andrei
Yea, but the problem with ATSC (the American DTV standard) is that it's ridiculously susceptible to multipath distortion. I live about a mile and change from the transmitter and have trouble watching stuff with only an indoor antenna.
Sep 09 2010
parent Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 9/9/10 12:19 CDT, dsimcha wrote:
 == Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org)'s article
 On 09/09/2010 03:40 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 Broadcast DTV is shit. I
 honestly can't believe anyone was ever stupid enough to buy into the "DTV
 will give you more channels at better quality" bullshit. I mean seriously:
 you get interference on an analog signal and you get a little static
 overlaid - you get interference on digital signal and you get a dead fucking
 signal. Basic fucking electronic signaling. I saw through it from the start,
 but it's not like there was a damn thing I could have done about it - the
 overwhelming hordes of corporate lobbyists and consumer whores (Just visit
 "engadget") had spoken.
Actually DTV has error correction capabilities that are simply impossible with analog signal. Clearly at a point you do end up simply losing the carrier (I'm not sure what the noise margins are for digital vs. analog) but clearly an ok-signal DTV broadcast is much better than an ok-signal analog broadcast. Andrei
Yea, but the problem with ATSC (the American DTV standard) is that it's ridiculously susceptible to multipath distortion. I live about a mile and change from the transmitter and have trouble watching stuff with only an indoor antenna.
USA latching onto an inferior TV standard and then fighting tooth and nail to improve equipment that puts up with it? I cry deja vu :o). Andrei
Sep 09 2010
prev sibling parent reply "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 14:58:39 -0400, Walter Bright  
<newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote:

 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
 FWIW, Metallica's Garage Inc (the second disc) has some sort of  
 anti-copy distortion.  You can actually see a pattern on the data side  
 of the disc.  The result when you encode it via MP3 is some slight  
 distortion, even at 160kb/s.  It's pretty bearable though.  I would  
 expect that a bit-for-bit copy would not have any issues though.  It's  
 not copy protection, it's ripping protection.
Given that Metallica uses heavily distorted guitars anyway, who would notice?
You notice in the cymbals the most :) And Ulrich uses a lot of cymbals. But you are right, the guitars aren't as noticeable (you can still hear it though). -Steve
Sep 08 2010
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
 On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 14:58:39 -0400, Walter Bright 
 <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote:
 
 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
 FWIW, Metallica's Garage Inc (the second disc) has some sort of 
 anti-copy distortion.  You can actually see a pattern on the data 
 side of the disc.  The result when you encode it via MP3 is some 
 slight distortion, even at 160kb/s.  It's pretty bearable though.  I 
 would expect that a bit-for-bit copy would not have any issues 
 though.  It's not copy protection, it's ripping protection.
Given that Metallica uses heavily distorted guitars anyway, who would notice?
You notice in the cymbals the most :) And Ulrich uses a lot of cymbals. But you are right, the guitars aren't as noticeable (you can still hear it though).
Back in the 80's, it wasn't unusual for a compiler vendor to release a "student" version or some such, that was missing a feature like floating point. The problem, though, was that the compiler would earn a reputation as not having floating point and people would turn elsewhere when they would want to buy a professional compiler. In introducing such subtle distortion, Metallica runs the risk of being labeled a band with lousy sound.
Sep 08 2010
next sibling parent reply retard <re tard.com.invalid> writes:
Wed, 08 Sep 2010 19:12:37 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:

 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
 On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 14:58:39 -0400, Walter Bright
 <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote:
 
 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
 FWIW, Metallica's Garage Inc (the second disc) has some sort of
 anti-copy distortion.  You can actually see a pattern on the data
 side of the disc.  The result when you encode it via MP3 is some
 slight distortion, even at 160kb/s.  It's pretty bearable though.  I
 would expect that a bit-for-bit copy would not have any issues
 though.  It's not copy protection, it's ripping protection.
Given that Metallica uses heavily distorted guitars anyway, who would notice?
You notice in the cymbals the most :) And Ulrich uses a lot of cymbals. But you are right, the guitars aren't as noticeable (you can still hear it though).
Back in the 80's, it wasn't unusual for a compiler vendor to release a "student" version or some such, that was missing a feature like floating point. The problem, though, was that the compiler would earn a reputation as not having floating point and people would turn elsewhere when they would want to buy a professional compiler. In introducing such subtle distortion, Metallica runs the risk of being labeled a band with lousy sound.
I doubt they have any power to fight the record company in these kinds of issues. A friend of a friend signed a deal with a record company owned by a multinational mother record company. Now they are told where to play concerts, how the cd distribution is organized, and when they are supposed to release the next two albums. That's like slavery. Another thing is, I doubt the degraded audio quality matters as much as the pesky DRM protection scheme. I once had few of these sony key2audio (iirc) discs. They refused to play on windows so I just made an illegal copy for backup purposes and used that instead. There are far worse things than CD DRM systems decreasing the audio quality, e.g. the loudness war, the audio artefacts in mp3 distributions, and terrible (it's subjective) effects like autotune in modern pop music..
Sep 08 2010
next sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
retard wrote:
 I doubt they have any power to fight the record company in these kinds of 
 issues. A friend of a friend signed a deal with a record company owned by 
 a multinational mother record company. Now they are told where to play 
 concerts, how the cd distribution is organized, and when they are 
 supposed to release the next two albums. That's like slavery.
To put it mildly, to say such a thing is like slavery is patently absurd. Contract or no, a record company cannot make you do anything, regardless of what you signed. (Sign a contract with the military, however, and they *can* make you.) Secondly, people ought to read contracts before they sign them. It's their own fault if they don't. Contracts with children aren't legally binding because children are not considered legally competent. Adults are. Third, record company contracts are well known and you can google them. There's no reason anyone should be surprised.
 Another thing is, I doubt the degraded audio quality matters as much as 
 the pesky DRM protection scheme. I once had few of these sony key2audio 
 (iirc) discs. They refused to play on windows so I just made an illegal 
 copy for backup purposes and used that instead. There are far worse 
 things than CD DRM systems decreasing the audio quality, e.g. the 
 loudness war, the audio artefacts in mp3 distributions, and terrible 
 (it's subjective) effects like autotune in modern pop music..
I always get the old versions of CDs before they were remastered :-) as I don't care for the audio leveling.
Sep 08 2010
next sibling parent Eric Poggel <dnewsgroup2 yage3d.net> writes:
On 9/8/2010 11:15 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
 Contracts with children aren't legally binding because children are not
 considered legally competent.
I may have to find some new minions.
Sep 08 2010
prev sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Walter Bright" <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
news:i69jg8$2muo$1 digitalmars.com...
 retard wrote:
 I doubt they have any power to fight the record company in these kinds of 
 issues. A friend of a friend signed a deal with a record company owned by 
 a multinational mother record company. Now they are told where to play 
 concerts, how the cd distribution is organized, and when they are 
 supposed to release the next two albums. That's like slavery.
To put it mildly, to say such a thing is like slavery is patently absurd. Contract or no, a record company cannot make you do anything, regardless of what you signed. (Sign a contract with the military, however, and they *can* make you.) Secondly, people ought to read contracts before they sign them. It's their own fault if they don't.
Until recent years, if you wanted to be a successful musician (aside from scoring, and there's really only so much demand for that) you *had* to sign one of those constracts. There was no choice - they had an oligopoly on the entire market, and if you wanted in they had you by the balls.
 Contracts with children aren't legally binding because children are not 
 considered legally competent. Adults are.
I've seen very few adults I'd consider "competent", but oh well ;)
 I always get the old versions of CDs before they were remastered :-) as I 
 don't care for the audio leveling.
I've always been unclear on what that is. Is that where they make the volume-level relatively consistent? (If so, then I wish the DVD companies would start doing it. I hate when I have to turn the volume *waaay* up just to hear the dialog and then *waaay* down again to not bust my eardrums as soon as music or sound effects come on. And then tough shit whenever a character talks during an action scene. Never had to deal with that crap on VHS.)
Sep 08 2010
next sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "Walter Bright" <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
 Secondly, people ought to read contracts before they sign them. It's their 
 own fault if they don't.
Until recent years, if you wanted to be a successful musician (aside from scoring, and there's really only so much demand for that) you *had* to sign one of those constracts. There was no choice - they had an oligopoly on the entire market, and if you wanted in they had you by the balls.
Of course there was a choice. You could go with a major and get a tiny cut, or an independent with a larger cut, or do it yourself and keep 100%.
 Contracts with children aren't legally binding because children are not 
 considered legally competent. Adults are.
I've seen very few adults I'd consider "competent", but oh well ;)
A marketplace is impossible without the ability to make binding contracts. Nobody is going to invest in you or lend you money if you can just walk away from it later if you change your mind.
 I always get the old versions of CDs before they were remastered :-) as I 
 don't care for the audio leveling.
I've always been unclear on what that is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_range_compression#Marketing And here's why I shoot for the old ones: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cd_loudness_trend-something.gif
Sep 08 2010
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Walter Bright" <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
news:i69vov$o6e$1 digitalmars.com...
 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "Walter Bright" <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote in message
 Secondly, people ought to read contracts before they sign them. It's 
 their own fault if they don't.
Until recent years, if you wanted to be a successful musician (aside from scoring, and there's really only so much demand for that) you *had* to sign one of those constracts. There was no choice - they had an oligopoly on the entire market, and if you wanted in they had you by the balls.
Of course there was a choice. You could go with a major and get a tiny cut, or an independent with a larger cut, or do it yourself and keep 100%.
100% of nothing is still nothing. Only the labels had all the means of largescale marketing and distribution. These days there's internet.
 Contracts with children aren't legally binding because children are not 
 considered legally competent. Adults are.
I've seen very few adults I'd consider "competent", but oh well ;)
A marketplace is impossible without the ability to make binding contracts. Nobody is going to invest in you or lend you money if you can just walk away from it later if you change your mind.
I wasn't arguing against contracts, I was diving further off-topic by using "competent" as a springboard for bitching about...well, general lack of competence among most people.
 I always get the old versions of CDs before they were remastered :-) as 
 I don't care for the audio leveling.
I've always been unclear on what that is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_range_compression#Marketing And here's why I shoot for the old ones: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cd_loudness_trend-something.gif
Ahh, yea, that's what I thought. Maybe it's gone too far with CDs, I dunno. Never noticed a difference between original and remastered myself (but I've never gone and compared them side-by-side). I do think DVD Video creators have gone waaay to far the other way though, because of the "Volume-fiddling-test" reason I mentioned before: If I set the volume to a comfortable level, and the damn volume keeps changing anyway, enough that I have to re-adjust over and over back to where I had it, then there's too fucking much dynamic range. I once recorded an Elvis Vinyl my dad had to put on a CD for him. There was one song (forget what it was) that had a spot in the middle that was SO quiet in relation to the rest (and you could tell it wasn't just from it being an old album) that it was completely imperceptible without boosting the volume all the away up. But being as quiet as it was, there was SO little actual data there that the quality turned to shit when it was loud enough to hear. Avoiding low dynamic range seems to be all the rage these days (among consumers), but people never seem to learn "more is not always better".
Sep 09 2010
parent retard <re tard.com.invalid> writes:
Thu, 09 Sep 2010 05:10:00 -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 "Walter Bright" <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote in message
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_range_compression#Marketing

 And here's why I shoot for the old ones:

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cd_loudness_trend-something.gif
Ahh, yea, that's what I thought. Maybe it's gone too far with CDs, I dunno. Never noticed a difference between original and remastered myself (but I've never gone and compared them side-by-side). I do think DVD Video creators have gone waaay to far the other way though, because of the "Volume-fiddling-test" reason I mentioned before: If I set the volume to a comfortable level, and the damn volume keeps changing anyway, enough that I have to re-adjust over and over back to where I had it, then there's too fucking much dynamic range. I once recorded an Elvis Vinyl my dad had to put on a CD for him. There was one song (forget what it was) that had a spot in the middle that was SO quiet in relation to the rest (and you could tell it wasn't just from it being an old album) that it was completely imperceptible without boosting the volume all the away up. But being as quiet as it was, there was SO little actual data there that the quality turned to shit when it was loud enough to hear. Avoiding low dynamic range seems to be all the rage these days (among consumers), but people never seem to learn "more is not always better".
Vinyls have a bad dynamic range. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ RIAA_equalization ) Most consumers have absolutely no idea what the dynamic range is. They're actually happier when the range gets smaller and smaller because the louder somehow sounds better. And like you say, they don't need to touch the volume knob anymore. You can try it yourself, use some basic audio library like OpenAL and play sounds 1% .. 100% volume. You need a decent hi-fi system for this (preferably an amp with 1000+W per channel power). Even the 16-bit 44 kHz LPCM is enough for most people. DVD soundtracks have a 24-bit dynamic range. Modern compressed CDs only cover a ridiculously small part of the range.
Sep 09 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent retard <re tard.com.invalid> writes:
Thu, 09 Sep 2010 01:25:51 -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 "Walter Bright" <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote in message
 news:i69jg8$2muo$1 digitalmars.com...
 I always get the old versions of CDs before they were remastered :-) as
 I don't care for the audio leveling.
I've always been unclear on what that is. Is that where they make the volume-level relatively consistent? (If so, then I wish the DVD companies would start doing it. I hate when I have to turn the volume *waaay* up just to hear the dialog and then *waaay* down again to not bust my eardrums as soon as music or sound effects come on. And then tough shit whenever a character talks during an action scene. Never had to deal with that crap on VHS.)
Movies tend to have a large dynamic range. And that's good. I paid serious money to get almost flat freq response from 18 Hz to 25 kHz and power handling levels up to 750W RMS. Your amp might have a "evening/night mode" that automatically compresses the dynamic range by say 16 or 24 dB. The atmosphere feels dull and unsurprising if your dynamic range is very limited (but your crappy audio equipment might like it). The loudness war ruins all modern albums. They've decided that each year the same music should contain less and less information. This is really bad for true art. But it increases the record sales of disappointing pop albums.
Sep 09 2010
prev sibling parent reply BCS <none anon.com> writes:
Hello Nick,

 "Walter Bright" <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote in message
 news:i69jg8$2muo$1 digitalmars.com...
 
 retard wrote:
 
 I doubt they have any power to fight the record company in these
 kinds of issues. A friend of a friend signed a deal with a record
 company owned by a multinational mother record company. Now they are
 told where to play concerts, how the cd distribution is organized,
 and when they are supposed to release the next two albums. That's
 like slavery.
 
To put it mildly, to say such a thing is like slavery is patently absurd. Contract or no, a record company cannot make you do anything, regardless of what you signed. (Sign a contract with the military, however, and they *can* make you.) Secondly, people ought to read contracts before they sign them. It's their own fault if they don't.
Until recent years, if you wanted to be a successful musician (aside from scoring, and there's really only so much demand for that) you *had* to sign one of those constracts. There was no choice - they had an oligopoly on the entire market, and if you wanted in they had you by the balls.
 Contracts with children aren't legally binding because children are
 not considered legally competent. Adults are.
 
I've seen very few adults I'd consider "competent", but oh well ;)
 I always get the old versions of CDs before they were remastered :-)
 as I don't care for the audio leveling.
 
I've always been unclear on what that is. Is that where they make the volume-level relatively consistent? (If so, then I wish the DVD companies would start doing it. I hate when I have to turn the volume *waaay* up just to hear the dialog and then *waaay* down again to not bust my eardrums as soon as music or sound effects come on. And then tough shit whenever a character talks during an action scene. Never had to deal with that crap on VHS.)
Subtitles, man. Subtitles. Heck, even at the right volume, I still can't understand what they are saying(/mumbleing) some of the time. (And my hearing is just fine.) -- ... <IXOYE><
Sep 09 2010
next sibling parent Daniel Gibson <metalcaedes gmail.com> writes:
BCS schrieb:
 Hello Nick,
 
 "Walter Bright" <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote in message
 news:i69jg8$2muo$1 digitalmars.com...

 retard wrote:

 I doubt they have any power to fight the record company in these
 kinds of issues. A friend of a friend signed a deal with a record
 company owned by a multinational mother record company. Now they are
 told where to play concerts, how the cd distribution is organized,
 and when they are supposed to release the next two albums. That's
 like slavery.
To put it mildly, to say such a thing is like slavery is patently absurd. Contract or no, a record company cannot make you do anything, regardless of what you signed. (Sign a contract with the military, however, and they *can* make you.) Secondly, people ought to read contracts before they sign them. It's their own fault if they don't.
Until recent years, if you wanted to be a successful musician (aside from scoring, and there's really only so much demand for that) you *had* to sign one of those constracts. There was no choice - they had an oligopoly on the entire market, and if you wanted in they had you by the balls.
 Contracts with children aren't legally binding because children are
 not considered legally competent. Adults are.
I've seen very few adults I'd consider "competent", but oh well ;)
 I always get the old versions of CDs before they were remastered :-)
 as I don't care for the audio leveling.
I've always been unclear on what that is. Is that where they make the volume-level relatively consistent? (If so, then I wish the DVD companies would start doing it. I hate when I have to turn the volume *waaay* up just to hear the dialog and then *waaay* down again to not bust my eardrums as soon as music or sound effects come on. And then tough shit whenever a character talks during an action scene. Never had to deal with that crap on VHS.)
Subtitles, man. Subtitles. Heck, even at the right volume, I still can't understand what they are saying(/mumbleing) some of the time. (And my hearing is just fine.)
I've got the same problems with many american movies/series. Synchronizations usually fix that, but translations often suck.. And I thought this was just a bad combination of "not native speaker" (so I have more trouble understanding spoken english) and "too many Motrhead concerts" =) Anyway: Subtitles are definitely helpful.
Sep 09 2010
prev sibling parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"BCS" <none anon.com> wrote in message 
news:a6268ff1bcc78cd1e04645018c2 news.digitalmars.com...
 Hello Nick,

 I've always been unclear on what that is. Is that where they make the
 volume-level relatively consistent? (If so, then I wish the DVD
 companies would start doing it. I hate when I have to turn the volume
 *waaay* up just to hear the dialog and then *waaay* down again to not
 bust my eardrums as soon as music or sound effects come on. And then
 tough shit whenever a character talks during an action scene. Never
 had to deal with that crap on VHS.)
Subtitles, man. Subtitles. Heck, even at the right volume, I still can't understand what they are saying(/mumbleing) some of the time. (And my hearing is just fine.)
Heh, yea I've actually ended up doing that suprisingly often (but then sometimes discs with english audio will lack english subtitles which is annoying). It's pretty sad when a native english speaker with perfectly normal hearing has to turn on subtitles just to know what they're saying in an english audio track.
Sep 09 2010
prev sibling parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"retard" <re tard.com.invalid> wrote in message 
news:i69i7v$2ben$2 digitalmars.com...
 Wed, 08 Sep 2010 19:12:37 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:
 In introducing such subtle distortion, Metallica runs the risk of being
 labeled a band with lousy sound.
I doubt they have any power to fight the record company in these kinds of issues.
From my understanding, Metallica would have been more likely to urge the labels into using DRM.
Sep 08 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Walter Bright" <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
news:i69fr8$2cbt$1 digitalmars.com...
 In introducing such subtle distortion, Metallica runs the risk of being 
 labeled a band with lousy sound.
IIRC, A lot of Metallica fans felt they had started putting out "lousy sound" back around the "Load" and "Reload" albums. And that was before CD DRM.
Sep 08 2010
parent reply "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Thu, 09 Sep 2010 01:05:45 -0400, Nick Sabalausky <a a.a> wrote:

 "Walter Bright" <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote in message
 news:i69fr8$2cbt$1 digitalmars.com...
 In introducing such subtle distortion, Metallica runs the risk of being
 labeled a band with lousy sound.
IIRC, A lot of Metallica fans felt they had started putting out "lousy sound" back around the "Load" and "Reload" albums. And that was before CD DRM.
Load was the beginning of the downhill slide. There are a couple alright songs, but all albums before that were filled with good songs. Reload was utter crap (Unforgiven 2? Really!???). St. Anger I never really liked, although I've heard that some people like it. It's not my style, but you can't really say it was Metallica "selling out". Death Magnetic is a complete return to their original style. I feel some of the solos are rehashed, but there is a lot of good stuff on there. -Steve
Sep 09 2010
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:op.viri2yp3eav7ka localhost.localdomain...
 On Thu, 09 Sep 2010 01:05:45 -0400, Nick Sabalausky <a a.a> wrote:

 "Walter Bright" <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote in message
 news:i69fr8$2cbt$1 digitalmars.com...
 In introducing such subtle distortion, Metallica runs the risk of being
 labeled a band with lousy sound.
IIRC, A lot of Metallica fans felt they had started putting out "lousy sound" back around the "Load" and "Reload" albums. And that was before CD DRM.
Load was the beginning of the downhill slide. There are a couple alright songs, but all albums before that were filled with good songs. Reload was utter crap (Unforgiven 2? Really!???). St. Anger I never really liked, although I've heard that some people like it.
I was avoiding stating my own Metallica opinions, but now that you mention it, that's exactly how I feel (and yea, I have heard a lot of other people say Load was the start of a downfall). I did kind of like "Until it Sleeps" and maybe one other (forget what), but yea, most of Load/Reload I just never got into. "Black album" was filed with good stuff, and I never understood people that said "St. Anger" was a return to Metallica's former glory. Just sounded like noise to me, and I'm a big metal fan! Speaking of all this, am I correct in my understanding that Load was right after Megadeth split off? (And that "black album" was right before?)
Sep 09 2010
next sibling parent Daniel Gibson <metalcaedes gmail.com> writes:
Nick Sabalausky schrieb:

 Speaking of all this, am I correct in my understanding that Load was right 
 after Megadeth split off? (And that "black album" was right before?)
 
No, Megadeth was found in 1983 - Mustaine was kicked out of Metallica before they recorded their first album. (Don't like Metallica though.. neither the pop stuff of the Black Album nor the older slightly better stuff like Master of Puppets.. I guess I just don't like Hetfields singing voice)
Sep 09 2010
prev sibling parent reply "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Thu, 09 Sep 2010 16:05:34 -0400, Nick Sabalausky <a a.a> wrote:

 "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message
 news:op.viri2yp3eav7ka localhost.localdomain...
 On Thu, 09 Sep 2010 01:05:45 -0400, Nick Sabalausky <a a.a> wrote:

 "Walter Bright" <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote in message
 news:i69fr8$2cbt$1 digitalmars.com...
 In introducing such subtle distortion, Metallica runs the risk of  
 being
 labeled a band with lousy sound.
IIRC, A lot of Metallica fans felt they had started putting out "lousy sound" back around the "Load" and "Reload" albums. And that was before CD DRM.
Load was the beginning of the downhill slide. There are a couple alright songs, but all albums before that were filled with good songs. Reload was utter crap (Unforgiven 2? Really!???). St. Anger I never really liked, although I've heard that some people like it.
I was avoiding stating my own Metallica opinions, but now that you mention it, that's exactly how I feel (and yea, I have heard a lot of other people say Load was the start of a downfall). I did kind of like "Until it Sleeps" and maybe one other (forget what), but yea, most of Load/Reload I just never got into. "Black album" was filed with good stuff, and I never understood people that said "St. Anger" was a return to Metallica's former glory. Just sounded like noise to me, and I'm a big metal fan! Speaking of all this, am I correct in my understanding that Load was right after Megadeth split off? (And that "black album" was right before?)
As Daniel wrote, Mustane left before Kill 'em All (their first album), but his name is listed as the one of the authors for many of those songs. If you are looking for "what was the trigger that started making Metallica suck", it was that James Hetfield kind of let some of the other band members take the creative wheel. Before that, Hetfield was basically the main writer, and was in charge of what made it into songs. The alright songs from Load: Bleeding me, 2x4, King nothing, Hero of the day. At least IMO :) I didn't really like Until it Sleeps. But, they are still my favorite band of all time. -Steve
Sep 09 2010
parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:op.vir8rzjeeav7ka localhost.localdomain...
 As Daniel wrote, Mustane left before Kill 'em All (their first album), but 
 his name is listed as the one of the authors for many of those songs.

 If you are looking for "what was the trigger that started making Metallica 
 suck", it was that James Hetfield kind of let some of the other band 
 members take the creative wheel.  Before that, Hetfield was basically the 
 main writer, and was in charge of what made it into songs.
Ahh, I had it completely wrong then :)
 The alright songs from Load: Bleeding me, 2x4, King nothing, Hero of the 
 day.

 At least IMO :)  I didn't really like Until it Sleeps.

 But, they are still my favorite band of all time.
There has been a fair amount of Metallica I've liked, but ever since the PR-fiasco back around the time of Napster I haven't been able to bring myself to listen to them anymore. *Not* out of deliberate spite or difference-of-opinion, but I just have trouble seeing them the same way anymore. I dunno... But like I said in another branch, I'm more a Megadeth kinda guy anyway. Mainly the albums "Countdown to Extinction" and (other Megadeth fans are probably gonna lynch me for saying this) "Cryptic Writings". Although they're still not one of my favorite bands. Those would be more like Iron Maiden (mainly the newer stuff, but also Powerslave and Seventh Son), earlier Nine Inch Nails (With Teeth and Year Zero weren't bad, but they were the beginning of a downfall), KMFDM (both old- and new-style), and My Life With The Thrill Kill Kult. (And yea, a lot of that's not really metal.)
Sep 09 2010
prev sibling parent reply "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 22:12:37 -0400, Walter Bright  
<newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote:

 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
 On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 14:58:39 -0400, Walter Bright  
 <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote:

 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
 FWIW, Metallica's Garage Inc (the second disc) has some sort of  
 anti-copy distortion.  You can actually see a pattern on the data  
 side of the disc.  The result when you encode it via MP3 is some  
 slight distortion, even at 160kb/s.  It's pretty bearable though.  I  
 would expect that a bit-for-bit copy would not have any issues  
 though.  It's not copy protection, it's ripping protection.
Given that Metallica uses heavily distorted guitars anyway, who would notice?
You notice in the cymbals the most :) And Ulrich uses a lot of cymbals. But you are right, the guitars aren't as noticeable (you can still hear it though).
Back in the 80's, it wasn't unusual for a compiler vendor to release a "student" version or some such, that was missing a feature like floating point. The problem, though, was that the compiler would earn a reputation as not having floating point and people would turn elsewhere when they would want to buy a professional compiler. In introducing such subtle distortion, Metallica runs the risk of being labeled a band with lousy sound.
Note that the sound is fine if you are playing the CD, it's if you rip the tracks to MP3s when the sound degrades. BTW, I think they abandoned this, the Death Magnetic album does not have this protection. -Steve
Sep 09 2010
parent reply Daniel Gibson <metalcaedes gmail.com> writes:
Steven Schveighoffer schrieb:
 On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 22:12:37 -0400, Walter Bright 
 <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote:
 
 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
 On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 14:58:39 -0400, Walter Bright 
 <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote:

 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
 FWIW, Metallica's Garage Inc (the second disc) has some sort of 
 anti-copy distortion.  You can actually see a pattern on the data 
 side of the disc.  The result when you encode it via MP3 is some 
 slight distortion, even at 160kb/s.  It's pretty bearable though.  
 I would expect that a bit-for-bit copy would not have any issues 
 though.  It's not copy protection, it's ripping protection.
Given that Metallica uses heavily distorted guitars anyway, who would notice?
You notice in the cymbals the most :) And Ulrich uses a lot of cymbals. But you are right, the guitars aren't as noticeable (you can still hear it though).
Back in the 80's, it wasn't unusual for a compiler vendor to release a "student" version or some such, that was missing a feature like floating point. The problem, though, was that the compiler would earn a reputation as not having floating point and people would turn elsewhere when they would want to buy a professional compiler. In introducing such subtle distortion, Metallica runs the risk of being labeled a band with lousy sound.
Note that the sound is fine if you are playing the CD, it's if you rip the tracks to MP3s when the sound degrades. BTW, I think they abandoned this, the Death Magnetic album does not have this protection. -Steve
The Death Magnetic album had crappy sound anyway, according to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_Magnetic#Criticism_regarding_production (But not because of the copy protection but because of the aforementioned loudness war).
Sep 09 2010
parent "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Thu, 09 Sep 2010 07:28:12 -0400, Daniel Gibson <metalcaedes gmail.com>  
wrote:

 Steven Schveighoffer schrieb:
 On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 22:12:37 -0400, Walter Bright  
 <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote:

 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
 On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 14:58:39 -0400, Walter Bright  
 <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote:

 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
 FWIW, Metallica's Garage Inc (the second disc) has some sort of  
 anti-copy distortion.  You can actually see a pattern on the data  
 side of the disc.  The result when you encode it via MP3 is some  
 slight distortion, even at 160kb/s.  It's pretty bearable though.   
 I would expect that a bit-for-bit copy would not have any issues  
 though.  It's not copy protection, it's ripping protection.
Given that Metallica uses heavily distorted guitars anyway, who would notice?
You notice in the cymbals the most :) And Ulrich uses a lot of cymbals. But you are right, the guitars aren't as noticeable (you can still hear it though).
Back in the 80's, it wasn't unusual for a compiler vendor to release a "student" version or some such, that was missing a feature like floating point. The problem, though, was that the compiler would earn a reputation as not having floating point and people would turn elsewhere when they would want to buy a professional compiler. In introducing such subtle distortion, Metallica runs the risk of being labeled a band with lousy sound.
Note that the sound is fine if you are playing the CD, it's if you rip the tracks to MP3s when the sound degrades. BTW, I think they abandoned this, the Death Magnetic album does not have this protection. -Steve
The Death Magnetic album had crappy sound anyway, according to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_Magnetic#Criticism_regarding_production (But not because of the copy protection but because of the aforementioned loudness war).
*shrug* sounds good to me ;) The production quality is low, but I'm pretty sure that was on purpose. I've never heard of the dynamic range thing, and I've never really noticed it. On another note, ...And Justice for All is an album that you can turn up all the way and it's never loud enough :) Crappy sound that I'm talking about is like a "wishuwishuwishu" sound over the whole recording. I can only hear it on my ripped tracks of Garage Inc (and only the second disc, the one they recorded for the album specifically), the actual disc doesn't exhibit the sound. I think they did something to the high frequencies that messes up mp3 encoders. -Steve
Sep 09 2010
prev sibling parent reply retard <re tard.com.invalid> writes:
Tue, 07 Sep 2010 05:45:55 +0000, BCS wrote:

 Hello Nick,
 
 "BCS" <none anon.com> wrote in message
 news:a6268ff1b9958cd1bfa012970d8 news.digitalmars.com...
 
 Hello Nick,
 
 Ugh, don't even get me started on MicroSD. Ordinary SD is already too
 small if you ask me, although I still put up with it anyway. Now
 MicroSD, well I can't say anything about it without raising my blood
 pressure...
 
My point was that space (volume) is not what limits how much space (GB) a phone has.
And my link dispelled that myth. Try putting 200GB+ into a MicroSD form factor at the cost of a 2.5" HDD. Yea, eventually that'll happen, but by then I could get a HDD many times bigger than that for the same price.
I wouldn't. I'd put it in a package about 4-5 times as big and mount it on the PC board. Besides, what the heck do you need more than about 32GB for on a phone? If you need to shoot that much video, get a real camera!
I have 32 GB micro-sdhc cards (class 2 or 4) on my phone and 64 GB compactflash (don't know the class, but approximately 90 MB/s) on my camera (Canon 7D). Both could have more space. The camera doesn't compress video very well despite quite high price so the maximum video length is only few minutes.
 
 Besides:
 http://www.microcenter.com/search/search_results.phtml?N=4294966955+
 42 94953566&sht=Any&prt=NewProduct&
 
If I wanted more sortage than I can put on flash cards, I'd breing a lap-top. OTOH: this is the class of phone I use: http://www.motorola.com/Consumers/US-EN/Consumer-Product-and-Services /Mobile-Phones/Motorola-Stature-i9-US-EN
You're not everyone. Some people would rather have HDD-level storage capacity.
1) I don't want an HDD in my phone. Moving parts? Ouch! 2) That will always be cheaper as an external HDD. Some people will want to use their phone as a weapon, should that also be a design criteria?
I'd like to have 128..512 GB of storage in the phone. Why? My media library (hundreds of CDs & DVDs transcoded -> mp3/ogg or xvid). I think this is even possible with two 64 GB sdxc cards. Podcasts. TV series. Games. Photos converted to JPG 1080p resolution for powerpoint & other purposes.
 
 In this day and age, you would be hard pressed to suggest a smart
 phone/PDA needs more than a 1 maybe 2 USB ports. You might, just
 maybe, talk me into believing that an HDMI port could be handy. But
 that would really push it.
 
Ugh, I hate HDMI, but that's a whole other discussion ;)
I just picked the smallest video connector I could think of.
The mini-HDMI is pretty decent. There are no better alternatives that I know of at the moment. 1080p video + multichannel audio, quite small. My phone & cam both also have micro-usb 2.0 connectors. Pretty good. Waiting for usb 3.0.
Sep 07 2010
next sibling parent reply domino <effect sitemine.org> writes:
the retarded superretard script kid Wrote:

 Tue, 07 Sep 2010 05:45:55 +0000, BCS wrote:
 
 Hello Nick,
 
 "BCS" <none anon.com> wrote in message
 news:a6268ff1b9958cd1bfa012970d8 news.digitalmars.com...
 
 Hello Nick,
 
 Ugh, don't even get me started on MicroSD. Ordinary SD is already too
 small if you ask me, although I still put up with it anyway. Now
 MicroSD, well I can't say anything about it without raising my blood
 pressure...
 
My point was that space (volume) is not what limits how much space (GB) a phone has.
And my link dispelled that myth. Try putting 200GB+ into a MicroSD form factor at the cost of a 2.5" HDD. Yea, eventually that'll happen, but by then I could get a HDD many times bigger than that for the same price.
I wouldn't. I'd put it in a package about 4-5 times as big and mount it on the PC board. Besides, what the heck do you need more than about 32GB for on a phone? If you need to shoot that much video, get a real camera!
I have 32 GB micro-sdhc cards (class 2 or 4) on my phone and 64 GB compactflash (don't know the class, but approximately 90 MB/s) on my camera (Canon 7D). Both could have more space. The camera doesn't compress video very well despite quite high price so the maximum video length is only few minutes.
I doubt that. The only camera you have is in your phone. VGA 640x480 quality
 
 
 Besides:
 http://www.microcenter.com/search/search_results.phtml?N=4294966955+
 42 94953566&sht=Any&prt=NewProduct&
 
If I wanted more sortage than I can put on flash cards, I'd breing a lap-top. OTOH: this is the class of phone I use: http://www.motorola.com/Consumers/US-EN/Consumer-Product-and-Services /Mobile-Phones/Motorola-Stature-i9-US-EN
You're not everyone. Some people would rather have HDD-level storage capacity.
1) I don't want an HDD in my phone. Moving parts? Ouch! 2) That will always be cheaper as an external HDD. Some people will want to use their phone as a weapon, should that also be a design criteria?
I'd like to have 128..512 GB of storage in the phone. Why? My media library (hundreds of CDs & DVDs transcoded -> mp3/ogg or xvid). I think this is even possible with two 64 GB sdxc cards. Podcasts. TV series. Games. Photos converted to JPG 1080p resolution for powerpoint & other purposes.
Yep yep.. piratebay kid. Your first year CS 101 teacher doesn't expect any powerpoints from a people of your quality.
 
 
 In this day and age, you would be hard pressed to suggest a smart
 phone/PDA needs more than a 1 maybe 2 USB ports. You might, just
 maybe, talk me into believing that an HDMI port could be handy. But
 that would really push it.
 
Ugh, I hate HDMI, but that's a whole other discussion ;)
I just picked the smallest video connector I could think of.
The mini-HDMI is pretty decent. There are no better alternatives that I know of at the moment. 1080p video + multichannel audio, quite small.
Firewire. Nuff said
 
 My phone & cam both also have micro-usb 2.0 connectors. Pretty good. 
 Waiting for usb 3.0.
Your _phone_ has usb 1.0 and a proprietary connector.
Sep 07 2010
parent BCS <none anon.com> writes:

Sep 07 2010
prev sibling parent BCS <none anon.com> writes:
Hello retard,

 Tue, 07 Sep 2010 05:45:55 +0000, BCS wrote:
 
 I wouldn't. I'd put it in a package about 4-5 times as big and mount
 it on the PC board. Besides, what the heck do you need more than
 about 32GB for on a phone? If you need to shoot that much video, get
 a real camera!
 
I have 32 GB micro-sdhc cards (class 2 or 4) on my phone and 64 GB compactflash (don't know the class, but approximately 90 MB/s) on my camera (Canon 7D). Both could have more space. The camera doesn't compress video very well despite quite high price so the maximum video length is only few minutes.
Real cameras are another matter. A good lens alone is bigger than a 2.5" HDD.
 You're not everyone. Some people would rather have HDD-level storage
 capacity.
 
1) I don't want an HDD in my phone. Moving parts? Ouch! 2) That will always be cheaper as an external HDD. Some people will want to use their phone as a weapon, should that also be a design criteria?
I'd like to have 128..512 GB of storage in the phone. Why? My media library (hundreds of CDs & DVDs transcoded -> mp3/ogg or xvid). I think this is even possible with two 64 GB sdxc cards. Podcasts. TV series. Games. Photos converted to JPG 1080p resolution for powerpoint & other purposes.
Once you scratch into the I-might-want-it space, you can blow right past any reasonable amount of storage for a package you will like putting in your pocket. -- ... <IXOYE><
Sep 07 2010
prev sibling parent Bruno Medeiros <brunodomedeiros+spam com.gmail> writes:
On 04/09/2010 08:29, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "Steven Schveighoffer"<schveiguy yahoo.com>  wrote in message
 news:op.vig8crpreav7ka localhost.localdomain...
  And OMG, you've never bought a cell phone?  Why are you punishing yourself
  ;)  I suppose with the attitude you have towards them it would just raise
  your blood pressure carrying it around...
It would :) But I have other reasons for not having one. One of them is that I just don't do anywhere near enough yapping (outside of NG text, of course ;) ) for it to be worthwhile. Cell companies don't even have a plan that would be small enough to be appropriate for me. But the landlines do, and with the tiny amount of talking I do, waiting until I get home to use the phone is a complete non-issue (especially since I'd be the only cell owner in the world to that would refuse to use it while driving). And I don't even *want* to be reachable 24/7. Unlimited minutes? Forget it. Back when pay phones still existed, my away-from-home phone usage never totaled more than $5/yr. Try finding a cell plan that competes with that.
Are there no pay-as-you-go plans where you live? In Portugal (and the UK as well) there are pay-as-you-go plans with no required top-ups, thus they would cost you 0/yr if you made no calls. (you just had to receive a call every 3 months to ensure you SIM remained active, but still no cost) There must be something like that in the US. -- Bruno Medeiros - Software Engineer
Oct 13 2010
prev sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 But I have spent a fair amount of time with other Apple products. I even 
 used OSX as my primary system for about a year or two. And (aside from the 
 Apple II, which obviously doesn't quite count) there has never been a piece 
 of Apple software I've used more than a little for which I haven't found 
 large amounts of things that would be ideal as setting or even obvious as 
 settings but were sorely lacking. Same goes for features (such as the 
 iPod/iTunes's inexcusable lack of Vorbis support, and for a *long* time 
 iTunes couldn't read CD audio if track 1 was data (which was not entirely 
 uncommon) but everything else could). So judging by the very sparse options 
 on the iPad, I have fairly strong reason to believe it would be the same.
Yeah, I'm mystified by some of this stuff, too. Like why WMP will not recognize CDTEXT info. (I sent them a bug report on it 5 years ago at least.) Like how FLAC format does not allow for track info - you have to have a separate "cue" file for that. Yee gawds. The image convert program on Linux to convert between audio formats loses the tag information in the process.
Sep 03 2010
parent reply Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> writes:
I'm pretty sure that's only for albums which are stored as a single
flac file. They usually come with a .cue file which stores track
lengths so you can split up the huge flac file into each track as a
flac. Then you can have per-track info stored in the flac files
themselves. As for splitting a .flac file that has a .cue file,
Medieval cue splitter is probably the best free tool for the job.

On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 3:36 AM, Walter Bright
<newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote:
Like how FLAC format does not allow for track info - you have to
 have a separate "cue" file for that.
Sep 03 2010
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
It still makes no sense to have it as a separate file.

Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
 I'm pretty sure that's only for albums which are stored as a single
 flac file. They usually come with a .cue file which stores track
 lengths so you can split up the huge flac file into each track as a
 flac. Then you can have per-track info stored in the flac files
 themselves. As for splitting a .flac file that has a .cue file,
 Medieval cue splitter is probably the best free tool for the job.
 
 On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 3:36 AM, Walter Bright
 <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote:
 Like how FLAC format does not allow for track info - you have to
 have a separate "cue" file for that.
Sep 03 2010
next sibling parent reply Max Samukha <spam spam.com> writes:
On 04.09.2010 5:50, Walter Bright wrote:
 It still makes no sense to have it as a separate file.
Yeah. Just like it makes no sense to have headers separate from object files.
Sep 04 2010
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
Max Samukha wrote:
 On 04.09.2010 5:50, Walter Bright wrote:
 It still makes no sense to have it as a separate file.
Yeah. Just like it makes no sense to have headers separate from object files.
If I invented an object file format, you can bet it'd be quite a bit different from existing ones!
Sep 04 2010
parent Max Samukha <spambox d-coding.com> writes:
On 09/04/2010 08:56 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
 Max Samukha wrote:
 On 04.09.2010 5:50, Walter Bright wrote:
 It still makes no sense to have it as a separate file.
Yeah. Just like it makes no sense to have headers separate from object files.
If I invented an object file format, you can bet it'd be quite a bit different from existing ones!
Hm. From one of your posts I concluded that you are quite comfortable with the separation. I apologize if it's not the case.
Sep 06 2010
prev sibling parent reply Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> writes:
But, you can't embed multiple track info in mp3's either..?

On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 4:50 AM, Walter Bright
<newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote:
 It still makes no sense to have it as a separate file.

 Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
 I'm pretty sure that's only for albums which are stored as a single
 flac file. They usually come with a .cue file which stores track
 lengths so you can split up the huge flac file into each track as a
 flac. Then you can have per-track info stored in the flac files
 themselves. As for splitting a .flac file that has a .cue file,
 Medieval cue splitter is probably the best free tool for the job.

 On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 3:36 AM, Walter Bright
 <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote:
 Like how FLAC format does not allow for track info - you have to
 have a separate "cue" file for that.
Sep 04 2010
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
 But, you can't embed multiple track info in mp3's either..?
Isn't it interesting that people keep inventing new audio formats and fail to solve obvious fundamental problems with them, like providing fields for things like artwork, lyrics, etc.?
Sep 04 2010
parent "Yao G." <yao.gomez spam.gmail.com> writes:
On Sat, 04 Sep 2010 12:55:58 -0500, Walter Bright  
<newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote:

 Isn't it interesting that people keep inventing new audio formats and  
 fail to solve obvious fundamental problems with them, like providing  
 fields for things like artwork, lyrics, etc.?
http://www.id3.org/ -- Yao G.
Sep 04 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent Kagamin <spam here.lot> writes:
Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:

 I was just employing irony and sarcasm to demonstrate why your arguments  
 were meaningless :)  The only measurable factor for "good" art is how many  
 people use it/buy it.
Well... commercial quality doesn't have any value for me in the context of art :) Rentability is not the most important property of art.
Sep 01 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent Kagamin <spam here.lot> writes:
Walter Bright Wrote:

 Someone once told me that "capitalism doesn't support the arts". I asked him
how 
 the Beatles got rich. Oops!
Yes, art does manage to cope with capitalism, it's just the result doesn't look like a lot of fun. Glen Cook said "I get salary for the number of pages".
Sep 01 2010
prev sibling parent reply Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> writes:
Nick Sabalausky Wrote:
 
 I was avoiding stating my own Metallica opinions, but now that you mention 
 it, that's exactly how I feel (and yea, I have heard a lot of other people 
 say Load was the start of a downfall). I did kind of like "Until it Sleeps" 
 and maybe one other (forget what), but yea, most of Load/Reload I just never 
 got into. "Black album" was filed with good stuff, and I never understood 
 people that said "St. Anger" was a return to Metallica's former glory. Just 
 sounded like noise to me, and I'm a big metal fan!
I think the first album of their downhill slide was the Black Album. Its production quality was extremely high, and one of the things I liked best about Metallica was the garage sound of the earlier albums. Musically, I really can't fault it though.
 Speaking of all this, am I correct in my understanding that Load was right 
 after Megadeth split off? (And that "black album" was right before?)
Dave Mustaine left Metallica before they'd ever released an album, I believe. He had a strong influence on their early sound though, and I believe he actually wrote a bunch of their early songs. Overall I think Metallica is more intelligent but Megadeth wins for raw power. I prefer Anthrax over either though :-)
Sep 10 2010
next sibling parent reply "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 13:31:05 -0400, Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org>  
wrote:

 Nick Sabalausky Wrote:
 I was avoiding stating my own Metallica opinions, but now that you  
 mention
 it, that's exactly how I feel (and yea, I have heard a lot of other  
 people
 say Load was the start of a downfall). I did kind of like "Until it  
 Sleeps"
 and maybe one other (forget what), but yea, most of Load/Reload I just  
 never
 got into. "Black album" was filed with good stuff, and I never  
 understood
 people that said "St. Anger" was a return to Metallica's former glory.  
 Just
 sounded like noise to me, and I'm a big metal fan!
I think the first album of their downhill slide was the Black Album. Its production quality was extremely high, and one of the things I liked best about Metallica was the garage sound of the earlier albums. Musically, I really can't fault it though.
I have a video of Metallica documenting the making of the Black album (A year and a half in the life of Metallica). You may not like the not-garage sound of the album, but it was one of the best produced albums they had, and Bob Rock did an excellent job. One of the coolest things on that video was how they built a special bizarre shaped enclosure for the rhythm guitar on Sad But True, in order to get the correct deep guttural sound. They definitely worked hard to get exactly the sound they wanted, so I feel like that album was almost the peak of how they wanted to sound. Kirk Hammett said the solo on The Unforgiven was the best solo he's ever done. It is a pretty good solo :) Second to that sound, I like the sound of the band from Garage Days Re-Re visited, and then Master of Puppets. Justice was completely horrible sounding, although the music was extremely good, probably my favorite. Many people feel that they sold out on the Justice album because that was the first album they released a video for. It all depends on your preference for "nicheness." -Steve
Sep 10 2010
parent retard <re tard.com.invalid> writes:
Fri, 10 Sep 2010 14:46:13 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

 On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 13:31:05 -0400, Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org>
 wrote:
 
 Nick Sabalausky Wrote:
 I was avoiding stating my own Metallica opinions, but now that you
 mention
 it, that's exactly how I feel (and yea, I have heard a lot of other
 people
 say Load was the start of a downfall). I did kind of like "Until it
 Sleeps"
 and maybe one other (forget what), but yea, most of Load/Reload I just
 never
 got into. "Black album" was filed with good stuff, and I never
 understood
 people that said "St. Anger" was a return to Metallica's former glory.
 Just
 sounded like noise to me, and I'm a big metal fan!
I think the first album of their downhill slide was the Black Album. Its production quality was extremely high, and one of the things I liked best about Metallica was the garage sound of the earlier albums. Musically, I really can't fault it though.
I have a video of Metallica documenting the making of the Black album (A year and a half in the life of Metallica). You may not like the not-garage sound of the album, but it was one of the best produced albums they had, and Bob Rock did an excellent job. One of the coolest things on that video was how they built a special bizarre shaped enclosure for the rhythm guitar on Sad But True, in order to get the correct deep guttural sound. They definitely worked hard to get exactly the sound they wanted, so I feel like that album was almost the peak of how they wanted to sound. Kirk Hammett said the solo on The Unforgiven was the best solo he's ever done. It is a pretty good solo :)
I'm not a big fan of Metallica, but have to admit that the Black album is one of my favorites. I've actually bought it twice. The first one just disappeared many years ago.
Sep 10 2010
prev sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Sean Kelly" <sean invisibleduck.org> wrote in message 
news:i6dq0p$2mua$1 digitalmars.com...
 Dave Mustaine left Metallica before they'd ever released an album, I 
 believe.  He had a strong influence on their early sound though, and I 
 believe he actually wrote a bunch of their early songs.  Overall I think 
 Metallica is more intelligent but Megadeth wins for raw power.  I prefer 
 Anthrax over either though :-)
I'm not familiar with much of Anthrax's stuff, but "Got the Time" is fantastic. And that one guy, forget his name, but the one with the big Fu Manchu and shows up on VH1 a lot, he seems like a really cool guy, very intelligent.
Sep 10 2010
parent Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> writes:
Nick Sabalausky Wrote:

 "Sean Kelly" <sean invisibleduck.org> wrote in message 
 news:i6dq0p$2mua$1 digitalmars.com...
 Dave Mustaine left Metallica before they'd ever released an album, I 
 believe.  He had a strong influence on their early sound though, and I 
 believe he actually wrote a bunch of their early songs.  Overall I think 
 Metallica is more intelligent but Megadeth wins for raw power.  I prefer 
 Anthrax over either though :-)
I'm not familiar with much of Anthrax's stuff, but "Got the Time" is fantastic. And that one guy, forget his name, but the one with the big Fu Manchu and shows up on VH1 a lot, he seems like a really cool guy, very intelligent.
Scott Ian. I think he's half the reason I've continued to like the band so much.
Sep 10 2010