I find the baby feeding position of facebook more annoying then the "we welcome antisemitism" point, but wanted to point you to what Michael Arrington has to say about it.
see here
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Sunday, February 22, 2009
AutoCollage 2008
Microsoft is so big, that it makes the following ridiculous decision:
They have lab projects costing them Millions of dollars, and many end up not doing anything useful (unless you count subsidizing Computer Science PhDs as an important thing by itself...). So what happens when one of them happens to by mistake do something semi-useful and cute?
Will you sure it gets you cool PR? give it as "good karma" freeware? no...
They ask for that over $14 (over $24 usually, but today it was on "sale").
The strange thing is that Microsoft gives so much other stuff for free... stuff that is a lot more useful.
AutoCollage is a cute, an image processor that automatically makes a collage from your pictures! that's it. You know what? if they charged $1 like the App store (and I find much cooler and useful stuff there for 99 cents) I would say "that's great". But for the price of a full scale application or game, they cannot be serious. I bet 5 people paid that.
To put some perspective, paint.net, which is a real alternative to expensive photoshop! is FREE! and AutoCollage could just be a feature to that, or a feature to the free live gallery (MSFT version for picassa).
This makes no sense!
They have lab projects costing them Millions of dollars, and many end up not doing anything useful (unless you count subsidizing Computer Science PhDs as an important thing by itself...). So what happens when one of them happens to by mistake do something semi-useful and cute?
Will you sure it gets you cool PR? give it as "good karma" freeware? no...
They ask for that over $14 (over $24 usually, but today it was on "sale").
The strange thing is that Microsoft gives so much other stuff for free... stuff that is a lot more useful.
AutoCollage is a cute, an image processor that automatically makes a collage from your pictures! that's it. You know what? if they charged $1 like the App store (and I find much cooler and useful stuff there for 99 cents) I would say "that's great". But for the price of a full scale application or game, they cannot be serious. I bet 5 people paid that.
To put some perspective, paint.net, which is a real alternative to expensive photoshop! is FREE! and AutoCollage could just be a feature to that, or a feature to the free live gallery (MSFT version for picassa).
This makes no sense!
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
E-LONA to change its name to NEE-LOAN?
Isn't it a problem for a company names E-LOAN to stop giving.... loans?
Saturday, January 05, 2008
Msuic and Movie industry...
DRM is only one thing showing how retarded their thinking is, but instead of me talking about that, whats this TED video. It is a little slow in the first 10 min, but the second half is like a punch to the belly. Well worth 19 minuets.
Saturday, June 16, 2007
An atheist's call to arms
Excellent talk by Richard Dawkins in TED:
We are all Atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in, some of us, just go one god further...
Friday, June 01, 2007
Divesting from Israel and the UN
I notices a discussion about how we should divest from investing in companies doing business with Israel. Then they even said that we should not invest money in US Aid to Israel because we have problems at home. Lastly, there was the idea that Europe and the UN are more balanced and the US is biased. while I will not argue that the US is not biased towards Israel, I take issue with the notion that the UN and Europe are neutral or balance. If anything, they are more one sided then the US, just towards the other side..
1. Yes, the idea of taking care of your own "poor" before others has some merits. But singling out Israel's aid in this context is silly. What % of the total foreign aid is that number going to Israel? if you don't know, then shut up!. So from an economical point of view, please talk about % of GDP spent on out of USA aid, don't talk about Israel (unless the issue is not the money and what it can be used for in the USA, but simply being anti-Israel).
2. If the issue is moral, and not economical, then how much money goes to countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia (in the form of military aid), Jordan And some south American countries. All with less then "5 star" rating when it comes to human rights and other objective measurements (as measured by the UN).
3. Europe is not more balance nor fair then the US. They simply have their economical interest on the other side. France sells technology and Engineering resources to Iran, Russia does military business with all Arab nations. They have no higher moral grounds then the Bush administration, they just happen to have their interest (same interest that motivate the US) on the other side. So don't give me that cr@p about US = evil, Europe = saints.
4. The idea that putting a veto on a UN resolution against Israel shows the US is biased, assumes the UN is fair or has a moral standing to begin with... you cannot be serious!
In the security council you have a permanent seat for CHINA! you know where else china has a strong vote on? the HUMAN RIGHTS comity! So you are telling me, that a group of nations in which the majority of them are countries in which YOU would NEVER want to leave in for reasons of their civil liberties, human rights etc'.. that collection of countries has a higher moral grounds then the US?
I like Democracy and majority ruling as much as anyone. But I am not silly enough to think that a majority built out of lets say murderess has a better idea about what is right or wrong compared to a "dictator" (which is the US).
and if you like UN statistics so much, check how many such resolutions are passed (before the US VETO) against Israel. now count how many against any other side that commits crimes or kills people 100 folds more then Israel... none!
Africa? they still think if it is a genocide or not, but any condemnations? actions? no, why? because the nice objective, un-biased countries (Russia and China) will not want to harm their economical buddies. And the Arab/Muslim countries don't mind because the ones doing the killing are Muslims.
Any condemnation or accusations of war crimes when Palestinians fire rockets into Civilian (Israeli) cities on a daily basis for the past month now? no, but the first bomb that kills a Palestinians, then it is in the news. But Israelies and Jewish people, it is always just fine to kill them. In buses, their homes, coffee places... no such thing as crime against humanity, since apparently Israelis are not humans right?
If you don't think Israel has the right to exist, just say that and then fine, that is your opinion. But do not mask the real opinion behind "moral" arguments. Yes, Israel has and is doing many things wrong, but the other side is not a cute little snuggly puppy. Israel is no longer in Gaza, and they choose to fire missiles into Israel. If you support their fight, then at least don't pretend that Israel as no right to fight back.
1. Yes, the idea of taking care of your own "poor" before others has some merits. But singling out Israel's aid in this context is silly. What % of the total foreign aid is that number going to Israel? if you don't know, then shut up!. So from an economical point of view, please talk about % of GDP spent on out of USA aid, don't talk about Israel (unless the issue is not the money and what it can be used for in the USA, but simply being anti-Israel).
2. If the issue is moral, and not economical, then how much money goes to countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia (in the form of military aid), Jordan And some south American countries. All with less then "5 star" rating when it comes to human rights and other objective measurements (as measured by the UN).
3. Europe is not more balance nor fair then the US. They simply have their economical interest on the other side. France sells technology and Engineering resources to Iran, Russia does military business with all Arab nations. They have no higher moral grounds then the Bush administration, they just happen to have their interest (same interest that motivate the US) on the other side. So don't give me that cr@p about US = evil, Europe = saints.
4. The idea that putting a veto on a UN resolution against Israel shows the US is biased, assumes the UN is fair or has a moral standing to begin with... you cannot be serious!
In the security council you have a permanent seat for CHINA! you know where else china has a strong vote on? the HUMAN RIGHTS comity! So you are telling me, that a group of nations in which the majority of them are countries in which YOU would NEVER want to leave in for reasons of their civil liberties, human rights etc'.. that collection of countries has a higher moral grounds then the US?
I like Democracy and majority ruling as much as anyone. But I am not silly enough to think that a majority built out of lets say murderess has a better idea about what is right or wrong compared to a "dictator" (which is the US).
and if you like UN statistics so much, check how many such resolutions are passed (before the US VETO) against Israel. now count how many against any other side that commits crimes or kills people 100 folds more then Israel... none!
Africa? they still think if it is a genocide or not, but any condemnations? actions? no, why? because the nice objective, un-biased countries (Russia and China) will not want to harm their economical buddies. And the Arab/Muslim countries don't mind because the ones doing the killing are Muslims.
Any condemnation or accusations of war crimes when Palestinians fire rockets into Civilian (Israeli) cities on a daily basis for the past month now? no, but the first bomb that kills a Palestinians, then it is in the news. But Israelies and Jewish people, it is always just fine to kill them. In buses, their homes, coffee places... no such thing as crime against humanity, since apparently Israelis are not humans right?
If you don't think Israel has the right to exist, just say that and then fine, that is your opinion. But do not mask the real opinion behind "moral" arguments. Yes, Israel has and is doing many things wrong, but the other side is not a cute little snuggly puppy. Israel is no longer in Gaza, and they choose to fire missiles into Israel. If you support their fight, then at least don't pretend that Israel as no right to fight back.
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Hollywood admits DRM isn't about piracy
You know something is wrong when I got 3 months ago 10 free "music downloads" credit to be used with Sony's version of what is iTunes and I never used it!
If you like buying beer, you would never leave unused a gift card giving you 10 free bottles of beers right? So we must stop for a moment and think, what is wrong here? Well, there are plenty of things wrong, besides the convoluted software and hoops the user is forced to jump to achieve what should be very simple (be able to playback the thing). Adding DRM protection to the music you download from the web means that in many cases the user:
1. Is forced to use a proprietary desktop application to search and buy the songs, and in Sony's case that application made my computer go to the blue screen of death several times.
2. Might be limited to the portable player he can use (iPod if you buy from Apple's iTuens)
3. May think that he buys the song, but in reality, rents it until he looses it to a malfunctioning hard drive or when he decides that his next play is a Creative one and not iPod.
4. Will not be able to play the song in his car, his $2000 home system or the $19.99 system in the kitchen.
One may ask: is putting DRM on a song prevents anyone that wants to sell pirated versions of the songs from doing so? I urge anyone to make a case that it does. It is a simple case of "1 is enough". It is enough that one copy anywhere in the world is compromised to make it possible for anyone to get an unprotected copy and start duplicating it or selling it as a pirated copy (or giving it for free). As a case we can look at the DVD industry. All DVDs are protected, yet it is a trivial task to find unprotected digital copies on the net or even create one yourself with easily attainable free software. So what is the point?
The reality is that DRM makes me wonder, why would I PAY for a song $0.99, when paying for it means I will have a defective product, compared to if I get it illegally for free as an unprotected mp3? I thought that when something cost more, there should be some added value, I can even accept the fact that it will have the same value as the free one since the free is illegal and we should not break the law or steal in general. But why on earth would the version of the product I pay for be a crippled, broken product? Why do I need to buy a song on iTunes, and then burn it to a CD and then rip it back into an mp3 JUST because I have chosen to use Creative instead of iPod as my mp3 player? is that fair? Isn't the music industry practicly begging me or forcing me to just download an unprotected, pirated version of the file next time? Forget about the fact that it saves me the $0.99, it saves me a lot more then that! it saves me the time it takes me to burn and rip the song into my Creative!
I think it would make sense to pay $0.99 for a DRM song, and $1.29 for the same song, in unprotected mp3 format. Again, I get more for more money, I get the normal, expected, full use of the song for $1.29, and a broken, I would argue limited and crappy product for $0.99 (you get what you pay for). But at least this way they can justify the DRM thing. Yes, it is crap, yes it doesn't work, that is why it is 30 cents cheaper then the real product...
here is a link for reference
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070115-8616.html
If you like buying beer, you would never leave unused a gift card giving you 10 free bottles of beers right? So we must stop for a moment and think, what is wrong here? Well, there are plenty of things wrong, besides the convoluted software and hoops the user is forced to jump to achieve what should be very simple (be able to playback the thing). Adding DRM protection to the music you download from the web means that in many cases the user:
1. Is forced to use a proprietary desktop application to search and buy the songs, and in Sony's case that application made my computer go to the blue screen of death several times.
2. Might be limited to the portable player he can use (iPod if you buy from Apple's iTuens)
3. May think that he buys the song, but in reality, rents it until he looses it to a malfunctioning hard drive or when he decides that his next play is a Creative one and not iPod.
4. Will not be able to play the song in his car, his $2000 home system or the $19.99 system in the kitchen.
One may ask: is putting DRM on a song prevents anyone that wants to sell pirated versions of the songs from doing so? I urge anyone to make a case that it does. It is a simple case of "1 is enough". It is enough that one copy anywhere in the world is compromised to make it possible for anyone to get an unprotected copy and start duplicating it or selling it as a pirated copy (or giving it for free). As a case we can look at the DVD industry. All DVDs are protected, yet it is a trivial task to find unprotected digital copies on the net or even create one yourself with easily attainable free software. So what is the point?
The reality is that DRM makes me wonder, why would I PAY for a song $0.99, when paying for it means I will have a defective product, compared to if I get it illegally for free as an unprotected mp3? I thought that when something cost more, there should be some added value, I can even accept the fact that it will have the same value as the free one since the free is illegal and we should not break the law or steal in general. But why on earth would the version of the product I pay for be a crippled, broken product? Why do I need to buy a song on iTunes, and then burn it to a CD and then rip it back into an mp3 JUST because I have chosen to use Creative instead of iPod as my mp3 player? is that fair? Isn't the music industry practicly begging me or forcing me to just download an unprotected, pirated version of the file next time? Forget about the fact that it saves me the $0.99, it saves me a lot more then that! it saves me the time it takes me to burn and rip the song into my Creative!
I think it would make sense to pay $0.99 for a DRM song, and $1.29 for the same song, in unprotected mp3 format. Again, I get more for more money, I get the normal, expected, full use of the song for $1.29, and a broken, I would argue limited and crappy product for $0.99 (you get what you pay for). But at least this way they can justify the DRM thing. Yes, it is crap, yes it doesn't work, that is why it is 30 cents cheaper then the real product...
here is a link for reference
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070115-8616.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)