inessential.com: Weblog: Comments for ‘$6 month for nothing?’: I’m intrigued by the idea of taxing people $6/month so that music downloading would be otherwise free and unrestricted.
The big drawback is that I don’t want to download any non-free music, and I’d resent paying the $6 for something I don’t want. I’m not sure that fogeys like me really want to subsidize the music habits of teenagers.
It sounds like a way for the music labels (which produce a nearly uniformly boring product) to be ensured of making a profit and getting my money. They have no interest in creating something I personally would like—and they’d have even less reason to try, since they’d be getting my money anyway.
I was getting all geared up for a rant on this myself, but Brent saved me the trouble. This is simply a staggeringly bad idea. Right now, I neither download illegal music now spend anything approaching $6.00 a month buying music. Since the iTunes Music Store opened, I’ve spent around $3.00 total buying music. I haven’t bought a CD in a couple of years.
Very little of the music being produced today appeals to me - but that’s not the core of my objection. My problem is that I should be allowed to determine how my money is spent, not the government and not the record companies. I, like Brent, am in the process of starting a new business. $6.00 a month doesn’t sound like much, but it’s a lot to me. Given a choice, I wouldn’t spend it. Now some jackass comes up with the thought that I ought to pay for the 16 year old up the street getting all the free music she can eat. Excuse me, that money belongs to my kids.
Stay the fuck out of my pockets, please.
http://www.doug-miller.net/blog/archive/morebreastsnotless.html
Mon, 2 Feb 2004 23:00:43 -0500
http://www.doug-miller.net/blog/archive/morebreastsnotless.html
Media
Politics
demiller@gmail.com (Doug Miller)
Scripting News: 2/2/2004: For the record, I missed Janet Jackson’s breast because I was writing something at halftime yesterday. Women’s breasts are great. I think there should be a requirement that all women bare their breasts if they want to when they’re on television. It should be a choice thing.
Scripting News: 2/2/2004: For the record, I missed Janet Jackson’s breast because I was writing something at halftime yesterday. Women’s breasts are great. I think there should be a requirement that all women bare their breasts if they want to when they’re on television. It should be a choice thing. I’m pro-choice. It might be more comfortable. It’s unbelievable that Michael Powell is having a hissy fit over this. More breasts, not less. That’s my opinion.
I missed it too, but I think I largely have to agree with Dave on this one. I could, however, do with less stupid celebrity antics designed to sell more bad music.
Actually, I’m sort of pleased there’s such an uproar about this. It’s a bit like the whole Clinton blow-job scandal - if this is what the country is getting all stirred up about, maybe there’s some light at the end of the tunnel. I long for the days when our biggest worry was a jizz stain on a chubby intern’s dress.
http://www.doug-miller.net/blog/archive/macupdates.html
Thu, 29 Jul 2004 23:41:28 -0500
http://www.doug-miller.net/blog/archive/macupdates.html
Apple
Technology
Outliners
demiller@gmail.com (Doug Miller)
A host of interesting and useful Mac software news on the wire today:
Ranchero have updated their excellent Net News Wire and Net News Wire Lite RSS aggregators.
Apple has released updates to Safari and Java. Unfortunately, through no fault of Apple’s, Safari still doesn’t work with the two primary
A host of interesting and useful Mac software news on the wire today:
Ranchero have updated their excellent Net News Wire and Net News Wire Lite RSS aggregators.
Apple has released updates to Safari and Java. Unfortunately, through no fault of Apple’s, Safari still doesn’t work with the two primary web applications I need for work.
Another excellent article in the About This Particular Outliner series, this time looking at outliner UI elements. Tinderbox receives high marks.
On the personal front, my technology (combined with an incipient head cold) let me down this morning. I missed a breakfast meeting because I don’t have a decent, dependable calendaring system in place.
Prior to a few months ago, I had a decent system using Apple’s iCal and iSync in conjunction with my Nokia 3650 phone to keep track of appointments. When I became a REALTOR® I started using a web application called Top Producer to handle my schedule, primarily because it’s the most common real estate CRM application around.
Top Producer is decent software, overall. It does a good job with the real estate and customer relationship related aspects of my job, and not too bad a job of schedule management. Unfortunately, a) it’s a web-based Java application, and b) it only runs on Windows. I use VirtualPC to run it on my Mac, which, when combined with a) and b) above, means that it takes around five minutes to get the damn thing fired up to check my schedule. That’s not a big deal when I’m in the office, where I keep it running, but it sucks at home or on an appointment when I want to check my schedule on the fly.
To add insult to injury, Top Producer won’t export calendar entries in vCal format, so I can’t easily get entries into iCal, where they’d be easy to check and sync with my phone. All this amounts to me not being sure half the time what my schedule is, and not easily able to check it.
The inelegant (and hopefully temporary) solution is double entry of my calendar information in both Top Producer and iCal. I need to maintain the information in Top Producer to keep complete records of activity associated with my clients and leads, and in iCal to have easy access to my schedule when I don’t have Top Producer running, and from my phone’s calendar function.
If the various software vendors involved in providing me with applications would implement their software according to standards, I wouldn’t have this problem. I’d be more productive. I wouldn’t have to play stupid double entry games. Instead, some vendors, in a misguided attempt to differentiate themselves or support what they perceive to be the dominant computing platform (you know, the one that just got hammered again by a world-wide e-mail virus) implement extensions to the standards that make these standards useless.
I see cool concept pieces like this that tout interoperability and ubiquity of wireless, mobile computing systems and shake my head. That’d be neat, but there is no way we’ll see technology that works that easily as long as software companies insist on breaking the plumbing that ties it all together.