emconsteroids

Imagine a world where every online store sells DRM-free music encoded in open licensable formats. In such a world, any player can play music purchased from any store, and any store can sell music which is playable on all players. This is clearly the best alternative for consumers, and Apple would embrace it in a heartbeat.

Source: Thoughts on Music

A few weeks ago, Steve Jobs published a letter with a few thoughts about the music industry. In a nutshell, he outlines three options for Apple going forward:

• DRM stays in place as it is
• Apple DRM will be open to other companies
• DRM will be abolished and all music will be freely available

Against all expectations, Apple recommends the third option to be the best way forward. I personally agree with this theory. The music industry has to find alternative ways to monetize their products other than protecting it with DRM. Just like a chinese proverb says: “When the winds of change are blowing, some build shelters, other build windmills.”

(However ironically Apple sells mainly iPods and not music. After all, removing the DRM barrier would certainly boost iPod sales.)

approximeeting pp. Getting together with one or more people by first arranging an approximate time or place and then firming up the details later on, usually via cell phone.
—approximeet v.

Source Wordspy

On conservapedia.com I found this rather controversial statement that clearly shows how people still do not understand the concept of Wikipedia:

Tired of the LIBERAL BIAS every time you search on Google and a Wikipedia page appears? Now it’s time for the Conservatives to get our voice out on the internet!

Conservapedia began in November 2006, as the class project for a World History class of 58 advanced homeschooled and college-bound students meeting in New Jersey.

Conservapedia has since grown enormously, including contributors nationwide. Conservapedia already has over one-half the number of entries as the Oxford Dictionary of World History. Conservapedia is rapidly becoming one of the largest and most reliable online educational resources of its kind.

Source: Conservapedia, March 2007

And then there is a long list of examples supposingly biased Wikipedia articles.

Now my point: It is not the idea that if you do not agree with Wikipedia, you just setup your own encyclopedia. If you do not agree with Wikipedia, you simply edit the article into something you think is better or more accurate.

If your change gets deleted after a while, you have to assume, that there is somebody in this world who does not agree with what you say. The best thing is then to engage into a wikipedia discussion and find a common ground. E.g. accept both opinions about a certain topic as valid opinions and discuss them in an objective way.

It’s all about accepting and tolerating different views. I am sure if you discuss your points fairly and do not just delete any opposing opinion, your opinion will be considered valid as well.

Setting up your own site with own bias just tells me, you do not tolerate discussion and are eager to control and censor any unappreciated comments or viewpoints. Ridiculous!