I totally disagree. When are people going to start taking the threat of Islamic supremecy seriously. This attack is the result of leniency in the name of sensitivity and fairness. There's a difference between what's fair, what's wrong and what's stupid. Every time we see commuters dying (be they Americans, Iraqis, Israelis, Palestinians, Afghans or English) we know we're getting something wrong. To conclude that our error is an overly-aggressive policy is just as dumb as the opposite unless you really understand the root cause--and most people can't be bothered to even know what's going on in Islamabad, Wazaristan, Kabul, Bagdhad, Damascus, etc.
You missed the point entirely. While XM is puting receivers in cars and launching satellites, Sirius will be podcasting shows like Stern and bringing listeners to the hardware by distributing the content through *existing* infrastructure. Have fun with your soon-to-be-defunct XM radio---LOL!
As a person who depends on his laptop to do actual, revenue-generating work, I am acutely aware of how much easier your sys admin job would be if you locked down a single build, AND how fucking impossible it is to do my job on that crippled laptop.
It's really not that hard to those of us who know what we're doing. The hard thing is getting good content through the nonsensical, dumbed-down beaurocracy of television and cable networks. BTW, your argument could have been made against every modern audiovisual content distribution innovation in the past century and a half. Way to be a reactionary pessimist luddite!
I'm really suprised to learn that you, a miserable unpopular nerd, are unable to comprehend the appeal of a rich, famous and pretty girl! When I need a talent-spotter, I always go first to someone like you, someone with a lot of time spent in cubicles staring at computers.
Good god, am I really going to reply to this flamebait? I sure am!
Forked discussion isn't a reference to diversity of thought. Forked discussion is bad because it means that you can't look in one place to see the whole spectrum of discussion. If I make an insightful comment on the original story, but my comment doesn't get repeated on the dupe, a person searching stories later might only find the dupe and miss an important contribution. So, you see, forking discussion is a great way to prevent diversity from reaching the/. audience.
The archive is confused and searches are less precise because two identical stories are not always going to turn up in response to searches depending on the keywords associated with the stories.
Ok, troll, you can pat yourself on the back now. You wasted five minutes of my day!
It really bugs me that/. editors treat dupes as a sort of charming fact of life, as if dupes are among those imperfections that make life worth living. Dupes suck, if for no other reason, because they fork discussion, confuse the archive and make searches less precise.
It's especially annoying when the dupe article proclaims that the/. crowd is able to code by second nature. How f-ing hard is it to have a dupe checker (even a simple on like what FortKnox is proposing). Why is it that a website that proclaims itself the bastion of all things FOSS has languished in mediocrity while thousands of competent coders are practically begging to write this feature into the site's backend? Of course, nothing will come of this, except more shoulder-shrugging and gee whiz, golly nonsense. I'm not trying to flame, but this sort of unprofessional, "friendly fuckup" attitude is what holds the public image of FOSS back.
...I love how people who advocate civil disobedience can't be bothered to learn about the policies behind extra-territorial jurisdiction. If an American company is harmed by activity outside the borders of the USA, the person responsible for the harm is most likely liable for a violation of US law (and/or an actionable civil claim) within the USA, regardless of where the original act causing the harm took place. In criminal cases, the ability of the USA to have the defendant extradited will depend on America's legal and political relationship with the country where the harming took place (or the country where the defendant is located, if different). Similarly, if the defendant sets foot in the USA while the crime is still punishable (or the civil claims are still actionable), there will certainly be adequate jurisdiction for holding that person accountable. I don't see what's so difficult about this, unless you are categorically opposed to protecting corporate interests under the law. If you are opposed to all corporate interests, then you are an f-ing moron.
Just point iTunes to a directory outside any of your user account directories. You can do this in iTunes' preferences. Make sure you set the permissions on that directory to read/write/execute for your 'family' group, and you're done, AFAIK.
Heellooo?! Paperclip. You straighten it and stick it in the hole next to your drive. It's a device OEM feature, usually, even when Apple didn't design it into the machine. On every Mac I've owned. Superior to the clumsy buttons on PCs that can be hit accidentally more easily.
...but practically impossible. Just having a license isn't enough to permit you to resell the licensed material. Knowing the labels and the RIAA, I doubt Russia has any means of obtaining adequate resale rights unless it was some kind of legislative or executive action at the highest levels of the Russian government. Seems pretty implausable to me, especially since the US government is likely to side with its homegrown music industry.
This story really shouldn't be filed under Apple at all, but it caused me to (once again) think that the headline was quoting Apple Computer Inc. I know Slashdot is determined to be the most asinine useful web resource on the net, but why do section stories under Apple have headlines that misleadingly attribute quotations to Apple?!
First of all, I would not want to let my liability for criminal copyright infringement rest on some judge's interpretation of what "obvious" means. Secondly, downloading copyrighted material without the copyright holder's permission is a violation of copyright laws in the USA. In the USA, copyright holders have total control over the means of distribution (with some very limited exceptions for blanket licenses, etc.) Total control. All means of distribution. Not much room for interpretation there. I would say that if an American is sued for infringement in the USA, his best defense is to try to claim that it was unintentional copying in order to avoid criminal prosecution.
IAAL, too. I hope you are lying about being a lawyer though, since your research skills are lacking. I'll leave it to you to find ProCD Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996), reversing 908 F.Supp. 640 (W.D. Wis. 1996). BTW, I'm guessing you're a law student, not a lawyer (yet). Am I right?
If I understand you correctly, you are upset that the mouse that is bundled with most Macs only has one button. And yet, you seem to be aware that the operating system performs all the functions of multibutton mice, either by using the keyboard, or by allowing you to plug in a third party multibutton mouse.
Are you just upset that Apple won't sell you a multibutton mouse? I'm trying to understand whether you are a total moron, or just a slow learner.
OK, I will answer your question. The case brought by the US government against MS is not equivalent to this claim brought against Apple.
First of all, issue in the claim against Apple is: whether Apple is abusing its controlling position in online music sales (due to the success of iTMS) in order force consumers to buy players that are compatible with the iTMS DRM scheme.
Now, look at the issue in US v MS: whether MS was illegally foreclosing competition in the browser market by forcing consumers to use MS's browser as the browser was: (a) an integral file system navigation tool, and (b) difficult to uninstall.
One way to demonstrate the absurdity of drawing an equivalency between the Apple case and the MS case is to parse the US v MS issue in terms of Apple and music:
Whether Apple was illegally foreclosing competition in the portable music player market by forcing consumers to use Apple's DRM as the DRM was: (a) an integral element of songs purchased on iTMS, and (b) difficult to defeat.
The obvious problem with this formulation of the issue is that consumers always have the option to purchase the same song from: (i) another online source in another format that is playable on other players, and (ii) a bricks and mortar establishment that sells plastic discs with digital music on them.
In other words, when you are measuring the impact to the consumer (and that is always the question in antitrust), the market at issue is not "sale of legal online digital music recordings", but rather "sale of digital music" regardless of the means of delivery.
Microsoft is dominant in several key IT markets. If Microsoft throws its weight around, it is capable of squashing competition in those markets to the detriment of consumers. The same practices that are harmful to the market in the hands of a monopolist like Microsoft, are helpful and pro-competitive in the hands of a smaller player. Whether or not Microsoft is dominant in any music-related market is not a question I would even begin to try to answer here, but you should be aware that drawing equivalencies between monopolists and non-monopolists can make you sound pretty dumb.
It's what you want. Everything you said, including and especially your conclusion, is support for the notion that Apple is not limiting your freedom to choose the source and/or format of your music in a manner that harms consumers of the music industry. While some people might not like iTMS or iPods or Fairplay, they can vote with their dollars or dowloads.
You're confusing the meaning of the word 'monopolistic'. A monopoly is a company that is dominant in a given market. You seem to be arguing that Apple is being anti-competitive by locking hardware to software and media sales. But this type of bundling is actually *competitive* (and therefore legal and healthy for the market) unless Apple is dominant in the entire market for at least one of the goods being bundled. As a matter of fact, Apple is neither dominant in sales of hardware, nor software or media.
How can I say this when everyone has an iPod and uses iTunes? Think about it. Does a sale of a plastic CD compete with iTMS? Yes it does. If I buy a CD, I'm unlikely to buy the same song on iTMS, and vice versa. Likewise, does a traditional CD Walkman compete with an iPod? Again, yes it does. While many people will opt for both, each device performs essentially the same function--making purchased music portable.
You might disagree with my interpretation. One of the grey areas of antitrust/competition law is the definition of the market being measured for anticompetitive behavior. Everyone has an opinion about the scope of the relevant market, including the judges deciding the case. I happen the subscribe to the interpretation above.
Slashdot Mirror
I totally disagree. When are people going to start taking the threat of Islamic supremecy seriously. This attack is the result of leniency in the name of sensitivity and fairness. There's a difference between what's fair, what's wrong and what's stupid. Every time we see commuters dying (be they Americans, Iraqis, Israelis, Palestinians, Afghans or English) we know we're getting something wrong. To conclude that our error is an overly-aggressive policy is just as dumb as the opposite unless you really understand the root cause--and most people can't be bothered to even know what's going on in Islamabad, Wazaristan, Kabul, Bagdhad, Damascus, etc.
You missed the point entirely. While XM is puting receivers in cars and launching satellites, Sirius will be podcasting shows like Stern and bringing listeners to the hardware by distributing the content through *existing* infrastructure. Have fun with your soon-to-be-defunct XM radio---LOL!
As a person who depends on his laptop to do actual, revenue-generating work, I am acutely aware of how much easier your sys admin job would be if you locked down a single build, AND how fucking impossible it is to do my job on that crippled laptop.
It's really not that hard to those of us who know what we're doing. The hard thing is getting good content through the nonsensical, dumbed-down beaurocracy of television and cable networks. BTW, your argument could have been made against every modern audiovisual content distribution innovation in the past century and a half. Way to be a reactionary pessimist luddite!
I'm really suprised to learn that you, a miserable unpopular nerd, are unable to comprehend the appeal of a rich, famous and pretty girl! When I need a talent-spotter, I always go first to someone like you, someone with a lot of time spent in cubicles staring at computers.
She's already got a Sidekick, dude, which is all a girl needs as far as computers are concerned.
Good god, am I really going to reply to this flamebait? I sure am!
/. audience.
Forked discussion isn't a reference to diversity of thought. Forked discussion is bad because it means that you can't look in one place to see the whole spectrum of discussion. If I make an insightful comment on the original story, but my comment doesn't get repeated on the dupe, a person searching stories later might only find the dupe and miss an important contribution. So, you see, forking discussion is a great way to prevent diversity from reaching the
The archive is confused and searches are less precise because two identical stories are not always going to turn up in response to searches depending on the keywords associated with the stories.
Ok, troll, you can pat yourself on the back now. You wasted five minutes of my day!
It really bugs me that /. editors treat dupes as a sort of charming fact of life, as if dupes are among those imperfections that make life worth living. Dupes suck, if for no other reason, because they fork discussion, confuse the archive and make searches less precise.
/. crowd is able to code by second nature. How f-ing hard is it to have a dupe checker (even a simple on like what FortKnox is proposing). Why is it that a website that proclaims itself the bastion of all things FOSS has languished in mediocrity while thousands of competent coders are practically begging to write this feature into the site's backend? Of course, nothing will come of this, except more shoulder-shrugging and gee whiz, golly nonsense. I'm not trying to flame, but this sort of unprofessional, "friendly fuckup" attitude is what holds the public image of FOSS back.
It's especially annoying when the dupe article proclaims that the
...I love how people who advocate civil disobedience can't be bothered to learn about the policies behind extra-territorial jurisdiction. If an American company is harmed by activity outside the borders of the USA, the person responsible for the harm is most likely liable for a violation of US law (and/or an actionable civil claim) within the USA, regardless of where the original act causing the harm took place. In criminal cases, the ability of the USA to have the defendant extradited will depend on America's legal and political relationship with the country where the harming took place (or the country where the defendant is located, if different). Similarly, if the defendant sets foot in the USA while the crime is still punishable (or the civil claims are still actionable), there will certainly be adequate jurisdiction for holding that person accountable. I don't see what's so difficult about this, unless you are categorically opposed to protecting corporate interests under the law. If you are opposed to all corporate interests, then you are an f-ing moron.
Just point iTunes to a directory outside any of your user account directories. You can do this in iTunes' preferences. Make sure you set the permissions on that directory to read/write/execute for your 'family' group, and you're done, AFAIK.
Heellooo?! Paperclip. You straighten it and stick it in the hole next to your drive. It's a device OEM feature, usually, even when Apple didn't design it into the machine. On every Mac I've owned. Superior to the clumsy buttons on PCs that can be hit accidentally more easily.
...but practically impossible. Just having a license isn't enough to permit you to resell the licensed material. Knowing the labels and the RIAA, I doubt Russia has any means of obtaining adequate resale rights unless it was some kind of legislative or executive action at the highest levels of the Russian government. Seems pretty implausable to me, especially since the US government is likely to side with its homegrown music industry.
This story really shouldn't be filed under Apple at all, but it caused me to (once again) think that the headline was quoting Apple Computer Inc. I know Slashdot is determined to be the most asinine useful web resource on the net, but why do section stories under Apple have headlines that misleadingly attribute quotations to Apple?!
First of all, I would not want to let my liability for criminal copyright infringement rest on some judge's interpretation of what "obvious" means. Secondly, downloading copyrighted material without the copyright holder's permission is a violation of copyright laws in the USA. In the USA, copyright holders have total control over the means of distribution (with some very limited exceptions for blanket licenses, etc.) Total control. All means of distribution. Not much room for interpretation there. I would say that if an American is sued for infringement in the USA, his best defense is to try to claim that it was unintentional copying in order to avoid criminal prosecution.
IAAL, too. I hope you are lying about being a lawyer though, since your research skills are lacking. I'll leave it to you to find ProCD Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996), reversing 908 F.Supp. 640 (W.D. Wis. 1996). BTW, I'm guessing you're a law student, not a lawyer (yet). Am I right?
If I understand you correctly, you are upset that the mouse that is bundled with most Macs only has one button. And yet, you seem to be aware that the operating system performs all the functions of multibutton mice, either by using the keyboard, or by allowing you to plug in a third party multibutton mouse.
Are you just upset that Apple won't sell you a multibutton mouse? I'm trying to understand whether you are a total moron, or just a slow learner.
...but it's not an "unabashed ripoff" when 99% of your audience knows exactly where it came from. I'd prefer to call it a "remix". ;)
DUH!
* Caution: iPod Shuffle may suddenly accelerate to dangerous speeds.
* iPod Shuffle contains a liquid core, which, if exposed due to rupture, should not be touched, inhaled, or looked at.
* Do not use iPod Shuffle on concrete.
Discontinue use of iPod Shuffle if any of the following occurs:
* Itching
* Vertigo
* Dizziness
* Tingling in extremities
* Loss of balance or coordination
* Slurred speech
* Temporary blindness
* Profuse sweating
* Heart palpitations
If iPod Shuffle begins to smoke, get away immediately. Seek shelter and cover head.
iPod Shuffle may stick to certain types of skin.
When not in use, iPod Shuffle should be returned to its special container and kept under refrigeration...
Failure to do so relieves the makers of iPod Shuffle, Apple Computer Corp. and its iCEO Steven P. Jobs, of any and all liability.
Ingredients of iPod Shuffle include an unknown glowing substance which fell to Earth, presumably from outer space.
iPod Shuffle has been shipped to our troops in Saudi Arabia and is also being dropped by our warplanes on Iraq.
Do not taunt iPod Shuffle.
iPod Shuffle comes with a lifetime guarantee.
iPod Shuffle
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!
Although the front page is still showing the new XServe (i.e., old news), the hardware page has Mac Mini and iShuffle info: here.
OK, I will answer your question. The case brought by the US government against MS is not equivalent to this claim brought against Apple.
First of all, issue in the claim against Apple is: whether Apple is abusing its controlling position in online music sales (due to the success of iTMS) in order force consumers to buy players that are compatible with the iTMS DRM scheme.
Now, look at the issue in US v MS: whether MS was illegally foreclosing competition in the browser market by forcing consumers to use MS's browser as the browser was: (a) an integral file system navigation tool, and (b) difficult to uninstall.
One way to demonstrate the absurdity of drawing an equivalency between the Apple case and the MS case is to parse the US v MS issue in terms of Apple and music:
Whether Apple was illegally foreclosing competition in the portable music player market by forcing consumers to use Apple's DRM as the DRM was: (a) an integral element of songs purchased on iTMS, and (b) difficult to defeat.
The obvious problem with this formulation of the issue is that consumers always have the option to purchase the same song from: (i) another online source in another format that is playable on other players, and (ii) a bricks and mortar establishment that sells plastic discs with digital music on them.
In other words, when you are measuring the impact to the consumer (and that is always the question in antitrust), the market at issue is not "sale of legal online digital music recordings", but rather "sale of digital music" regardless of the means of delivery.
Which is kind of the whole point of bringing a lawsuit.
Microsoft is dominant in several key IT markets. If Microsoft throws its weight around, it is capable of squashing competition in those markets to the detriment of consumers. The same practices that are harmful to the market in the hands of a monopolist like Microsoft, are helpful and pro-competitive in the hands of a smaller player. Whether or not Microsoft is dominant in any music-related market is not a question I would even begin to try to answer here, but you should be aware that drawing equivalencies between monopolists and non-monopolists can make you sound pretty dumb.
It's what you want. Everything you said, including and especially your conclusion, is support for the notion that Apple is not limiting your freedom to choose the source and/or format of your music in a manner that harms consumers of the music industry. While some people might not like iTMS or iPods or Fairplay, they can vote with their dollars or dowloads.
How can I say this when everyone has an iPod and uses iTunes? Think about it. Does a sale of a plastic CD compete with iTMS? Yes it does. If I buy a CD, I'm unlikely to buy the same song on iTMS, and vice versa. Likewise, does a traditional CD Walkman compete with an iPod? Again, yes it does. While many people will opt for both, each device performs essentially the same function--making purchased music portable.
You might disagree with my interpretation. One of the grey areas of antitrust/competition law is the definition of the market being measured for anticompetitive behavior. Everyone has an opinion about the scope of the relevant market, including the judges deciding the case. I happen the subscribe to the interpretation above.