You can't completely turn of non-transactional storage engines, but you can configure a different default engine. If you configure InnoDB as default-storage-engine in my.cnf, then by default your tables will support transactions.
So in total, all you're complaining about is settings you can actually change easily, either in my.cnf or in the server command line. Maybe I'm missing your point, but what exactly is it?
After all, *some* setup has to be the default, and you can't just dismiss MySQL because its default is not identical to yours because there are likely millions of users with defaults different from yours.
That's not exactly the same. PostgreSQL vacuum frees up disk space used by deleted data; the data stays on disk until you do that and it's not overwritten by new inserts/updates. InnoDB in MySQL doesn't free up space for deleted data immediately either, but it does re-use that disk space for new inserts/updates. You can cause InnoDB to free up this space manually, and yes this is similar to vacuum in Postgres, but unlike in Postgres it's not necessary for the database to work.
In other words, if you have a database where you delete 100 rows and add 100 rows each day, the Postgres database will continually grow by the size of those 100 rows added until you vacuum. With MySQL, the database size will be the maximum size ever required for the database until you alter table engine=innodb, which will reorganize the table. But it will not grow by 100 rows every day and in fact not grow at all most of the time. And if you configure InnoDB to use one file per table, you can restrict this to tables that actually need it.
So Apple is the biggest backer of DRM. But then, the DRM I get when I buy songs on iTunes still gives me more choice than the DRM that comes with some CDs these days. And it won't install root kits either. So maybe Apple's just the biggest backer because they're the only large company that uses a kind of DRM people don't mind to being subject to.
Actually, explicitly not removing racist blogs without court order supports censorship, too - removing the blogs by themselves wouldn't be censorship because only governments can do that. Only removing what the government wants removed is supporting censorship.
They're not intentionally supporting censorship here, though. Sure, Google could say "no racist smut on our servers" and delete those blogs. People would point out other blogs they think Google should remove for various reasons. Google would have to find a dividing line between acceptable and unacceptable content. Then, they'd have to enforce it. This takes a lot of work. By their "remove content only when ordered to do so by a court" policy Google offloads this burden on the legal system. Additionally, they're much less unfair. Convince a court your blog is okay, you can keep it. Same treatment for everybody.
The second one too, now. Happened to me too, read 1632 online, bought some as paperbacks then. Additionally, you can buy the other 1632 volumes from baen as ebooks for about $6 per book. Non-DRMed ebook, that is, as for all baen ebooks.
Apple has been selling 64 bit machines with a 64 bit OS for years. The trouble started when they began to sell 32 bit machines again... at least they omitted the intel inside stickers:-)
No, actually, the court ruling explicitly states that the GPL is a valid means of licensing software in Germany. The court could as well have said the GPL is rubbish but D-Link still violated copyright laws. They didn't. D-Link's "the GPL is not valid" approach actually prompted the court to specifically state that the GPL's "accept this license or don't distribute the product" clause is valid. Thus, the GPL was indeed defended even though the court didn't say anything about the other clauses. They don't have to. They said if you don't like the rest of the GPL, you need not accept the GPL, but then you don't have a license at all.
The reason for #2 is that there are no punitive damages in Germany. You can get compensation, but you don't get to punish your opponent for his wrongdoings by taking all his money.
I don't know about the US, but in many countries this would qualify as a misdelivered message (no difference between dead tree and electronic). As the tubologically challenged guys who responded sent their messages to a woman (or believed they were doing so), they could say the guy who published them really had no right to them because he was not the addressee.
Regardless of this, at least for those that will have their marriage ruined by this... you probably deserve it. If you're married, don't look for adventures online.
Also, Apple recalled some of these same batteries about 1.5 years ago. I guess now that it's apparent that the exploding batteries were Sony's fault, they're just refreshing (and extending) their exchange program.
Yeah, those tools were really in Mac OS even before MultiFinder (i.e. multitasking Mac OS, introduced 1988), the only difference was that you wouldn't bring them up all at the same time. Not that much of a surprise given desktop sizes of 512x342. They also were in Atari TOS before MultiTOS, with the same restriction, and that again not being much of a surprise given desktop sizes of at most 640x400 at the time. Everybody and their little sister had this kind of workaround for no real multitasking capability. In the case of Mac OS and TOS, they stayed around when multitasking came, but Apple did at first not implement anything similar in OS X. Consequently, some users complained about the perceived loss of functionality...
...that nearly nobody will buy a product he only knows from online ads. If I want to buy something specific, I might google for it, which explains why google searches account for more sales. I might look at ads that are related to what I'm looking for. However, if I google for something else, nothing in hell, including Bill Gates, will make me buy a product that is advertised next to my search results. I might still look at it because of curiosity, but that doesn't mean I'd buy it.
For example, I really like cats. I might google "bobcat" because I want images of bobcats. All of the ads that come up next to my search are about all kinds of automobiles - not even only about bobcats. As a German, I'm legally entitled to not knowing that the term bobcat has become synonymous to some of the types of products of a company of the same name. So I'd perhaps click one of those links and find out. However, I live in an appartment. I have no room for a bobcat (of either sort), so I will still not buy one. Another example: I have really fond memories of Taco Bell. I know their home page, but it's not that informative, so I google the term. I get an ad for ebay. Well, certainly I won't buy used burritos from ebay, but every once in a while, I will still click the link to see what prompted ebay to advertise next to searches for Taco Bell. In this case, it's a couple of products that have almost to association with the term. Definitely, they won't make me buy anything on ebay because I was looking for restaurants in the first place, and not for something I could afford to buy. Another one: I google "filers" because I want to decrease the level of chaos on my desk. I get ads for file servers. Being a tech person, I click them even if I don't want to buy file servers.
It seems as if advertisers just have to get their expectations down. They're paying for clicks even though it is the nature of the web that people click links and read the pages they lead to regularily without buying anything. Click fraud? Rather not. If you pay per click, you pay for people reading your page, not for sales. This is just like in print advertising where you pay for people getting the chance to read your flyer. Viewed this way, 0.35% return seem fair because that's an okay result for print advertising, too.
Many people, myself included have probably searched for our own names, addresses, cities, credit card numbers, etc.
Yeah, I thought about that too and wrote a little perl script that just prints out all valid (as far as the checksum is concerned) credit card numbers in the data set. I found 30 Visa numbers, 4 MasterCards, 3 American Expresses and 2 times Discover. Some of them could be session ids or some such, although that's unlikely. So it's not that much after all, but it's still reasonable to believe that at least some of those numbers are credit card numbers from people trying to check whether their credit card number was leaked on the internet.
Searching for your credit card number to see if it is on the internet, then having AOL put it on the internet - Priceless.
IP version 5 was reserved for Internet Stream Protocol Version 2 (ST2, RFC 1819), however it turned out that IPv6 was better, so they stopped working on it.
There's a fundamental flaw in your argumentation regarding the notion of viewing illegally downloading music as stealing from the artists (you can only steal material goods) and another one regarding the notion that there's a right to royalties (there's not). However, you seem to overlook the fact that there is copyright.
[1] (Forget your employment contract, as most of you conveniently forget the actual contract between an "artist" and a (typically) Media Giant.) Do -you- have a "right" to royalties for a work you performed for your employer? This is a "moral" question to you all. Not a technicality one. Please answer accordingly.
In Germany, I do own the copyright for work I create for my employer. This is because copyright cannot be revoked or given away here. However, my contract, which you so conveniently suggested to ignore, does state that my employer has exclusive usage rights for everyhing I create for them. In other words, I myself chose to get a regular monthly salary instead of payment by actual work done. I could have chosen the latter and become a contractor.
[2] Do you see a difference in the "right" for royalties - future compensation on work done "today" - of the following:
Before I answer this question, I want to ask one myself: Is there actually a right for royalties? No! Neither in Germany nor in the US nor in most European nations.
There is, however, copyright. Copyright means, in its essence, that I may decide who gets to use works I create.
As an employee, I decided that my employer is to get exclusive usage rights for works I create for him. Had I not explicitly granted these rights, my employer would have no legal way to use anything I create.
This is similar with music. The copyright holder says I can have a copy of their music if I respect their copyright and don't share it with dozens of people I might not even know. I can either agree to this implicit contract or not. However, if I don't, I myself have no right to the work of someone else, since said contract is the only way for me to get it in the first place. This is because copyright says I get to choose who can have a copy of my work.
A picture painter? A portrait photographer? A code monkey working at corporation X? Movie Star Y? A singer at a bar?
I rearranged these examples so that the preceding block contains those where someone may actually create something new. Copyright only applies to these. All of them have the same choices I had to sell their work.
The remaining examples are not of creative work. There is no copyright for mowing my lawn. It's simply work I pay for and as such, out of this discussion.
The guy who mows your lawn/cleans your pool? A waiter at the restaurant you ate at? (LAST WEEK!) The gal who sized and sold you your suit? The grease monkey who fixed your engine's knock? Old Kids Down the Block?
[3] After you've answered "Yes!" (because if you didn't, then you can't POSSIBLY see file sharing as "stealing", you dolt!), please explain WHY?
As I previously explained, there is no right for royalties, so your question is moot. None of those people has any right to any royalties. All of those from the first block (those that actually create something new) can choose any model to sell it they want.
However, I don't see file sharing as stealing: Stealing is the transfer of material goods with the primary result that the one they're stolen from does no longer have them. Downloading music illegally therefore is not stealing - the copyright owner still has all of it regardless of who else has a copy.
The law illegal downloaders are breaking is copyright law. Copyright law states, as previously noted, that the creator of any creative work is the sole entity to decide how anybody else might use it. In the case of illegal music downloads, the copyright owner (either the music industry or the artist, depending on regional legis
I read that the article is about NetBSD, but it is still just another badly designed re-implementation of a known concept. It is in no way big news; instead, it reminds me a lot of Windows getting 64 bit capabilities - something everything else and their teenage sister was already doing anyway.
- Essentially the same as DRBD, but build into the kernel (which is bad)
- Essentially the same as Linux' md plus AoE (ATA over Ethernet), which is also built into the kernel, but more modular
- Essentially the same as Linux' md plus Linux' nbd (network block device), which is also built into the kernel, but more modular
- Built into the kernel when it could be a daemon that is notified of changes by the kernel instead (don't know if NetBSD's kernel does this, others do)
- It's not a backup solution but a RAID: It only protects you from disk failures, not from brain failures, something that backup solutions can do
I work at a research institute where we run a cluster of Linux workstations that boot from a server and keep all their data on a file server. Both servers are Linux boxes that use drbd to keep their configuration synchronized. The file server is a set of two front-end machines (one active, one waiting) that additionally use md+nbd to create a network RAID-1 over many back-end nodes. Each back-end node has a RAID-1 of local disks. This means that each disk in each back-end is redundant and each back-end is redundant, so that all data is stored four times instantly upon each write (yes, we do have a separate backup solution), distributed over two separate floors in different parts of the building. And this was implemented by one single totally underpaid student (granted, he's good...)!
After I first met my gf, we didn't see each other for months since she lives halfway across the country (of course, said country being Germany, that wasn't as bad as it sounds). We started to exchange e-mails, currently totalling over 4k messages. I'm fairly certain our ability to look up information on Google and impress each other with it played an important part in this. Thousands of e-mails from the same person tend to be boring if there's never anything new in them. That was in 2004. We've been "officially together" for the better part of 2005 and she's finally moving in with me this month. Thanks, Google.
What's the logic here? Producing more fuel won't be removing any vehicle from the roads! We need less vehicles, not more fuel.
The (oversimplified) logic is that CO2 released by burning biodiesel would be released by the decomposition process of the remains of the undoubtedly cute and furry animals they use for producing biodiesel, anyway. This is CO2 that was absorbed by the plants those animals ate just months ago. On the other hand, CO2 released by burning fossil fuels was pulled out of the atmosphere millions of years ago and would stay out of it, were it not for us burning these fuels.
Music downloads are for people who don't fully *appreciate* music
What you meant to say is
Music downloads are for people who don't fully *appreciate* music the way I do
I can perfectly well appreciate my iTMS downloads on less "snobbish" equipment. I don't require the knowledge of having spent tons of cash for a "resonable hi-fi setup" in order to enjoy listening to music. In fact, even the el-cheapo earphones that come with iPods will do. That is because my interest is in music and not in expensive equipment.
Actually, I don't want anybody controlling it. It is entirely possible to remove all dependencies on centralized control structures from the internet as it is now. Even IANA as an authority that assigns IP addresses to regional authorities could be dropped. Maybe some of these changes aren't feasible until IPv6 is in widespread use, but they're definitely not out of reach.
Slashdot Mirror
You can't completely turn of non-transactional storage engines, but you can configure a different default engine. If you configure InnoDB as default-storage-engine in my.cnf, then by default your tables will support transactions.
So in total, all you're complaining about is settings you can actually change easily, either in my.cnf or in the server command line. Maybe I'm missing your point, but what exactly is it?
After all, *some* setup has to be the default, and you can't just dismiss MySQL because its default is not identical to yours because there are likely millions of users with defaults different from yours.
That's not exactly the same. PostgreSQL vacuum frees up disk space used by deleted data; the data stays on disk until you do that and it's not overwritten by new inserts/updates. InnoDB in MySQL doesn't free up space for deleted data immediately either, but it does re-use that disk space for new inserts/updates. You can cause InnoDB to free up this space manually, and yes this is similar to vacuum in Postgres, but unlike in Postgres it's not necessary for the database to work.
In other words, if you have a database where you delete 100 rows and add 100 rows each day, the Postgres database will continually grow by the size of those 100 rows added until you vacuum. With MySQL, the database size will be the maximum size ever required for the database until you alter table engine=innodb, which will reorganize the table. But it will not grow by 100 rows every day and in fact not grow at all most of the time. And if you configure InnoDB to use one file per table, you can restrict this to tables that actually need it.
So Apple is the biggest backer of DRM. But then, the DRM I get when I buy songs on iTunes still gives me more choice than the DRM that comes with some CDs these days. And it won't install root kits either. So maybe Apple's just the biggest backer because they're the only large company that uses a kind of DRM people don't mind to being subject to.
It's not just that they don't know what GoogleOS might be; it's worse. Quite frankly, they have no idea what they're talking about at all.
It's not particularily dangerous. You can get it over in Canada.
Actually, explicitly not removing racist blogs without court order supports censorship, too - removing the blogs by themselves wouldn't be censorship because only governments can do that. Only removing what the government wants removed is supporting censorship.
They're not intentionally supporting censorship here, though. Sure, Google could say "no racist smut on our servers" and delete those blogs. People would point out other blogs they think Google should remove for various reasons. Google would have to find a dividing line between acceptable and unacceptable content. Then, they'd have to enforce it. This takes a lot of work. By their "remove content only when ordered to do so by a court" policy Google offloads this burden on the legal system. Additionally, they're much less unfair. Convince a court your blog is okay, you can keep it. Same treatment for everybody.
The second one too, now. Happened to me too, read 1632 online, bought some as paperbacks then. Additionally, you can buy the other 1632 volumes from baen as ebooks for about $6 per book. Non-DRMed ebook, that is, as for all baen ebooks.
Apple has been selling 64 bit machines with a 64 bit OS for years. The trouble started when they began to sell 32 bit machines again... at least they omitted the intel inside stickers :-)
No, actually, the court ruling explicitly states that the GPL is a valid means of licensing software in Germany. The court could as well have said the GPL is rubbish but D-Link still violated copyright laws. They didn't. D-Link's "the GPL is not valid" approach actually prompted the court to specifically state that the GPL's "accept this license or don't distribute the product" clause is valid. Thus, the GPL was indeed defended even though the court didn't say anything about the other clauses. They don't have to. They said if you don't like the rest of the GPL, you need not accept the GPL, but then you don't have a license at all.
The reason for #2 is that there are no punitive damages in Germany. You can get compensation, but you don't get to punish your opponent for his wrongdoings by taking all his money.
I don't know about the US, but in many countries this would qualify as a misdelivered message (no difference between dead tree and electronic). As the tubologically challenged guys who responded sent their messages to a woman (or believed they were doing so), they could say the guy who published them really had no right to them because he was not the addressee.
Regardless of this, at least for those that will have their marriage ruined by this... you probably deserve it. If you're married, don't look for adventures online.
Also, Apple recalled some of these same batteries about 1.5 years ago. I guess now that it's apparent that the exploding batteries were Sony's fault, they're just refreshing (and extending) their exchange program.
Yeah, those tools were really in Mac OS even before MultiFinder (i.e. multitasking Mac OS, introduced 1988), the only difference was that you wouldn't bring them up all at the same time. Not that much of a surprise given desktop sizes of 512x342. They also were in Atari TOS before MultiTOS, with the same restriction, and that again not being much of a surprise given desktop sizes of at most 640x400 at the time. Everybody and their little sister had this kind of workaround for no real multitasking capability. In the case of Mac OS and TOS, they stayed around when multitasking came, but Apple did at first not implement anything similar in OS X. Consequently, some users complained about the perceived loss of functionality...
...that nearly nobody will buy a product he only knows from online ads. If I want to buy something specific, I might google for it, which explains why google searches account for more sales. I might look at ads that are related to what I'm looking for. However, if I google for something else, nothing in hell, including Bill Gates, will make me buy a product that is advertised next to my search results. I might still look at it because of curiosity, but that doesn't mean I'd buy it.
For example, I really like cats. I might google "bobcat" because I want images of bobcats. All of the ads that come up next to my search are about all kinds of automobiles - not even only about bobcats. As a German, I'm legally entitled to not knowing that the term bobcat has become synonymous to some of the types of products of a company of the same name. So I'd perhaps click one of those links and find out. However, I live in an appartment. I have no room for a bobcat (of either sort), so I will still not buy one. Another example: I have really fond memories of Taco Bell. I know their home page, but it's not that informative, so I google the term. I get an ad for ebay. Well, certainly I won't buy used burritos from ebay, but every once in a while, I will still click the link to see what prompted ebay to advertise next to searches for Taco Bell. In this case, it's a couple of products that have almost to association with the term. Definitely, they won't make me buy anything on ebay because I was looking for restaurants in the first place, and not for something I could afford to buy. Another one: I google "filers" because I want to decrease the level of chaos on my desk. I get ads for file servers. Being a tech person, I click them even if I don't want to buy file servers.
It seems as if advertisers just have to get their expectations down. They're paying for clicks even though it is the nature of the web that people click links and read the pages they lead to regularily without buying anything. Click fraud? Rather not. If you pay per click, you pay for people reading your page, not for sales. This is just like in print advertising where you pay for people getting the chance to read your flyer. Viewed this way, 0.35% return seem fair because that's an okay result for print advertising, too.
Yeah, I thought about that too and wrote a little perl script that just prints out all valid (as far as the checksum is concerned) credit card numbers in the data set. I found 30 Visa numbers, 4 MasterCards, 3 American Expresses and 2 times Discover. Some of them could be session ids or some such, although that's unlikely. So it's not that much after all, but it's still reasonable to believe that at least some of those numbers are credit card numbers from people trying to check whether their credit card number was leaked on the internet.
Searching for your credit card number to see if it is on the internet, then having AOL put it on the internet - Priceless.
IP version 5 was reserved for Internet Stream Protocol Version 2 (ST2, RFC 1819), however it turned out that IPv6 was better, so they stopped working on it.
There's a fundamental flaw in your argumentation regarding the notion of viewing illegally downloading music as stealing from the artists (you can only steal material goods) and another one regarding the notion that there's a right to royalties (there's not). However, you seem to overlook the fact that there is copyright.
[1] (Forget your employment contract, as most of you conveniently forget the actual contract between an "artist" and a (typically) Media Giant.) Do -you- have a "right" to royalties for a work you performed for your employer? This is a "moral" question to you all. Not a technicality one. Please answer accordingly.
In Germany, I do own the copyright for work I create for my employer. This is because copyright cannot be revoked or given away here. However, my contract, which you so conveniently suggested to ignore, does state that my employer has exclusive usage rights for everyhing I create for them. In other words, I myself chose to get a regular monthly salary instead of payment by actual work done. I could have chosen the latter and become a contractor.
[2] Do you see a difference in the "right" for royalties - future compensation on work done "today" - of the following:
Before I answer this question, I want to ask one myself: Is there actually a right for royalties? No! Neither in Germany nor in the US nor in most European nations.
There is, however, copyright. Copyright means, in its essence, that I may decide who gets to use works I create.
As an employee, I decided that my employer is to get exclusive usage rights for works I create for him. Had I not explicitly granted these rights, my employer would have no legal way to use anything I create.
This is similar with music. The copyright holder says I can have a copy of their music if I respect their copyright and don't share it with dozens of people I might not even know. I can either agree to this implicit contract or not. However, if I don't, I myself have no right to the work of someone else, since said contract is the only way for me to get it in the first place. This is because copyright says I get to choose who can have a copy of my work.
A picture painter?
A portrait photographer?
A code monkey working at corporation X?
Movie Star Y?
A singer at a bar?
I rearranged these examples so that the preceding block contains those where someone may actually create something new. Copyright only applies to these. All of them have the same choices I had to sell their work.
The remaining examples are not of creative work. There is no copyright for mowing my lawn. It's simply work I pay for and as such, out of this discussion.
The guy who mows your lawn/cleans your pool?
A waiter at the restaurant you ate at? (LAST WEEK!)
The gal who sized and sold you your suit?
The grease monkey who fixed your engine's knock?
Old Kids Down the Block?
[3] After you've answered "Yes!" (because if you didn't, then you can't POSSIBLY see file sharing as "stealing", you dolt!), please explain WHY?
As I previously explained, there is no right for royalties, so your question is moot. None of those people has any right to any royalties. All of those from the first block (those that actually create something new) can choose any model to sell it they want.
However, I don't see file sharing as stealing: Stealing is the transfer of material goods with the primary result that the one they're stolen from does no longer have them. Downloading music illegally therefore is not stealing - the copyright owner still has all of it regardless of who else has a copy.
The law illegal downloaders are breaking is copyright law. Copyright law states, as previously noted, that the creator of any creative work is the sole entity to decide how anybody else might use it. In the case of illegal music downloads, the copyright owner (either the music industry or the artist, depending on regional legis
May I point you to a tiny detail you may have missed...
Number of firearm related injuries in the USA in 2000: 75,685 (source: FBI)
Number of firearm related injuries in Germany in 2000: 2,040 (source: BKA)
Population of the United States: 298,444,215 (source: CIA World Factbook)
Population of Germany: 82,422,299 (source: CIA World Factbook)
Therefore, number of firearm injuries in Germany scaled up to population of USA: 7385, less than 10% of the real US number.
I doubt there even *are* 10 major street gangs in Germany.
I read that the article is about NetBSD, but it is still just another badly designed re-implementation of a known concept. It is in no way big news; instead, it reminds me a lot of Windows getting 64 bit capabilities - something everything else and their teenage sister was already doing anyway.
- Essentially the same as Linux' md plus AoE (ATA over Ethernet), which is also built into the kernel, but more modular
- Essentially the same as Linux' md plus Linux' nbd (network block device), which is also built into the kernel, but more modular
- Built into the kernel when it could be a daemon that is notified of changes by the kernel instead (don't know if NetBSD's kernel does this, others do)
- It's not a backup solution but a RAID: It only protects you from disk failures, not from brain failures, something that backup solutions can do
I work at a research institute where we run a cluster of Linux workstations that boot from a server and keep all their data on a file server. Both servers are Linux boxes that use drbd to keep their configuration synchronized. The file server is a set of two front-end machines (one active, one waiting) that additionally use md+nbd to create a network RAID-1 over many back-end nodes. Each back-end node has a RAID-1 of local disks. This means that each disk in each back-end is redundant and each back-end is redundant, so that all data is stored four times instantly upon each write (yes, we do have a separate backup solution), distributed over two separate floors in different parts of the building. And this was implemented by one single totally underpaid student (granted, he's good...)!
So tell me again what's new about TFA.
After I first met my gf, we didn't see each other for months since she lives halfway across the country (of course, said country being Germany, that wasn't as bad as it sounds). We started to exchange e-mails, currently totalling over 4k messages. I'm fairly certain our ability to look up information on Google and impress each other with it played an important part in this. Thousands of e-mails from the same person tend to be boring if there's never anything new in them. That was in 2004. We've been "officially together" for the better part of 2005 and she's finally moving in with me this month. Thanks, Google.
What's the logic here? Producing more fuel won't be removing any vehicle from the roads! We need less vehicles, not more fuel.
The (oversimplified) logic is that CO2 released by burning biodiesel would be released by the decomposition process of the remains of the undoubtedly cute and furry animals they use for producing biodiesel, anyway. This is CO2 that was absorbed by the plants those animals ate just months ago. On the other hand, CO2 released by burning fossil fuels was pulled out of the atmosphere millions of years ago and would stay out of it, were it not for us burning these fuels.
Simply put, there are no criminal charges because no LAME copyright holder has yet sued them.
What you meant to say is
Music downloads are for people who don't fully *appreciate* music the way I do
I can perfectly well appreciate my iTMS downloads on less "snobbish" equipment. I don't require the knowledge of having spent tons of cash for a "resonable hi-fi setup" in order to enjoy listening to music. In fact, even the el-cheapo earphones that come with iPods will do. That is because my interest is in music and not in expensive equipment.
Actually, I don't want anybody controlling it. It is entirely possible to remove all dependencies on centralized control structures from the internet as it is now. Even IANA as an authority that assigns IP addresses to regional authorities could be dropped. Maybe some of these changes aren't feasible until IPv6 is in widespread use, but they're definitely not out of reach.