Whose idea was it that extraterrestrials, assuming they exist, would decide to communicate with us in this fashion? I mean, is there precedent for alien communication via radio? Why wouldn't the aliens stick to tried and true methods of communicating with inferior species; i.e. good old fashioned crop circles and cattle mutilations?
I think iTunes' behavior in this regard is close to ideal. Perhaps the user should be warned before their whole library is rearranged like happened to the person posting above, but in general I like how iTunes arranges the library and I prefer that it copies songs into the main itunes folder. I periodically delete my download directory because I don't want random mp3s scattered about my desktop, and I don't want to have to worry about accidentally deleting a file that is in itunes' directory. And if I really want to use the finder to look for an mp3, the library is arranged in a perfectly reasonable manner.
On another note, my biggest complaint about iTunes defaults is the "Use error correction while reading CDs" checkbox. I ruined much of my library on importing because I left this unchecked when I first started importing my collection. A lot of songs sound like crap; random distortion really loud, and there's no way to know which songs got screwed until they are playing. Why have an almost hidden preference that will ruin your library if not checked? Perhaps other people have better luck importing with this turned off than I do, but now whenever I use a computer's itunes for the first time I make damn sure that box is checked before importing CDs....
"Unless Apple slash prices on their own hardware"? Let me introduce you to the Mac mini. And the iBook, for that matter. For their prices in x86-land there is nothing comparable, especially when you factor in design. When Macs have x86 chips Apple will be able to sell even cheaper offerings -- of course they will still have $2-3k phat high end rigs, but they will also be pushing machines in the $500-1000 price range that will be way cooler looking than anything coming from Dell or whatever.
No it's not. I bought a Mac to run OSX, not to emulate windows. Almost everything that I could want is available or soon to be available on OSX. Windows emulation is a handy thing to have around in rare cases where running a Windows app is necessary, but if you really need those apps, you buy a windows box.
On the flipside, maybe this is another reason the RIAA/MPAA are afraid of P2P and the internet in general - it allows content from other parts of the world (that they do not necessarily control) to come over here and become popular.
I've been saying this since 1998. The *AAs are going after internet sharing not because they believe their BS about "protecting artists" but because they believe the internet offers a distribution channel that they don't absolutely control. It would limit their stranglehold on the world mental landscape. It's not just content from other countries but also content that doesn't fit their narrow view of what makes a "hit."
It's hard to argue that money is lost when americans download episodes of an anime that may never even be shown anywhere but Japan, and if no money is lost then a lawsuit is rather pointless.
For American companies, the logic is a little different. A lawsuit is not pointless if no money is lost -- a lawsuit is only pointless if no money is to be gained (extorted).
Classical music would disappear without fierce enforcement of copyright laws. Nobody will perform classical music at all if they aren't guaranteed absolute control over future distribution of their recording. Just look at how little classical music was written or performed for hundreds of years. It wasn't until the mid-twentieth century, after the RIAA established a track record of boldly protecting the intellectual property of artists, that anybody had any incentive at all to perform classical music. But now we have a classical music renaissance thanks to the protection of the RIAA.
</sarcasm>
Obviously you don't understand art, commerce, OR p2p. This is not about whether an artist "gives a crap about money." Many artists, even very successful ones, support p2p as an alternative distribution mechanism that allows them to distribute their work without the RIAA companies controlling that distribution. In many cases the internet distribution serves as a catalyst for album and ticket sales (just like radio stations that distribute their works). One band - I forget which; perhaps Soundgarden? - who let their album out on the internet was interviewed and said "we sold 11 million copies. If you are going to tell me we would have sold 12 million without letting it out on the internet, so what?"
The future of music distribution belongs to the internet, not to the RIAA. Once a few artists begin to make it big based on internet distribution first (as opposed to already established artists using the internet to distribute works that would be purchased in record stores anyway), the RIAA will take note, and guess where they will be turning to look for new stars to sign?
Yes he (or she) chooses between selling rights to the publisher or fading into obscurity without distribution. At least, under the old world rules the publishing companies, like the media companies, still want to cling to. The publishing companies are a little better but they're doing a lot of stupid things like protesting google, and like crippling their digital libraries so they have no "digital" advantage over books. (E.g. our university library purchased a contract with a publisher for digital works - but the contract requires that only one student may access a library item at a time. In other words, even though it's a digital work, only one copy may be "checked out" at once. Defeating one of the main advantages of going digital in the first place.)
But my point is, things are changing; more and more books are being published and marketed online, and companies like amazon will facilitate distribution beyond the stranglehold of the publishing industry. So far though this only favors authors who make it in the publishing industry via the old way first -- meaning giving up rights in bogus contracts that you only sign because it's slightly better than not being published at all.
My prediction: The world needs a few more internet "sensations" to become famous in the mainstream media only AFTER they become famous on the internet. This is true in the music and other media world as much as for publishing -- a few "stars" need to break the ice, becoming famous purely based on internet marketing. Then the mainstream companies will be looking to the internet for its new stars rather than trying to sue it out of existence. Only then will these companies stop their goddam whining about pirates destroying some millionaire's right to earn a living.
Exactly. The author should have the choice, not the publisher. These publishing contracts which tie publication to assignation of copyright to a profit-making institution undermine the author's right to choose.
Slashdot Mirror
Whose idea was it that extraterrestrials, assuming they exist, would decide to communicate with us in this fashion? I mean, is there precedent for alien communication via radio? Why wouldn't the aliens stick to tried and true methods of communicating with inferior species; i.e. good old fashioned crop circles and cattle mutilations?
On another note, my biggest complaint about iTunes defaults is the "Use error correction while reading CDs" checkbox. I ruined much of my library on importing because I left this unchecked when I first started importing my collection. A lot of songs sound like crap; random distortion really loud, and there's no way to know which songs got screwed until they are playing. Why have an almost hidden preference that will ruin your library if not checked? Perhaps other people have better luck importing with this turned off than I do, but now whenever I use a computer's itunes for the first time I make damn sure that box is checked before importing CDs....
It has more buttons.
"Unless Apple slash prices on their own hardware"? Let me introduce you to the Mac mini. And the iBook, for that matter. For their prices in x86-land there is nothing comparable, especially when you factor in design. When Macs have x86 chips Apple will be able to sell even cheaper offerings -- of course they will still have $2-3k phat high end rigs, but they will also be pushing machines in the $500-1000 price range that will be way cooler looking than anything coming from Dell or whatever.
Lawyers?
No it's not. I bought a Mac to run OSX, not to emulate windows. Almost everything that I could want is available or soon to be available on OSX. Windows emulation is a handy thing to have around in rare cases where running a Windows app is necessary, but if you really need those apps, you buy a windows box.
I know where we can use the money to purchase 2,523,105 Windows servers, and still have change left over for bubble gum!
Don't you mean our old Korean overlords?
Not to mention, the whole trial was pretty snappy!
That's the chewy center!
Remember, this is before the iPod Shuffle, when Apple began recommending against eating it...
No.
I've been saying this since 1998. The *AAs are going after internet sharing not because they believe their BS about "protecting artists" but because they believe the internet offers a distribution channel that they don't absolutely control. It would limit their stranglehold on the world mental landscape. It's not just content from other countries but also content that doesn't fit their narrow view of what makes a "hit."
For American companies, the logic is a little different. A lawsuit is not pointless if no money is lost -- a lawsuit is only pointless if no money is to be gained (extorted).
Classical music would disappear without fierce enforcement of copyright laws. Nobody will perform classical music at all if they aren't guaranteed absolute control over future distribution of their recording. Just look at how little classical music was written or performed for hundreds of years. It wasn't until the mid-twentieth century, after the RIAA established a track record of boldly protecting the intellectual property of artists, that anybody had any incentive at all to perform classical music. But now we have a classical music renaissance thanks to the protection of the RIAA.
</sarcasm>
The future of music distribution belongs to the internet, not to the RIAA. Once a few artists begin to make it big based on internet distribution first (as opposed to already established artists using the internet to distribute works that would be purchased in record stores anyway), the RIAA will take note, and guess where they will be turning to look for new stars to sign?
Well, we already had Washintonienne....
But my point is, things are changing; more and more books are being published and marketed online, and companies like amazon will facilitate distribution beyond the stranglehold of the publishing industry. So far though this only favors authors who make it in the publishing industry via the old way first -- meaning giving up rights in bogus contracts that you only sign because it's slightly better than not being published at all.
My prediction: The world needs a few more internet "sensations" to become famous in the mainstream media only AFTER they become famous on the internet. This is true in the music and other media world as much as for publishing -- a few "stars" need to break the ice, becoming famous purely based on internet marketing. Then the mainstream companies will be looking to the internet for its new stars rather than trying to sue it out of existence. Only then will these companies stop their goddam whining about pirates destroying some millionaire's right to earn a living.
;^)
Exactly. The author should have the choice, not the publisher. These publishing contracts which tie publication to assignation of copyright to a profit-making institution undermine the author's right to choose.
Oh, wait a minute, never mind...
I forgot we were talking about viruses.
Nope; that's just normal slashdot user conversation. You must be new here.
I guess you've never paid for shareware then.
Wait a minute...
Anybody listening to a 20-year old math lecture on the subway deserves to have their white headphones and their lunch money swiped.
Note: I am American. I'm allowed to make fun of you.