It seems to me you had to change the driver named in the XF86Config file from "nvidia" to "nv" when you installed the binary blob. It's been a while since I had to tweak one of those. What a pain it used to be getting X working with your video card. That was one of the reasons I started buying nVidia - they supported Linux. Since X.org has become the standard, I haven't had to do a thing to get X working on a machine.
You and I will just have to agree to disagree wrt Stallman. I understand he annoys you, and it gets tired listening to someone constantly banging the same drum, but I care deeply about the ideals of the FSF and specifically about the four freedoms, and I think they are under constant attack by powerful groups whose only desire is to put us all in cages (figuratively) so they can more easily separate us from our money.
Free software - like any other "free" thing - is easy to lose if you allow the ideas it is based on to be watered down for the sake of convenience. I feel the same way about privacy, and I'm sure I annoy a lot of people when I explain to them at length why I will not give them my private information and why they shouldn't be asking for it.
Sometimes being vocal about something you care passionately about pisses people off.
If you look, Mandriva has an offering that does include the Proprietary drivers.
I know. That's what I meant when I said "my Mandriva distro does that with the nVidia drivers."
Most distros have these and label them the "free" versions which really confuse people not in the know.
I can see where people can get confused by the different meanings of the word "free," but I don't see that as a reason to stop offering people choice. Mandriva has their Power Packs, which you get access to if you subscribe. The "free" versions are free in the sense of "gratis," not necessarily "libre" (although they could be "free as in speech" if the user chooses to set their system up that way).
I run Mandriva on my file server, and it's been a while since I installed it, so I probably mis-spoke earlier when I said they had two separate versions. I do recall there was an EULA of some sort during the installation process that was clearly labeled as pertaining to the "non-free" elements such as the nVidia drivers, and maybe things like flash. They still give you the choice of either running a completely "free software" version, or using the proprietary drivers if you choose. That's the best of both worlds, IMO.
The only reason those "free" versions are there is because of Stallman and company.
No, the "free" versions are there for people who wish to run only free software. While maybe not important to you, it is to some people and I welcome the choice. Choice is decidedly lacking in the proprietary world.
You didn't boot into a Fully functional 3D environment after installation, you booted into what appears to be a fully functional 3D environment. The graphic driver supplied by Mandriva is the Xorg driver that had limited functionality compared to Nvidia's binary blob.. At least as near as I can tell, the Nvidia Kernel Blob isn't included with any of the Mandriva released that I can find except the power pack and it's a selectable driver option there which means it has to be the Xorg driver in the free as in non pay versions.
Possible. As I said, it's been a while since I installed that particular system. I know with previous installs, I had to go the nVidia's website and download a driver. Installation was no more difficult that any installation you need to perform when plugging a USB device in to a Windows box, but I'm pretty sure with the Spring 2007 version I'm running on my file server the nvidia drivers were an option that could be selected during install. I may have had to do something after the first boot, but I don't think I had to open a text editor.
Of it works well enough for you, fine, if it doesn't, then grab the real deal from Nvidia itself and see how you card can really perform under linux
As I said, I'm running the nVidia driver. You can tell it is running on your system by restarting X. The nVidia logo will flash on your screen as it starts. And yes, I know I shouldn't be running X on a file server, but that machine performed other duties for the first few years of its life.
Btw, I really like Mandrive, too, especially their Control Center, but I have to say I don't care much for their forums or their website in general. It lacked the polish and usability I expect when I pay a subscription for something. Fortunately, mandrivausers.org provides a much better experience. I still support Mandriva because I think their distro is excellent.
Here's a thread from yesterday that has a lot of posts about it. Logged in non-subscribers and ACs report seeing stories with red borders, so either everyone has been granted access to stories from the mysterious future or something's broken (borken???). Taco's journal may yield some clues, but I'm cooking dinner right now.
... I'm no longer a subscriber, and I've noticed the red border myself a few times
Interesting. Being a subscriber, nothing looked out of place to me, and there seems to be a lot of comments like the one I replied to lately. After posting, I noticed this one in an earlier story.
My semi-educated guess is there's some non-atomic publish update occurring, where the article is published, but the "Mysterious Future!" theming is not yet updated.
Good point. Never attribute to malice anything that can be explained by buggy slashcode;-)
"Once inside, he sucked out their content, including the logins, passwords, and email addresses of everyone who bought and sold through the sites. And then he decimated them, wiping out the databases with the ease of an arsonist flicking a match."
This seems to be written more like a work of fiction than an account of the hack.
True, but I'll bet there were lots of cool graphics swirling around his head while he was doing it!
I've noticed a few of these "What's up with teh red stories on teh front page" comments lately. Are the posters truly unaware of the significance of the red border, or are these posts a variation on the Obama turd trolls or something? I've seen similar comments posted in other threads. Some - like this one - even go so far as to post a link to a screen shot, to "prove" that they really saw a story in red!!!
Mind you, I had the same "am I losing my mind?" reaction when the user page was changed without warning or explanation a month or so ago. My troll radar just goes a little crazy when someone questions something only a logged-in subscriber would see but posts a question about it anonymously.
Assuming you're not trolling, subscribers get to preview summaries before they are posted to the front page. The previews are bordered in red, so you know they have not yet gone live.
I agree that getting drivers working can be a real pain, but there are distros out there that will install and configure proprietary drivers for you. My Mandriva distro does that with the nVidia drivers. It tells you plainly during the install that these drivers are not free, and I believe you may even have to accept an EULA, but I booted in to a fully graphical environment with working 3D graphic the first time I started the system after installing it.
I am also pretty sure Ubuntu will configure NDISwrapper for you, if you have the Windows drivers on a partition of your hard drive.
I don't know. I don't do as much experimenting with new distros as some people, and maybe there are rampant examples of distros that won't play nice with NDISwrapper, or go out of their way to prevent you from installing the nVidia drivers. I just have not experienced it, and I won't lose sleep over the thought of Richard Stallman disapproving of my hybrid free/proprietary system , despite my ever-lasting gratitude for everything he has done to provide me with an alternative to proprietary software.
I hope that's clear enough this time, because you missed it the first time around.
Maybe I am missing your point, because I still do not see where Richard Stallman or anyone else has taken steps to prevent us from using proprietary software with free (as in the four freedoms) software. They will say that my Mandriva distro with the proprietary nVidea drivers doesn't meet the definition of free, but I am still free to use a hybrid system if that suits my needs. There is plenty of choice out there, thanks in large part to the work of the FSF, and I am free to choose just the right mix of free and proprietary tools to suit my needs.
I think it's stupid in both cases, if my wireless card wont work because it has proprietary drivers and your answer is "tough shit, buy one with open source drivers" you've just lost most reasonable people
Actually, my answer would be "use NDISwrapper," another free software project that attempts to give people more control over their hardware despite a lack of published specifications or drivers for their platform. My question to you is, if your wireless card won't work because it only has proprietary drivers, how is that Stallman's fault?
GPL software is not the problem, I never said it was, the problem, which I clearly stated, is people who insist that GPL software be the only software and that no other software be used.
Why is that a problem for you? You are still free to use GPL software - or not use it - as it suits you.
I got that idea about the FSF from their last little release that got covered here on Slashdot, which had, if you read it, wording that free (as in FSF) software should do everything in its power not to work with proprietary software. Didn't read the article? Well it was in the comments to, where I posted a comment in reply much to the same effect as the one you clearly misread as an anti-GPL rant and not and anti-impractical zealot rant.
That's what I'd like to see: an example of free software designed specifically to not work with proprietary software. Can you provide more detail about that article, or perhaps a link? I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I haven't experienced it.
I know Stallman is of the opinion that only free software should be used, but I am unaware of him specifically calling upon developers to design software to not work with proprietary software.
How is that even possible? Could someone else not just fork the project and remove the offending code? Or create a project that respected the users choice?
Look at the cddb example. From its wiki page:
In March 2001, CDDB, now owned by Gracenote, banned all unlicensed applications from accessing their database... The license change motivated many forks in the CDDB project tree, including the freedb project, which is intended to remain free software.
I use ndiswrapper because there are no free software drivers for the Broadcomm chipset in my Latitude notebook. In order to do this, I need access to the proprietary Windows drivers that came with the Dell. So the Linux install on the laptop is not an entirely "free software" environment, but that does not pose a problem for me.
If - for any reason - ndiswrapper stopped working and I was no longer able to use the Windows drivers, I could change platforms, try a different wifi card or pay someone to get ndiswrapper working again. That's the choice I have. I never paid the makers of ndiswrapper to produce their software, and they never made a commitment to me that it would always work. All they have done is give me choice where none existed before.
The same could be said for the FSF.
Now consider what would happen if the wireless stopped working while I was in Windows. I could still change to a different platform, I suppose, but that would be unlikely to solve t
If I keep my kernel up to date, it's possible my nVidia drivers to stop working after a while because Linus refuses to stabilise the kernel driver API. This makes it harder to use hardware for which only proprietary drivers are available. That's restricting my freedom.
Linus seems like a strange choice to hold up as an example of someone limiting your rights in the name of free software. He always struck me as the ultimate pragmatist, someone who favours using the best tool for the job, regardless of whether it is proprietary or free software.
Never the less, do you have to apply every kernel patch? I can see security updates and bug fixes, but changes to the driver API? Especially if they break your nVidia drivers. Wouldn't you look at what the patch does, see that it is incompatible with your hardware and choose not to run it?
Really, it goes back to where the problem actually lies, and that is with the proprietary nVidia drivers. Complain to them. You gave them money for their graphics card. Have you ever given a penny to Linus or any of the other kernel developers?
They are doing nothing to curtail your freedom to use the software they so generously provided any way you see fit, and if it doesn't suit your exact needs, you can pay someone to change it.
I don't understand how a group of people can espouse freedom and then go out of their way to put every possible roadblock in place to the end user making use of software that does not meet their standards of free.
Please provide an example of this happening. The end user is under no obligation to "accept the terms" of the GPL (despite the fact that many software distributors stupidly force users to do just that when installing GPL software). Freedom 0 specifically grants the user unlimited freedom to use the software as (s)he sees fit. Any restrictions placed on the use of GPL software is a direct violation of the GPL.
The GPL governs the distribution of software, and prevents developers and distributors from restricting the way a person uses the software. Claims that the GPL restricts use is the great straw man of the proprietary vendors' anti-free software FUD campaign.
The fact that your nVidea drivers might break the next time you do a kernel update is beyond the control of those who provide the free components of your system. If nVidea wants their hardware to work with anybody's hardware or software, they need to either release working drivers themselves, or release the specifications so others may develop them. I can't imagine how you arrived at the conclusion that the FSF is in some way placing "every possible roadblock in place to the end user making use of software that does not meet their standards of free."
When are we going to get a free software movement that says "We will work for unlimited interoperability so our users are free to use any and all software and hardware, open source proprietary, to best accomplish their needs."
That's what they've been doing for 25 years. Any lack of interoperability you've been experiencing is likely due to a lack of published specifications for that proprietary hardware and software you just referred to.
I know Windows costs money, but it's usually subsidized or pirated anyway, so in my personal domain the cost is 0. Professionally speaking is a whole other story on all fronts for a number of reasons.
So you slag the people who provide free software and blame them of the lack of interoperability you experience when you mix it with closed-source propriety hardware and software, and you also don't pay for the proprietary stuff, violating the terms of their user agreements (which, unlike the GPL, do restrict your right to use the software).
I'm sure we could find lot's of examples of an over-zealous watchdog group labeling something obscene. Facebook recently deleted a bunch of pictures of mothers nursing their babies on the grounds that the photos were obscene. The Parents Music Resource Center routinely labels music obscene.
So the Internet Watch Foundation doesn't like a 30-year-old album cover. Read the story you linked to:
Wikipedia fancies itself as a kind of Web 2.0 wonderland where anyone on earth can contribute. So it doesn't like banning edits from enormous chunks of the UK. But administrators have refused to remove the naked prepubescent on the grounds that "Wikipedia doesn't censor."
Besides, a naked, pubescent girl on the cover of an album called Virgin Killer is the effing definition of lascivious. Don't think so? Where's the furor over this album cover?
I have no idea where you live, or what "child pornography statute" you are citing. I am doing my best to not just consider the laws and "community standards" where I live, but rather comment on what you have said, which is that "nudity isn't required" and that there must be a "lascivious exhibition of the genitals." I don't think that occurred in the Simpson movie, but then what do I know?
You may be right: a jury could conclude that it was lascivious. Juries reach the wrong verdict some times. But in that case, it is not the nudity that is in question, it is the sexual nature of the work as perceived by the jury.
My mistake was assuming that a reasonable person would conclude that the intent of the scene was to make people laugh, rather than "excite sexual desires." If you honestly believe that a jury where you live would consider the Bart Simpson nude scene in the Simpson Movie "given to or expressing lust," then I will argue with you no further.
as long as there is a "lascivious exhibition of the genitals
The key word there is "lascivious." That's a different thing than nudity, as you said yourself
(in fact, nudity isn't even required)
If nudity was equivalent to pornography, a simple Pampers commercial could be considered obscene. So could a parent's photos of their kids bathing. Or a great number of paintings, photos and feature films that have been produced and exhibited all over the world.
When we confuse natural, non-sexual nudity with "lascivious exhibition of the genitals," the result is usually something stupid like concern over Bart Simpson's dangling doodad.
So I assume these judges have signed affidavits of concern with respect to the depictions of a clearly naked Bart Simpson in the latest (and so far only) Simpsons movie? Right?
Wrong. Naked isn't equivalent to pornographic. If Bart had been depicted in a sex act, that could be considered pornographic. Nudity alone isn't sufficient.
My point was actually that people seem to be unaware that the alternative isn't there for everyone, ie people who don't live in the US and (apparently) the UK. Thanks for proving it;-)
Hasn't this argument been soundly defeated in previous threads?
I don't know about soundly deflated. I would agree that people who are satisfied with the quality of the iTunes files would be unlikely to worry about the re-encode, but then a lot of us use iTunes because Amazon isn't an alternative for us. Having to go through the step of burning/ripping a disc to be able to enjoy the music we purchase on a media player that supports the most common music file format is bad enough; suffering an (albeit minor) loss of quality in addition just rubs a little salt in the wound.
But as others have said, the best way to send Apple message is to not purchase from them. For myself, the hassle and lower quality isn't sufficient reason to stop purchasing music online when it suits me to do so.
When the horrible awful DRM that the whiners here get their panties in a twist about can be defeated by making a backup CD of it directly from within iTunes... and there's a button right in your face so all you have you do is move your mouse to it and click once... it's really really hard for anyone sensible to see where there's any kind of problem.
Well, maybe people get their "painties in a twist" over the degradation in quality that results from the extra round of encoding this method includes, or all those CDs that pile up as a result of the steps you gave. Or maybe they think they shouldn't have to jump through hoops to enjoy the music they paid for on the device/operating system of their choice.
But, you're right, there is a pretty straight-forward way of converting the files to mp3s. You left out a few steps, IMO, so here's my method:
Copy the tracks you wish to convert to a playlist. I call mine Burn.
Put a blank CD-RW in the drive.
Click the "Burn Disk" button.
When it finishes, it will offer to import the disk. Say yes.
When asked if you want it to replace the existing files, answer no.
When it has finished, browse to the directory itunes imports your files in to and move the original, higher quality m4p files to a different device (i.e. copy them to an external hard drive, burn them to a CD or - preferably - do both). This is your back up of the files you paid for.
If necessary*, move the new, slightly-degraded-in-quality, DRM-free mp3 files to a directory in your music library. If you use iTunes to play music or put music on someone's ipod, you will need to tell iTunes to add this new directory to its database.
Blank the CD-RW, so it's ready for the next time you buy an album off iTunes.
*If iTunes imports files directly in to your music library (not a good idea, IMO), iTunes will think there are two copies of each song even after you move the m4ps out of the directory (the original and the mp3s you made). Since iTunes doesn't show you the filename extension, you'll need to double click on each one to determine which is the mp3 (the one that works) and which is the pointer to the m4p that's no longer there (doesn't work). Delete that one.
This method preserves the original, higher-quality files you paid for and eliminates all of those unnecessary CDs. If you keep your library on a shared drive you can access it from anywhere, even remotely with a streaming server like Icecast.
Slashdot Mirror
We'll see. I would tend to think she doesn't need the negative publicity, and she certainly has plenty of money to just pay the guy to go away.
Let us know when you receive that DMCA takedown notice.
It seems to me you had to change the driver named in the XF86Config file from "nvidia" to "nv" when you installed the binary blob. It's been a while since I had to tweak one of those. What a pain it used to be getting X working with your video card. That was one of the reasons I started buying nVidia - they supported Linux. Since X.org has become the standard, I haven't had to do a thing to get X working on a machine.
You and I will just have to agree to disagree wrt Stallman. I understand he annoys you, and it gets tired listening to someone constantly banging the same drum, but I care deeply about the ideals of the FSF and specifically about the four freedoms, and I think they are under constant attack by powerful groups whose only desire is to put us all in cages (figuratively) so they can more easily separate us from our money.
Free software - like any other "free" thing - is easy to lose if you allow the ideas it is based on to be watered down for the sake of convenience. I feel the same way about privacy, and I'm sure I annoy a lot of people when I explain to them at length why I will not give them my private information and why they shouldn't be asking for it.
Sometimes being vocal about something you care passionately about pisses people off.
From http://www.twiztv.com/scripts/nextgeneration/season5/tng-521.txt:
Now turn in your card.
I know. That's what I meant when I said "my Mandriva distro does that with the nVidia drivers."
I can see where people can get confused by the different meanings of the word "free," but I don't see that as a reason to stop offering people choice. Mandriva has their Power Packs, which you get access to if you subscribe. The "free" versions are free in the sense of "gratis," not necessarily "libre" (although they could be "free as in speech" if the user chooses to set their system up that way).
I run Mandriva on my file server, and it's been a while since I installed it, so I probably mis-spoke earlier when I said they had two separate versions. I do recall there was an EULA of some sort during the installation process that was clearly labeled as pertaining to the "non-free" elements such as the nVidia drivers, and maybe things like flash. They still give you the choice of either running a completely "free software" version, or using the proprietary drivers if you choose. That's the best of both worlds, IMO.
No, the "free" versions are there for people who wish to run only free software. While maybe not important to you, it is to some people and I welcome the choice. Choice is decidedly lacking in the proprietary world.
Possible. As I said, it's been a while since I installed that particular system. I know with previous installs, I had to go the nVidia's website and download a driver. Installation was no more difficult that any installation you need to perform when plugging a USB device in to a Windows box, but I'm pretty sure with the Spring 2007 version I'm running on my file server the nvidia drivers were an option that could be selected during install. I may have had to do something after the first boot, but I don't think I had to open a text editor.
As I said, I'm running the nVidia driver. You can tell it is running on your system by restarting X. The nVidia logo will flash on your screen as it starts. And yes, I know I shouldn't be running X on a file server, but that machine performed other duties for the first few years of its life.
Btw, I really like Mandrive, too, especially their Control Center, but I have to say I don't care much for their forums or their website in general. It lacked the polish and usability I expect when I pay a subscription for something. Fortunately, mandrivausers.org provides a much better experience. I still support Mandriva because I think their distro is excellent.
"Computer.
Earl Grey.
Hot."
Here's a thread from yesterday that has a lot of posts about it. Logged in non-subscribers and ACs report seeing stories with red borders, so either everyone has been granted access to stories from the mysterious future or something's broken (borken???). Taco's journal may yield some clues, but I'm cooking dinner right now.
Interesting. Being a subscriber, nothing looked out of place to me, and there seems to be a lot of comments like the one I replied to lately. After posting, I noticed this one in an earlier story.
Good point. Never attribute to malice anything that can be explained by buggy slashcode ;-)
True, but I'll bet there were lots of cool graphics swirling around his head while he was doing it!
I've noticed a few of these "What's up with teh red stories on teh front page" comments lately. Are the posters truly unaware of the significance of the red border, or are these posts a variation on the Obama turd trolls or something? I've seen similar comments posted in other threads. Some - like this one - even go so far as to post a link to a screen shot, to "prove" that they really saw a story in red!!!
Mind you, I had the same "am I losing my mind?" reaction when the user page was changed without warning or explanation a month or so ago. My troll radar just goes a little crazy when someone questions something only a logged-in subscriber would see but posts a question about it anonymously.
Assuming you're not trolling, subscribers get to preview summaries before they are posted to the front page. The previews are bordered in red, so you know they have not yet gone live.
I agree that getting drivers working can be a real pain, but there are distros out there that will install and configure proprietary drivers for you. My Mandriva distro does that with the nVidia drivers. It tells you plainly during the install that these drivers are not free, and I believe you may even have to accept an EULA, but I booted in to a fully graphical environment with working 3D graphic the first time I started the system after installing it.
I am also pretty sure Ubuntu will configure NDISwrapper for you, if you have the Windows drivers on a partition of your hard drive.
I don't know. I don't do as much experimenting with new distros as some people, and maybe there are rampant examples of distros that won't play nice with NDISwrapper, or go out of their way to prevent you from installing the nVidia drivers. I just have not experienced it, and I won't lose sleep over the thought of Richard Stallman disapproving of my hybrid free/proprietary system , despite my ever-lasting gratitude for everything he has done to provide me with an alternative to proprietary software.
Maybe I am missing your point, because I still do not see where Richard Stallman or anyone else has taken steps to prevent us from using proprietary software with free (as in the four freedoms) software. They will say that my Mandriva distro with the proprietary nVidea drivers doesn't meet the definition of free, but I am still free to use a hybrid system if that suits my needs. There is plenty of choice out there, thanks in large part to the work of the FSF, and I am free to choose just the right mix of free and proprietary tools to suit my needs.
Actually, my answer would be "use NDISwrapper," another free software project that attempts to give people more control over their hardware despite a lack of published specifications or drivers for their platform. My question to you is, if your wireless card won't work because it only has proprietary drivers, how is that Stallman's fault?
Why is that a problem for you? You are still free to use GPL software - or not use it - as it suits you.
That's what I'd like to see: an example of free software designed specifically to not work with proprietary software. Can you provide more detail about that article, or perhaps a link? I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I haven't experienced it.
I know Stallman is of the opinion that only free software should be used, but I am unaware of him specifically calling upon developers to design software to not work with proprietary software.
How is that even possible? Could someone else not just fork the project and remove the offending code? Or create a project that respected the users choice?
Look at the cddb example. From its wiki page:
I use ndiswrapper because there are no free software drivers for the Broadcomm chipset in my Latitude notebook. In order to do this, I need access to the proprietary Windows drivers that came with the Dell. So the Linux install on the laptop is not an entirely "free software" environment, but that does not pose a problem for me.
If - for any reason - ndiswrapper stopped working and I was no longer able to use the Windows drivers, I could change platforms, try a different wifi card or pay someone to get ndiswrapper working again. That's the choice I have. I never paid the makers of ndiswrapper to produce their software, and they never made a commitment to me that it would always work. All they have done is give me choice where none existed before.
The same could be said for the FSF.
Now consider what would happen if the wireless stopped working while I was in Windows. I could still change to a different platform, I suppose, but that would be unlikely to solve t
Linus seems like a strange choice to hold up as an example of someone limiting your rights in the name of free software. He always struck me as the ultimate pragmatist, someone who favours using the best tool for the job, regardless of whether it is proprietary or free software.
Never the less, do you have to apply every kernel patch? I can see security updates and bug fixes, but changes to the driver API? Especially if they break your nVidia drivers. Wouldn't you look at what the patch does, see that it is incompatible with your hardware and choose not to run it?
Really, it goes back to where the problem actually lies, and that is with the proprietary nVidia drivers. Complain to them. You gave them money for their graphics card. Have you ever given a penny to Linus or any of the other kernel developers?
They are doing nothing to curtail your freedom to use the software they so generously provided any way you see fit, and if it doesn't suit your exact needs, you can pay someone to change it.
That's freedom.
Please provide an example of this happening. The end user is under no obligation to "accept the terms" of the GPL (despite the fact that many software distributors stupidly force users to do just that when installing GPL software). Freedom 0 specifically grants the user unlimited freedom to use the software as (s)he sees fit. Any restrictions placed on the use of GPL software is a direct violation of the GPL.
The GPL governs the distribution of software, and prevents developers and distributors from restricting the way a person uses the software. Claims that the GPL restricts use is the great straw man of the proprietary vendors' anti-free software FUD campaign.
The fact that your nVidea drivers might break the next time you do a kernel update is beyond the control of those who provide the free components of your system. If nVidea wants their hardware to work with anybody's hardware or software, they need to either release working drivers themselves, or release the specifications so others may develop them. I can't imagine how you arrived at the conclusion that the FSF is in some way placing "every possible roadblock in place to the end user making use of software that does not meet their standards of free."
That's what they've been doing for 25 years. Any lack of interoperability you've been experiencing is likely due to a lack of published specifications for that proprietary hardware and software you just referred to.
So you slag the people who provide free software and blame them of the lack of interoperability you experience when you mix it with closed-source propriety hardware and software, and you also don't pay for the proprietary stuff, violating the terms of their user agreements (which, unlike the GPL, do restrict your right to use the software).
Why are you complaining again?
I'm sure we could find lot's of examples of an over-zealous watchdog group labeling something obscene. Facebook recently deleted a bunch of pictures of mothers nursing their babies on the grounds that the photos were obscene. The Parents Music Resource Center routinely labels music obscene.
So the Internet Watch Foundation doesn't like a 30-year-old album cover. Read the story you linked to:
Besides, a naked, pubescent girl on the cover of an album called Virgin Killer is the effing definition of lascivious. Don't think so? Where's the furor over this album cover?
I have no idea where you live, or what "child pornography statute" you are citing. I am doing my best to not just consider the laws and "community standards" where I live, but rather comment on what you have said, which is that "nudity isn't required" and that there must be a "lascivious exhibition of the genitals." I don't think that occurred in the Simpson movie, but then what do I know?
You may be right: a jury could conclude that it was lascivious. Juries reach the wrong verdict some times. But in that case, it is not the nudity that is in question, it is the sexual nature of the work as perceived by the jury.
My mistake was assuming that a reasonable person would conclude that the intent of the scene was to make people laugh, rather than "excite sexual desires." If you honestly believe that a jury where you live would consider the Bart Simpson nude scene in the Simpson Movie "given to or expressing lust," then I will argue with you no further.
The key word there is "lascivious." That's a different thing than nudity, as you said yourself
If nudity was equivalent to pornography, a simple Pampers commercial could be considered obscene. So could a parent's photos of their kids bathing. Or a great number of paintings, photos and feature films that have been produced and exhibited all over the world.
When we confuse natural, non-sexual nudity with "lascivious exhibition of the genitals," the result is usually something stupid like concern over Bart Simpson's dangling doodad.
Wrong. Naked isn't equivalent to pornographic. If Bart had been depicted in a sex act, that could be considered pornographic. Nudity alone isn't sufficient.
Maybe he's got really long, Howard Hughes-like toe nails that he's subconsciously using to detect the boxes and tripods.
(Happy Christmas!)
My point was actually that people seem to be unaware that the alternative isn't there for everyone, ie people who don't live in the US and (apparently) the UK. Thanks for proving it ;-)
Proof of what?
I don't know about soundly deflated. I would agree that people who are satisfied with the quality of the iTunes files would be unlikely to worry about the re-encode, but then a lot of us use iTunes because Amazon isn't an alternative for us. Having to go through the step of burning/ripping a disc to be able to enjoy the music we purchase on a media player that supports the most common music file format is bad enough; suffering an (albeit minor) loss of quality in addition just rubs a little salt in the wound.
But as others have said, the best way to send Apple message is to not purchase from them. For myself, the hassle and lower quality isn't sufficient reason to stop purchasing music online when it suits me to do so.
I didn't call it "simple," I called it "straight-forward."
Who is tying your shoes and cutting your food for you?
I wasn't aware that it was available to people in the UK. Thank you.
Well, maybe people get their "painties in a twist" over the degradation in quality that results from the extra round of encoding this method includes, or all those CDs that pile up as a result of the steps you gave. Or maybe they think they shouldn't have to jump through hoops to enjoy the music they paid for on the device/operating system of their choice.
But, you're right, there is a pretty straight-forward way of converting the files to mp3s. You left out a few steps, IMO, so here's my method:
*If iTunes imports files directly in to your music library (not a good idea, IMO), iTunes will think there are two copies of each song even after you move the m4ps out of the directory (the original and the mp3s you made). Since iTunes doesn't show you the filename extension, you'll need to double click on each one to determine which is the mp3 (the one that works) and which is the pointer to the m4p that's no longer there (doesn't work). Delete that one.
This method preserves the original, higher-quality files you paid for and eliminates all of those unnecessary CDs. If you keep your library on a shared drive you can access it from anywhere, even remotely with a streaming server like Icecast.