Because if you don't back up to audio CD, your files are just a bulky dongle, you need to get to iTunes to authorise the new system.
Yes. However, by that line of reasoning, why do you even worry about whether Apple lets you redownload your music?
What normally happens after, say, a hard disk crash is that you get a new disk, restore from backup, open iTunes and have all your music back. That's what a backup is supposed to do: Restore the previous state of the system.
And you can do that with music bought from the iTunes Music Store.
I guess we can just keep doing this. I don't mind it. I do, however, wonder what you're trying to say. Because, frankly, you sound like a rambling fool.
Which may be your point.
I do realize, of course, that you're just baiting me ("leave me alone"? I've never seen a more pathetic attempt at reverse psychology than this). And I'm feeding you. But I must admit that I'm curious what you will come up with next.
If you accept that some of the poor are poor because they've behaved irresponsibly, and strongly favour personal responsibility, then it's irrational to support subsidising them
This is, in my opinion, the fallacy in your argument. Objectively, if you have - for example - homeless people hanging around the trainstation, it doesn't matter whether they got there due to their own faults or due to society's shortcomings or due to plain bad luck. You want to fix the problem.
As an aside, the major reason liberals in my country support a smaller state is that they believe it will lead to a more vibrant economy, which over the long run would make everyone better off
That is the argument. It's not what they think. I know liberals. Many of my friends are liberals. They're deeply convinced that they're smarter and stronger than most other people, and thus, that less intervention from the state will benefit them. They don't want to pay taxes to support people which they perceive to be weak or lazy.
I've had iTunes stop me from burning the track "Good Fortune," by PJ Harvey, in any context.
This is extremely unlikely. If you really can't burn that particular file, it's probably a technical problem and not an intended function of the DRM. Apple's own site states:
The iTunes Music Store uses FairPlay, Apple's digital rights management system that's designed to be fair to the artist, to the record companies and to you. In a nutshell, your FairPlay agreement entitles you to play your music on up to five computers (and enjoy unlimited synching with iPods), allows unlimited burning for individual songs and lets you burn playlists up to 7 times each.
(Highlights are mine, text is verbatim from Apple's site)
If your backup isn't to audio CD, it's hardly a backup
Why would you say that? You were just complaining about having to contact Apple upon losing your bought files, and now you're saying that backing them up is pointless? I don't think I get what you're saying.
but I don't call you stupid for not doing it...
People who don't backup are stupid. End of discussion:-)
Where does Apple let you re-download files from iTMS?
What do you mean by "where"? In iTunes, of course!:-)
You do need to contact Apple and tell them what went wrong, but they will let you re-download everything you've bought if you were too stupid to back it up.
And I think the "reset authorized computers" function is now exposed inside iTunes, although I can't check right now. I think you can use it once a year.
Or that they just don't notice the DRM problem until they suffer a fatal hard drive crash?
Uhm... What are you implying? That you can't backup DRM'd files? Or that Apple won't let you re-download files you've lost in a disk crash? Because both of these would be wrong.
which, by the way, iTunes DRM counts against a maximum number of times you can burn a given track
If you want to rant against DRM, at least try to do it with arguments that are based on facts. This is not true. You can burn a given track as many times as you want. You can burn a specific playlist only 7 times (I think), but any change you make to the playlist resets the counter.
That means that it's not simple (but also not impossible) to burn dozens of copies of the same, identical CD containing DRM'd files, but you can burn an infinite amount of CDs containing a specific song.
Most people never even notice iTunes' DRM
on
Jobs Unfazed by Zune
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
People work around iTunes DRM automatically. They don't even realize it exists.
I've seen it happen more than once. Two weeks ago, I visited a friend of mine who had recently bought a Mac. She had all her music in iTunes, most of it from non-legal download sites. She couldn't find a particular song, so I showed her the iTunes music store. She found the song and bought two versions of it.
She then proceeded to tell her sister that she had found the song they were looking for. Her sister told her to get her a copy. What did my friend do? Burn it to an audio CD and give it to her sister.
Now, they all are on the same wireless network. They have a minitower, two laptops and the MacBook. They could theoretically share music through their network. They don't. I doubt they even know the option exists. If they share files, they send them through MSN, but they only do that for smaller files. Burning a CD is quite simply the natural and easy way to share music.
Bottom line?
From my experience with "normal" computer users, most people don't even realize that these files are DRM'd. The iTunes DRM lets them pretty much do whatever they usually do without interfering.
Wow, that's really classy. You're calling me a Troll, yet you reply to my posting with an answer containing nothing but insults. You know, "ignoring" doesn't mean "insulting people while ignoring what they said". It means "not replying at all." Yet you do reply, with an answer containing nothing of substance, just stupidity, calling others "Trolls" and "asses". I bet that makes sense in your own little world.
I know, I know, I shouldn't feed you. But, weird as it may sound, I actually do enjoy these weird pseudo-conversations with inane, insane know-it-all members of Mensa:-)
The fact that liberals want to help people who are in bad positions doesn't mean that they don't think these people are responsible for their situation. These two concepts are orthogonal. For society, it might be a good idea to help poor people even if these people are responsible for their situation.
Likewise, the fact that conservatives don't want to help these people doesn't have to be due to conservatives thinking that these people are responsible for their situation - although that is, of course, a good talking point. "It's their own damn fault, so let's not help them" just sounds better than "I'm greedy, so I don't want to help them."
Yeah. I suspect that really smart people don't perceive themselves as smart. The more you know, the more you realize how little you know. If you don't know anything, you're not capable of estimating your own knowledge - you don't know enough to know whether you know anything. Stupid people probably think they're pretty smart, while smart people probably constantly doubt their own intellect.
In order to be attracted by Mensa, you need a certain amount of stupidity which prevents you from understanding that being able to solve a bunch of IQ tests doesn't make you smart. It just makes you good at solving those tests.
As far as I can tell - and I don't think I actually know any Mensa member - Mensa members seem to be proud of their intelligence, which kind of proves that they aren't that intelligent.
I'm generally interested in what's going on with computers. I'm interested in news about Microsoft's OS as well as about Linux or the Mac, even though I mainly use a Mac.
People tend to ask me for help when something goes wrong with their computers, so it's good to know some things about Windows, too.
At work, I sometimes have to use Windows, whether it's to test some HTML in IE6, or to test some Java application in a Windows environment
I tend to chime in during these conversations to remind people that most of the time, they don't have to run Windows. There are alternatives.
That's your interpretation. Two other definitions from the link provided by grandgrandparent:
A person with an antisocial personality disorder, especially one manifested in perverted, criminal, or amoral behavior.
A mentally ill or unstable individual; especially : one having an antisocial personality
Going back to the original point of the discussion. I said "There are people with mental issues who don't feel guilt. These are a tiny minority of all killers, and a tiny minority of all people with mental issues (psychopaths, as you call them)."
The link provided by grandgrandparent does not in fact disprove that.
A person with an antisocial personality disorder, manifested in aggressive, perverted, criminal, or amoral behavior without empathy or remorse.
Here, I'll help you with that:
or1/r; unstressed r/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[awr; unstressed er] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
-conjunction
1. (used to connect words, phrases, or clauses representing alternatives): books or magazines; to be or not to be.
2. (used to connect alternative terms for the same thing): the Hawaiian, or Sandwich, Islands.
3. (used in correlation): either... or; or... or; whether... or.
4. (used to correct or rephrase what was previously said): His autobiography, or rather memoirs, will soon be ready for publication.
5. otherwise; or else: Be here on time, or we'll leave without you.
6. Logic. the connective used in disjunction.
Frankly, I don't know about how that works in the US, but over here, if somebody is - for example - mentally ill, he or she generally won't go to prison, but will be forced to get treatment. Does that sound like revenge to you? "Yeah, you killed my children, so now we'll heal you, ha! Take that!"
There may be people who view punishment as revenge. In most western states, it's most definitely not the intent.
THEY were the one who suffered, not the rest of society
I think there's a very basic fact you're missing: Punishment is not revenge.
We don't punish people because we want to revenge their victims. We punish people in order to create a society where behave in a non-violent way.
The time a crime happens, punishment has already failed for the person who commited the crime. Punishment is not about that person (or about that person's victim). It's about every other person: It's to show that every other person gets punished when they behave in that specific way.
It's to try and make sure that it won't happen again.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. However, by that line of reasoning, why do you even worry about whether Apple lets you redownload your music?
What normally happens after, say, a hard disk crash is that you get a new disk, restore from backup, open iTunes and have all your music back. That's what a backup is supposed to do: Restore the previous state of the system.
And you can do that with music bought from the iTunes Music Store.
this one was really weak. try not repeating yourself so much. it's boring.
I guess we can just keep doing this. I don't mind it. I do, however, wonder what you're trying to say. Because, frankly, you sound like a rambling fool.
Which may be your point.
I do realize, of course, that you're just baiting me ("leave me alone"? I've never seen a more pathetic attempt at reverse psychology than this). And I'm feeding you. But I must admit that I'm curious what you will come up with next.
This is, in my opinion, the fallacy in your argument. Objectively, if you have - for example - homeless people hanging around the trainstation, it doesn't matter whether they got there due to their own faults or due to society's shortcomings or due to plain bad luck. You want to fix the problem.
That is the argument. It's not what they think. I know liberals. Many of my friends are liberals. They're deeply convinced that they're smarter and stronger than most other people, and thus, that less intervention from the state will benefit them. They don't want to pay taxes to support people which they perceive to be weak or lazy.
This is extremely unlikely. If you really can't burn that particular file, it's probably a technical problem and not an intended function of the DRM. Apple's own site states:
(Highlights are mine, text is verbatim from Apple's site)
Why would you say that? You were just complaining about having to contact Apple upon losing your bought files, and now you're saying that backing them up is pointless? I don't think I get what you're saying.
People who don't backup are stupid. End of discussion :-)
What do you mean by "where"? In iTunes, of course! :-)
You do need to contact Apple and tell them what went wrong, but they will let you re-download everything you've bought if you were too stupid to back it up.
And I think the "reset authorized computers" function is now exposed inside iTunes, although I can't check right now. I think you can use it once a year.
Wow. You really do have nothing better to do than constantly trolling /., do you? Why don't you get your Mensa brain to work and find a job?
Uhm... What are you implying? That you can't backup DRM'd files? Or that Apple won't let you re-download files you've lost in a disk crash? Because both of these would be wrong.
If you want to rant against DRM, at least try to do it with arguments that are based on facts. This is not true. You can burn a given track as many times as you want. You can burn a specific playlist only 7 times (I think), but any change you make to the playlist resets the counter.
That means that it's not simple (but also not impossible) to burn dozens of copies of the same, identical CD containing DRM'd files, but you can burn an infinite amount of CDs containing a specific song.
People work around iTunes DRM automatically. They don't even realize it exists.
I've seen it happen more than once. Two weeks ago, I visited a friend of mine who had recently bought a Mac. She had all her music in iTunes, most of it from non-legal download sites. She couldn't find a particular song, so I showed her the iTunes music store. She found the song and bought two versions of it.
She then proceeded to tell her sister that she had found the song they were looking for. Her sister told her to get her a copy. What did my friend do? Burn it to an audio CD and give it to her sister.
Now, they all are on the same wireless network. They have a minitower, two laptops and the MacBook. They could theoretically share music through their network. They don't. I doubt they even know the option exists. If they share files, they send them through MSN, but they only do that for smaller files. Burning a CD is quite simply the natural and easy way to share music.
Bottom line?
From my experience with "normal" computer users, most people don't even realize that these files are DRM'd. The iTunes DRM lets them pretty much do whatever they usually do without interfering.
Wow, that's really classy. You're calling me a Troll, yet you reply to my posting with an answer containing nothing but insults. You know, "ignoring" doesn't mean "insulting people while ignoring what they said". It means "not replying at all." Yet you do reply, with an answer containing nothing of substance, just stupidity, calling others "Trolls" and "asses". I bet that makes sense in your own little world.
I know, I know, I shouldn't feed you. But, weird as it may sound, I actually do enjoy these weird pseudo-conversations with inane, insane know-it-all members of Mensa :-)
I doubt he used introverted in the literal sense, but then, reading comprehension is not an extensive part of most IQ tests.
And no, not all nerds dress like idiots. Not to mention that you basically ignored all the points he made.
Mensa material, for sure.
You seem to live under the impression that most people try to join Mensa, or do join Mensa if they can. Clue stick says: They don't.
*bang*
The fact that liberals want to help people who are in bad positions doesn't mean that they don't think these people are responsible for their situation. These two concepts are orthogonal. For society, it might be a good idea to help poor people even if these people are responsible for their situation.
Likewise, the fact that conservatives don't want to help these people doesn't have to be due to conservatives thinking that these people are responsible for their situation - although that is, of course, a good talking point. "It's their own damn fault, so let's not help them" just sounds better than "I'm greedy, so I don't want to help them."
You must be really fat.
Yes, if you have a "crazy high" IQ, you've most definitely "never reallyachieved" your potential.
Yeah. I suspect that really smart people don't perceive themselves as smart. The more you know, the more you realize how little you know. If you don't know anything, you're not capable of estimating your own knowledge - you don't know enough to know whether you know anything. Stupid people probably think they're pretty smart, while smart people probably constantly doubt their own intellect.
In order to be attracted by Mensa, you need a certain amount of stupidity which prevents you from understanding that being able to solve a bunch of IQ tests doesn't make you smart. It just makes you good at solving those tests.
As far as I can tell - and I don't think I actually know any Mensa member - Mensa members seem to be proud of their intelligence, which kind of proves that they aren't that intelligent.
a leave?
I'm a Mac user. I read these articles because
I tend to chime in during these conversations to remind people that most of the time, they don't have to run Windows. There are alternatives.
That's your interpretation. Two other definitions from the link provided by grandgrandparent:
A person with an antisocial personality disorder, especially one manifested in perverted, criminal, or amoral behavior.
A mentally ill or unstable individual; especially : one having an antisocial personality
Going back to the original point of the discussion. I said "There are people with mental issues who don't feel guilt. These are a tiny minority of all killers, and a tiny minority of all people with mental issues (psychopaths, as you call them)."
The link provided by grandgrandparent does not in fact disprove that.
Here, I'll help you with that:
or1 /r; unstressed r/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[awr; unstressed er] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation ... or; or ... or; whether ... or.
-conjunction
1. (used to connect words, phrases, or clauses representing alternatives): books or magazines; to be or not to be.
2. (used to connect alternative terms for the same thing): the Hawaiian, or Sandwich, Islands.
3. (used in correlation): either
4. (used to correct or rephrase what was previously said): His autobiography, or rather memoirs, will soon be ready for publication.
5. otherwise; or else: Be here on time, or we'll leave without you.
6. Logic. the connective used in disjunction.
Why don't you use your own damn link, you stupid ass?
Frankly, I don't know about how that works in the US, but over here, if somebody is - for example - mentally ill, he or she generally won't go to prison, but will be forced to get treatment. Does that sound like revenge to you? "Yeah, you killed my children, so now we'll heal you, ha! Take that!"
There may be people who view punishment as revenge. In most western states, it's most definitely not the intent.
So, if I wanted to kill somebody, but mistakenly kill you, can I make the same excuse?
"Sorry, I didn't deliberately put him to death, rather I mistakenly put him to death. Can I go now?"
I think there's a very basic fact you're missing: Punishment is not revenge.
We don't punish people because we want to revenge their victims. We punish people in order to create a society where behave in a non-violent way.
The time a crime happens, punishment has already failed for the person who commited the crime. Punishment is not about that person (or about that person's victim). It's about every other person: It's to show that every other person gets punished when they behave in that specific way.
It's to try and make sure that it won't happen again.