There is no need to turn off the encryption to listen in on calls. They can just use the Lawful Intercept feature which is a built-in in all mobile phone networks. All they need (in most countries) is a court order to enable it. I appreciate that turning off encryption on all calls would enable them to listen in to the calls much more easily, but honestly, how much manpower have they allocated to deal with the tapping of all these phones in that 24 hour window? Do they REALLY believe that this aids them in their investigative efforts?
I am supporting the idea that a great alternative to Exchange does not need to be Open Source. Check out MailSite. It is easy to use, has great scalability properties, has flexible licensing and provides an alternative to Exchange. Furthermore, it is one of the most used mail servers in use, only beaten by Exchange, Domino and Sun ONE (according to Radicati).
Well that is their problem isn't it. A trade secret is just that. It is not protected by any legislation except copyright, so you are free to imitate it as much as you like. A trade secret discovered is no secret anymore and has lost its protection.
If you want protection from other people doing something which is "like" what you have done then you need to obtain a patent. Then of course it would be no secret any more, but you have traded protection by secrecy for legal protection. That is how the world moves forward.
This is just another good argument for the US to adopt some sort of fair use legislation. Fair use in some countries include reverse engineering and copying copyrighted material for own use. For instance, in Norway those who have bought a copyrighted material have rights which cannot be limited by any license agreement. Some forms of reverse engineering are protected under this legislation.
When is the US going to start living up to its original ideals and protect the freedom of individuals? These days it sounds much more like the "Land of the Properly Set Up Free" to me!
Well, there is a very simple reason why SMS cost so much more than voice calls: they do not consume the same resources. The network resource used for SMS in the GSM network is the control channel, whilst voice calls use the data channel. The available bitrate in these channels are nowhere near the same.
Clearly the operators should be able to charge based on the costs incurred. Now, this is no argument supporting the prices we see today. The actual cost of sending an SMS plus a reasonable profit should dictate a price about half of the current cost in Europe.
Neglecting the ridiculous DMCA, what exactly is the law (US and otherwise) on making copies of legally purchased products for personal consumption, i.e. "private home viewing" on devices other than those sanctioned by the copyopoly? All my videos and DVDs have statements on them forbidding duplication. Most make vague references to "US and International Law" forbidding copying.
I do not know much about US law in detail, but I know something of Norwegian law. In Norway the consumer has explicit legal rights to fair use of products that has been legally obtained. Freely interpreted this means that if I buy a DVD I can do whatever I please without interference from MPAA or anybody else.
I can watch it, break its copy protection, alter the video or use the DVD for a coaster as long as I do not redistribute a cracked or altered version of the original DVD.
The verdict of the Norwegian court is that DVD Jon has only developed a means to exercise his rights and shared the means with others. The prosecution has failed to prove that he has illegally distributed or aided in illegal distribution of copyrighted material.
In Norway it is impossible to sidestep the fair use rights of the consumers by claiming that the product is only licensed or by posting statements that any particular type of use is illegal. We can only hope that European directives will not end up thwarting our rights and that other countries will implement similar consumer rights to those in Norwegian law.
I just think its funny that Europeans don't have double jeopardy. That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read in my life. You guys don't have any civil rights at all.
I think you are demonstrating seriously poor judgement here. The "double jeopardy" term is a US legal implementation that is designed to protect US citizens from being harassed by the government. It is how the US has chosen to solve this problem.
European legal systems also have mechanisms to protect the individual from being harassed. Each country will have a different legal process and thus they will need different mechanisms to protect their citizens from harassment. The Norwegian system has such protection but it is not the same as double jeopardy in the US.
Just because something is different does not mean that it is less or more.
Bush is holding US and non-US citizens imprisoned without trial and conviction. In most countries that we like to compare ourselves with this is considered a breach of their human rights. That many people are critical of this practice is only fair and right.
I was very surprised to see that they are actually going to appeal and aquittal for this kid. You don't see this in the US since such an appeal is not allowed under the Constitution.
This is not a retrial. It is an appeal. The prosecution believes that the verdict is flawed either by process or by application of the law. Thus they have submitted an appeal to a higher court where they will argue their position. The higher court can dismiss the appeal if the merits of the appeal are too weak or they can hear the arguments in court. Either way they will not revisit the entire case but only consider whether the original verdict is correct according to the law.
Although I am not an expert on the US legal process I believe that in this respect it is similar to the Norwegian process. After all, the Norwegian Constitution of 1814 is inspired by the American Constitution.
Johansen has been cleared of the charges against him in one of the lower courts. The question of guilt can be appealed to Lagmannsretten (a jury court) and finally to Høyesterett (the Supreme Court). As far as I know (corect me if I am wrong) double jeapordy means that a person can not be tried twice for the same crime. That does not apply here as it is different from an appeal.
If the case is appealed to Lagmannsretten and eventually to Høyesterett and the verdict is not overturned, then double jeapordy would mean that he could not be tried again. However, I do not know whether Noregian law has an equivalent of double jeapordy.
Just want to point out that it is not the Norwegian Supreme Court that has made a ruling, just a regional court in Oslo. The Norwegian prosecutors (Økokrim or Economic Crime Unit) may still appeal to a higher court.
Anyone who actually read the Aftenposten article will of course know this already.
Hey, if what you are looking for is a GUI framework for OS X then you should look no further than QT. It is C++ and cross platform source code compatible (Linux, unix and windoze).
If time was money we should all sit around waiting to get rich.
jjshoe asks: "...My concern is that this all costs me minutes, which of course equals money. What laws are out there for me?
I think the only solution is to move to a country where the operator does not charge you for incoming calls. I still get the annoying telemarketers, but at least all they steal from me is my time not my money.
If time was money we would all be sitting on our arses waiting to get rich.
If the music industry agrees to label all copy-protected CDs as such, he'll still be happy.
I do not think that would be enough. Sony is already labeling their CDs and the Norwegian government agency protecting consumers is still trying to sue them. Not only do you have to inform the consumer of the decreased value of the product but you also have to reduce the price accordingly.
It boils down to this: The copy protected disc is not a CD and does not have the same value to the consumer as a CD does. Therefore it should be separated from CDs both in marketing and pricing. That is the LAW, at least in Norway it is. I do not know US law that well. That said, I realize that Sony and other big industry actors will not be very sorry if a small market like Norway becomes unavailable to them, but I have a suspicion that other countries have similar laws. In that case it is just a matter of enforcing them.
Not only are these discs troublesome for the consumers but they are not even CDs according to the Phillips owned standard.
It is nice to see that politicians are looking at possiblities to ban these technologies. I am thinking that there may already exist laws that prohibit this practice, at least in some countries. I know that in Norway government agencies are looking at taking legal action against Sony for illegal marketing as they are selling a product marketed as a CD and priced as a CD while it clearly is not a CD!
Well, they may be compliant to the letter of the law (I would not know) but it does not seem to me that they are following the spirit of open source. To me the basic idea is to share your work with fellow developers while ensuring that you are accredited for your work.
I think you will quickly run into the problem of lack of space in the wire path. Have you ever tried to run an extra cable in those tubes they put in your wall? You should not be too optimistic about what you will be able to do. Two cat5 + a phone line sounds like a limit to me.
Have you considered to run cat5 to rooms where that do not have phone connection?
As you all will notice once you read Toms interesting review there is not much new in the Titanium version of Geforce3 except a better price/performance ratio. All the added functionality is already available in current GeForce3 boards once you download the new driver.
Maybe now I will buy a Geforce3 TI200 instead of the Geforce2 Pro that I was planning on.
GPRS is something that will be kept in the WAP bracket of niche user base until telcos finally realise that people will use it if they can afford it. Ironically GPRS will solve the main problem with WAP, speed.
You say that GPRS will solve the main problem with WAP, speed. Well, yes, GPRS is faster than normal CSD because you are allowed to use more immediate bandwitdh without adding cost. But that is not a speed problem is it? You can already surf at speeds of ~40kbps using HSCSD with better average throughput than you can on current GPRS systems.
GPRS is not primarily about speed - it is about immediacy and availability. One catch phrase that has been repeated over and over by equipment manufacturers is "GPRS - Always on". This means that you are "always" connected and you can send and receive data at "any time". Of course the operator has the opportunity to charge you for the time you are on line, but I have not heard of any one that chooses to do so. Instead you pay for the data you transmit and receive. Which brings us to the real bonus: cost!
The real customer benefit of GPRS is twofold: immediate access and cost efficiency. We are able to stay connected when we are not actively using the service because we are not paying for time, only volume. Furthermore we are able to afford the increased data rates of combining several timeslots of in a frame because we only pay for those timeslots during the time it takes to download the data that we requested. This is simply another way of saying that we pay for volume not data.
Summary: GPRS is good because it allows us to surf on our mobiles at lower cost and better immediacy. It does not save the world because it can not make a cup of tea.
--
If we applied the principles of load management in IP networks to rush hour traffic in London then a lot of people would not ever get to work.
Why, US and Britain are probably the only 'democratic' countries that does not have a national ID (card) system. In Britain you can open a bank account in the name of Larry Ellison if you are able to forge a gas and electricity bill!!
I believe it is possible to have an ID (card) system that does not give government agencies an opportunity to put a trace on every lawabiding citizen. Instead of fighting against such a system we should try to turn it to our advantage.
----------- Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards for they are subtle and quick to anger. -Gilrod
> Plaintiffs allege that (the defendant) has covertly, without consent or authorization, planted 'cookies' upon Internet users' computer hard disk drives and secretly tracked their movements across the Internet," the plaintiffs charged in a filing in Denver, Colo.
That's not true. It's not placing something on a hard drive without consent. Cookies can be rejected - it's not a forced thing.
In any case, there's really nothing wrong with tracking people
First I will admit that I do not know a lot about US law since I live on the east side of the Pond. However, I do know something of how it is done over here.
Here (in Norway) any business needs a permission from a certain government agency in order to store or collect data about a customer not directly required to perform the service purchased by the customer. I presume that the laws are similar but not exactly throughout the EU and EEA, although i can not be sure about this.
What does this mean? Well, for starters this is applicable to all areas of business be they in the old or new economy. To me it seems that the question is not wether these ad agencies were allowed to place those cookies on customers computers but wether they were entitled to collect and store information about people's movements online.
I think it is important that we distinguish between what they are doing (collecting information about customers) and how they are doing it (placing cookies on customers' computers). If we make laws that prevent people to collect data in a certain way then we will be like a dog chasing its own tail. It is the collecting of data which is wrong (note: i do not say illegal), not the placing of cookies without the user being aware of it.
Finally, i would like to comment on buttfucker2000's apparent trust in corporate interests being good for the general public. You know, companies do not always have the customers' best interest at heart.
You don't NEED to go buy the CD. You could just get a new record player. You bought and paid for the right to listen to the music on any record player of your choice. Microsoft may give you a discount when upgrading from Office 97 to Office 2000, but if you own Office 97 and want to use Office 98 on your Mac, you need to pay full price.
The fact that nobody is forcing you to buy the CD version of that old vinyl record doesn't mean that the record companies are in their right. Of course you are legally entiteled to make a tape or MP3 copy of your vinyl record for your own enjoyment, i.e. as long as you do not distribute it.
The question is then why the record companies don't sell us that copy at a reduced price, covering manufacturing and distribution costs plus a small profit. We all know the answer of course: they believe they make more money keeping things as they are.
Same goes for movies. You bought the regular version. No one is forcing your hand to buy the directors cut, that's a choice that you're making. You need responsibly weigh the merits of buying something you already own versus the benefits of seeing a couple editted out scenes or maybe some interviews. If you decide that $19.99 is cheap enough to justify the purchase, that's your decision.
I think we need to say this again. Since you are only buying the RIGHT to LISTEN to the music you are actually buying NOTHING the second time around. Of course it is your choice to pay for nothing.
We can illustrate it lke this:
GNU/Linux is a free OS. I think we all agree on that. You have the right to use, modify and redistribute the software without paying any fees provided you comply with the GPL. You can get a distribution free from any number of sites on the net. Still, if you choose to get a hard copy from a distributor you will have to pay a small price to cover the expenses and hopefully give the company a small profit. This does not mean that you have paid anything for the right to use, modify and redistribute that free software. Same goes for music (in principle). When you buy a record in a store that price includes a licensing fee, that gives you the right to listen to the music, and charges to cover the cost of distributing the music. Of course there is a small(?) profit for the store as well. If you already have the right to listen to the music (in the same manner as you have the right to use, modify and redistribute GNU software) why should you have to pay for that right again?
I think software is the only industry that has an "upgrade" price as the defacto standard. Some car dealers will accept trade in's, while others won't. If you buy a refridgerator and a few years later the manufacturer updates the model with a differently shaped ice cube maker, you're not automatically entitled to that since you own the first version of the refridgerator.
Comparing car trade in deals with copyright does not make sense. They are in priciple very different because when you are buying a car you are paying for the actual metal, glass, textiles and other stuff, not the right to drive around in it.
Past that... Stick to your vinyl. Get a new record player and fight the disappearance of records... Plenty of bands still release on vinyl, and more probably would if they saw compelling reasons to do so...
Finally something I can agree upon. As much as I enjoy the wonders of MP3s I still like to bring out my old records (be they CD tape or vinyl) and listen to them.
Slashdot Mirror
If I had the experience you are asking for I would be holding a seminar and get you to sign up.
There is no need to turn off the encryption to listen in on calls. They can just use the Lawful Intercept feature which is a built-in in all mobile phone networks. All they need (in most countries) is a court order to enable it. I appreciate that turning off encryption on all calls would enable them to listen in to the calls much more easily, but honestly, how much manpower have they allocated to deal with the tapping of all these phones in that 24 hour window? Do they REALLY believe that this aids them in their investigative efforts?
I am supporting the idea that a great alternative to Exchange does not need to be Open Source. Check out MailSite. It is easy to use, has great scalability properties, has flexible licensing and provides an alternative to Exchange. Furthermore, it is one of the most used mail servers in use, only beaten by Exchange, Domino and Sun ONE (according to Radicati).
Trade secret?
Well that is their problem isn't it. A trade secret is just that. It is not protected by any legislation except copyright, so you are free to imitate it as much as you like. A trade secret discovered is no secret anymore and has lost its protection.
If you want protection from other people doing something which is "like" what you have done then you need to obtain a patent. Then of course it would be no secret any more, but you have traded protection by secrecy for legal protection. That is how the world moves forward.
This is just another good argument for the US to adopt some sort of fair use legislation. Fair use in some countries include reverse engineering and copying copyrighted material for own use. For instance, in Norway those who have bought a copyrighted material have rights which cannot be limited by any license agreement. Some forms of reverse engineering are protected under this legislation.
When is the US going to start living up to its original ideals and protect the freedom of individuals? These days it sounds much more like the "Land of the Properly Set Up Free" to me!
Well, there is a very simple reason why SMS cost so much more than voice calls: they do not consume the same resources. The network resource used for SMS in the GSM network is the control channel, whilst voice calls use the data channel. The available bitrate in these channels are nowhere near the same.
Clearly the operators should be able to charge based on the costs incurred. Now, this is no argument supporting the prices we see today. The actual cost of sending an SMS plus a reasonable profit should dictate a price about half of the current cost in Europe.
They need it to run Java because Java will be the enabler of rich content on your phone. Other phones already have it.
I do not know much about US law in detail, but I know something of Norwegian law. In Norway the consumer has explicit legal rights to fair use of products that has been legally obtained. Freely interpreted this means that if I buy a DVD I can do whatever I please without interference from MPAA or anybody else.
I can watch it, break its copy protection, alter the video or use the DVD for a coaster as long as I do not redistribute a cracked or altered version of the original DVD.
The verdict of the Norwegian court is that DVD Jon has only developed a means to exercise his rights and shared the means with others. The prosecution has failed to prove that he has illegally distributed or aided in illegal distribution of copyrighted material.
In Norway it is impossible to sidestep the fair use rights of the consumers by claiming that the product is only licensed or by posting statements that any particular type of use is illegal. We can only hope that European directives will not end up thwarting our rights and that other countries will implement similar consumer rights to those in Norwegian law.
I think you are demonstrating seriously poor judgement here. The "double jeopardy" term is a US legal implementation that is designed to protect US citizens from being harassed by the government. It is how the US has chosen to solve this problem.
European legal systems also have mechanisms to protect the individual from being harassed. Each country will have a different legal process and thus they will need different mechanisms to protect their citizens from harassment. The Norwegian system has such protection but it is not the same as double jeopardy in the US.
Just because something is different does not mean that it is less or more.
Bush is holding US and non-US citizens imprisoned without trial and conviction. In most countries that we like to compare ourselves with this is considered a breach of their human rights. That many people are critical of this practice is only fair and right.
This is not a retrial. It is an appeal. The prosecution believes that the verdict is flawed either by process or by application of the law. Thus they have submitted an appeal to a higher court where they will argue their position. The higher court can dismiss the appeal if the merits of the appeal are too weak or they can hear the arguments in court. Either way they will not revisit the entire case but only consider whether the original verdict is correct according to the law.
Although I am not an expert on the US legal process I believe that in this respect it is similar to the Norwegian process. After all, the Norwegian Constitution of 1814 is inspired by the American Constitution.
Johansen has been cleared of the charges against him in one of the lower courts. The question of guilt can be appealed to Lagmannsretten (a jury court) and finally to Høyesterett (the Supreme Court). As far as I know (corect me if I am wrong) double jeapordy means that a person can not be tried twice for the same crime. That does not apply here as it is different from an appeal.
If the case is appealed to Lagmannsretten and eventually to Høyesterett and the verdict is not overturned, then double jeapordy would mean that he could not be tried again. However, I do not know whether Noregian law has an equivalent of double jeapordy.
Anyone who actually read the Aftenposten article will of course know this already.
Also see the articles on CNN and The Register.
If time was money we should all sit around waiting to get rich.
jjshoe asks: "...My concern is that this all costs me minutes, which of course equals money. What laws are out there for me?
I think the only solution is to move to a country where the operator does not charge you for incoming calls. I still get the annoying telemarketers, but at least all they steal from me is my time not my money.
If time was money we would all be sitting on our arses waiting to get rich.
I do not think that would be enough. Sony is already labeling their CDs and the Norwegian government agency protecting consumers is still trying to sue them. Not only do you have to inform the consumer of the decreased value of the product but you also have to reduce the price accordingly.
It boils down to this: The copy protected disc is not a CD and does not have the same value to the consumer as a CD does. Therefore it should be separated from CDs both in marketing and pricing. That is the LAW, at least in Norway it is. I do not know US law that well. That said, I realize that Sony and other big industry actors will not be very sorry if a small market like Norway becomes unavailable to them, but I have a suspicion that other countries have similar laws. In that case it is just a matter of enforcing them.
It is nice to see that politicians are looking at possiblities to ban these technologies. I am thinking that there may already exist laws that prohibit this practice, at least in some countries. I know that in Norway government agencies are looking at taking legal action against Sony for illegal marketing as they are selling a product marketed as a CD and priced as a CD while it clearly is not a CD!
This is just sharing without accreditation.
I think you will quickly run into the problem of lack of space in the wire path. Have you ever tried to run an extra cable in those tubes they put in your wall? You should not be too optimistic about what you will be able to do. Two cat5 + a phone line sounds like a limit to me.
Have you considered to run cat5 to rooms where that do not have phone connection?As you all will notice once you read Toms interesting review there is not much new in the Titanium version of Geforce3 except a better price/performance ratio. All the added functionality is already available in current GeForce3 boards once you download the new driver.
Maybe now I will buy a Geforce3 TI200 instead of the Geforce2 Pro that I was planning on.
--
Keep your hats on. It's only money.
You say that GPRS will solve the main problem with WAP, speed. Well, yes, GPRS is faster than normal CSD because you are allowed to use more immediate bandwitdh without adding cost. But that is not a speed problem is it? You can already surf at speeds of ~40kbps using HSCSD with better average throughput than you can on current GPRS systems.
GPRS is not primarily about speed - it is about immediacy and availability. One catch phrase that has been repeated over and over by equipment manufacturers is "GPRS - Always on". This means that you are "always" connected and you can send and receive data at "any time". Of course the operator has the opportunity to charge you for the time you are on line, but I have not heard of any one that chooses to do so. Instead you pay for the data you transmit and receive. Which brings us to the real bonus: cost!
The real customer benefit of GPRS is twofold: immediate access and cost efficiency. We are able to stay connected when we are not actively using the service because we are not paying for time, only volume. Furthermore we are able to afford the increased data rates of combining several timeslots of in a frame because we only pay for those timeslots during the time it takes to download the data that we requested. This is simply another way of saying that we pay for volume not data.
Summary: GPRS is good because it allows us to surf on our mobiles at lower cost and better immediacy. It does not save the world because it can not make a cup of tea.
--If we applied the principles of load management in IP networks to rush hour traffic in London then a lot of people would not ever get to work.
> microsoft operating systems have a much larger market share than linux
In some markets that is (e.g. desktop computing) while in some markets it is the other way around...
---
I really do hope there is an after life. After all, I enjoy after ski much more than skiing.
And the solution to problems with people faking IDs is to have none?
:)Smile, it only hurts a littleWhy, US and Britain are probably the only 'democratic' countries that does not have a national ID (card) system. In Britain you can open a bank account in the name of Larry Ellison if you are able to forge a gas and electricity bill!!
I believe it is possible to have an ID (card) system that does not give government agencies an opportunity to put a trace on every lawabiding citizen. Instead of fighting against such a system we should try to turn it to our advantage.
-----------
Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards for they are subtle and quick to anger.
-Gilrod
That's not true. It's not placing something on a hard drive without consent. Cookies can be rejected - it's not a forced thing.
In any case, there's really nothing wrong with tracking people
First I will admit that I do not know a lot about US law since I live on the east side of the Pond. However, I do know something of how it is done over here.
Here (in Norway) any business needs a permission from a certain government agency in order to store or collect data about a customer not directly required to perform the service purchased by the customer. I presume that the laws are similar but not exactly throughout the EU and EEA, although i can not be sure about this.
What does this mean? Well, for starters this is applicable to all areas of business be they in the old or new economy. To me it seems that the question is not wether these ad agencies were allowed to place those cookies on customers computers but wether they were entitled to collect and store information about people's movements online.
I think it is important that we distinguish between what they are doing (collecting information about customers) and how they are doing it (placing cookies on customers' computers). If we make laws that prevent people to collect data in a certain way then we will be like a dog chasing its own tail. It is the collecting of data which is wrong (note: i do not say illegal), not the placing of cookies without the user being aware of it.
Finally, i would like to comment on buttfucker2000's apparent trust in corporate interests being good for the general public. You know, companies do not always have the customers' best interest at heart.
The fact that nobody is forcing you to buy the CD version of that old vinyl record doesn't mean that the record companies are in their right. Of course you are legally entiteled to make a tape or MP3 copy of your vinyl record for your own enjoyment, i.e. as long as you do not distribute it.
The question is then why the record companies don't sell us that copy at a reduced price, covering manufacturing and distribution costs plus a small profit. We all know the answer of course: they believe they make more money keeping things as they are.
Same goes for movies. You bought the regular version. No one is forcing your hand to buy the directors cut, that's a choice that you're making. You need responsibly weigh the merits of buying something you already own versus the benefits of seeing a couple editted out scenes or maybe some interviews. If you decide that $19.99 is cheap enough to justify the purchase, that's your decision.
I think we need to say this again. Since you are only buying the RIGHT to LISTEN to the music you are actually buying NOTHING the second time around. Of course it is your choice to pay for nothing.
We can illustrate it lke this: GNU/Linux is a free OS. I think we all agree on that. You have the right to use, modify and redistribute the software without paying any fees provided you comply with the GPL. You can get a distribution free from any number of sites on the net. Still, if you choose to get a hard copy from a distributor you will have to pay a small price to cover the expenses and hopefully give the company a small profit. This does not mean that you have paid anything for the right to use, modify and redistribute that free software. Same goes for music (in principle). When you buy a record in a store that price includes a licensing fee, that gives you the right to listen to the music, and charges to cover the cost of distributing the music. Of course there is a small(?) profit for the store as well. If you already have the right to listen to the music (in the same manner as you have the right to use, modify and redistribute GNU software) why should you have to pay for that right again?
I think software is the only industry that has an "upgrade" price as the defacto standard. Some car dealers will accept trade in's, while others won't. If you buy a refridgerator and a few years later the manufacturer updates the model with a differently shaped ice cube maker, you're not automatically entitled to that since you own the first version of the refridgerator.
Comparing car trade in deals with copyright does not make sense. They are in priciple very different because when you are buying a car you are paying for the actual metal, glass, textiles and other stuff, not the right to drive around in it.
Past that... Stick to your vinyl. Get a new record player and fight the disappearance of records... Plenty of bands still release on vinyl, and more probably would if they saw compelling reasons to do so...
Finally something I can agree upon. As much as I enjoy the wonders of MP3s I still like to bring out my old records (be they CD tape or vinyl) and listen to them.