And also that you, who are apparently not a lawyer, should probably keep your mouth shut on legal issues, instead of parroting the common misconceptions.
Just like a lawyer, trying to stamp out freedom of speech. Maybe I'm not a lawyer, but I know the difference between right and wrong.
What the company e360 is trying to do is morally wrong, and if there were any justice in the world, should be illegal to attempt.
Any lawyer who would take the case would also appear to be morally corrupt.
Any lawyer who would defend the stance, whether legal or not, would again appear to be morally corrupt.
Since I haven't said anything, it's kind of hard for me to *keep my mouth shut* as it were. Since I'm typing, the proper usage would have been "keep your hands of the keyboard", but I can understand where that might be over your head.
I do have one other question though.
When wrongs are defended by legalities, isn't it time to change the legal system?
Forwarding *non spam* messages would not break the law. By accepting e360 as a client, and working to get them un-blocklisted, they are morally accepting responsibility for e360's actions after said case.
Oh, I new my client was guilty, but by law, I had to try and get them off - or possibly in this case - I thought my client was a spammer, but I had to press forward in the case because they paid me to. What's this in my e-mail box?
If more lawyers had morals, fewer guilty parties would get off. ie - Oh, so you're telling me you are guilty?... Okay - thanks... Find yourself a new lawyer. If said defendant/plaintiff can't seem to keep a lawyer, well - gee - doesn't that send a signal to the courts?
I read your link, and interesting as it is, the case still doesn't hold water.
There was no defamation of character, and here's why.
If I state that I think xyz is a moron. That's stating an opinion. Someone else hears that opinion and says - hey, I think xyz is a moron too. I don't want to listen to xyz.
Spamhaus has been evaluating e-mail for a long time. They've developed their own methods for determining what they think is spam, and what isn't. If they think what you're sending is spam, they add your sender information to their blocklist.
Now, company abc, has determined that they believe in Spamhaus's opinion, enough that it becomes their own opinion. They instruct their e-mail servers to check the spamhaus blocklist for each e-mail coming in, and if Spamhaus thinks it's a spam, then they drop the message.
Essentially, all we have here, is a publicly available list of opinions made by Spamhaus. Whether or not you agree with these opinions, is up to you. If a company in the US wants to try and mess around with what apears to be a free speech issue, then go ahead - see where it takes them.
Now - as far as jurisdiction goes, Spamhaus's request basically stated that Illinois had no jurisdiction. If the court systems failed to agree with Spamhaus, and not move the venue, then Spamhaus stuck to their determination that Illinois had no jurisdiction by not appearing.
This, I believe, was the correct thing for them to do. Don't back down when you know you're right.
If, by some odd turn of events, that I cannot even fathom at this time, Spamhaus ends up in court, all they'll have to do is drop the list of messages sent by the plaintif into the evidence pile, and let the Judge see what was sent by e360, and the case will be closed with prejudice.
That's a big if, because I believe that Spamhaus will not back down, and e360 will never see anything from their case, and will continue to be blocklisted.
Now, what would really be interesting, is if Spamhaus took their evidence, and presented it to a court some place where e360 sent their e-mails, a place where spamming is illegal. Let's see how fast e360 uses the "jurisdiction" statement.
In this case, Spamhaus would actually have a leg to stand on, in that e360 did themselves, send their messages to people in countries where spamming is illegal.
--- BTW: Have you read the information in the FAQ on Spamhaus's site? ---
I don't know about you, but it's a helluva lot cheaper to keep paper records around than it is to keep magnetic media forever, which is where a lot of corporations are headed.
There are many additional costs above and beyond paper printouts and storage fees.
#1 Constantly having to buy new storage media at $35 to $80 a pop, in 10k lots. #2 Constantly having to send media offsite, expanding storage requirements and fees for said storage. #3 Having to retrieve said media from offsite, so that it can be read, and re-copied to a new media so that the data is refreshed before the shelf-life expires. (Part of a corporate initiative to be pro-active on data retention) #4 Having to keep old hardware around in case some data is needed from 8 year old media.
4a) Maintenance costs for said hardware.
4b) Floor space for said hardware.
4c) Keeping operators trained on operations of said hardware. #5 The fact that most of said media could be stolen, copied or erased while offsite
Granted, paper reports can be destroyed - shredder, water damage, fire... Electronic media has many more causes of damage above and beyond the 3 listed above.
I'm not in my 40s, however, I have been around the industry for over 20 years, and as long as there's any possible way that the data could be destroyed, there will be paper (or plastic) versions around.
In many cases, the paper copies are used as backups for the electronic versions.
Case in point:
A customer had religiously done their backups daily. They rotated tapes between two sets for the daily backups, four sets for weekly, 12 sets for monthly, and used new tapes for quarterly and yearly backups. All of these tapes were stored in a fire-proof, water-proof vault, that was closed and locked unless something was being put into or taken out of said vault. A problem occurred, and said data needed to be restored. The client thought, no problem, just restore it. Most recent tape goes in, start to restore - data error. Next tape in, data error. Next tape in, data error. Now, each and every backup tape was verified before it was ejected and placed in the vault. The client had to go back 3 months before they found a viable tape to restore from. They then had to re-key all the transactions that had been entered since that backup was taken.
Cause of tape failures? A bad balast on a flourescent light in the vault - scrambled the bits on the tapes. The flourescents were removed, and incandescents installed the next day.
What kind of lighting is used at your storage facility? Does the truck hauling media to and from your site ever stop by a major electrical substation? Is it shielded enough to withstand said EMF?
Yeah, they said it when I started working in the industry - we'll soon be a paperless society. They've said it every year since then. All I've seen is more and more paper production, not a decrease.
If and when we go truly paperless, I'll believe it. Until then, we're just echoing a tired old message down through time.
Send a special version which requires that an NDA be signed before being used. Then if he shoots his big mouth off, sue his sorry ass.
Also, another option, don't sell the game in Florida, but advertise stating that it would have been available if Mr. Thompson hadn't been harassing Take Two so much. List his home address and phone numbers and let the populace decide. Then finally, file a harassment suit. I know of many more games which have even more blood and violence than Take Two's games, and he doesn't seem to be going after them. Slap a gag order on him and watch his head explode.
The only people I know of who use paper in any amount are people who are 40+, the type of people who like to print off any website longer than a page because "it is easier to read".
You're forgetting the corporates that are financial institutions, insurance brokers, or those that deal with medical information.
There are all sorts of mandates which REQUIRE hardcopy printouts of all sorts of inane, dare I say it, anal retentive information.
Individuals may choose to go paperless, but many companies have no choice in the matter.
Yet, since the service resides in the UK, and the *users* have to connect to their servers, it's a subscription. ie - the users chose to get the info, the publisher didn't push it down anyone's server. The publisher didn't broadcast it out to the public. It didn't force anyone to view or use the data. It wouldn't be any different than telemarketing companies trying to litigate against the US government because the do not call listing.
Spamhause provides a list, made from it's best efforts, of what it feels are spammers. Consumers choose to subscribe to this list. Spamhaus did nothing to physically block anyone's e-mails.
The Judge has it wrong, and needs to step down from the bench due to incompetence.
The article notes that the IE7 "containment wall" protected mode will not be available on XP, but only to those who purchase Vista. In other words, "No one will have the containment wall?"
If you refuse to work with idiots, you'll never find a job...
I didn't seem to have any difficulties, and as I stated, my job is very rewarding. If I had to work for idiots, it sure as hell wouldn't be.
When the HR person is doing the filtering, they'd damned well better be doing according to the specs put there by the manager requesting the position. If the manager knows what they're doing, they're looking for experience. The job listing will state "X years of college, OR equivelent experience levels". Unless you are completely incompetent, you can't work in any industry for long without even accidentally learning the required skillsets, and that will show in your resume.
If I'm looking through a stack of 50 resumes and 15 of them have similar work experience, I'm going to interview the 5 who, on paper, demonstrate either some additional realm of knowledge or, as evident by continuing education, the assertiveness to keep learning.
Really?
Continuing education in what? Knitting 101?
If you're resume shows evolving skillsets - ie - Solaris 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 5.7, 5.8, 5.9, 5.10, AIX 3.3, 4.0, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 5.0, 5.1, 5.2, etc... That's continuing education in an appropriate field.
I've seen too many college graduates come into the field and you ask them to do something simple, and they just stare at you, waiting for you to HAND them the answer. They're missing key problem solving skills, because they focused all their energy on learning the dates that certain things happened, instead of the how it really works, and how to troubleshoot.
But hey, maybe you want to hire someone who can purl to manage your UNIX systems, instead of use PERL... More power to you.
As I said, I wouldn't want to work for you. You'd probably mis-manage the department into the ground.
I am a 30 something, who started in the field in '86 while still in high-school. Everything I know is self-taught. Experience is the key. Too many short term memorizations have made certifications not worth the paper they are printed on.
List your experiences, and areas on knowledge.
In most cases that's as good as or better than college / certifications. If someone out there won't even interview you because you don't have a college degree, or certifications, then they are an idiot, and you wouldn't want to work for them anyway.
I've been continuously employed in enjoyable and enriching positions (2 for the entire 20 year period). It took me all of 3 days to find a new position when I tired of the old company.
Off-shore betting company, routes CC through off-shore CC processing center.
There's NO way the US can pass a law that would disallow an American from using online gambling, if they were in another country.
ie - offshore company routes traffic through an off-shore proxy, which then makes it appear that the users are in Thailand or Jamaica, or wherever.
Then they place the bets, take the money, or give it back.
No US laws to worry about.
Not that I care about online gambling, as I don't gamble, period. It's enough of a gamble just to wake up every day. I just don't like seeing tax payer money wasted on stupid legislature which restricts what we as citizens can and cannot do.
iTunes popular? to whom? it might be popular to the followers, the wanna-bes, but not to anyone with any kind of tech savvy.... here we talk about MS tightening the screws, and yet, iTunes is DRM'd from the get-go. I've watched people fumble with their iPods, trying to make them work using a work PC and a home PC. They had music that they'd ripped on both, and wanted to *merge* the music together. They finally figured it out, but it took them weeks...
I just carry my music on a portable drive, and attach it to either my home laptop, or my work laptop, and pick my favorite media player, and carry on. It took a while to rip my entire collection using FLAC, but it's worth it... If only that 160GB 2.5" drive wasn't so damned expensive to replace when my niece dropped it.
I owned the 9xx series for a little over a year, before upgrading to the 622. I never had any failures, despite a complicated record / preference setup. This leads us to conclude, that it could have been one of two things. #1 - Defective unit #2 - Operator error
This setup sounds suspiciously like the 9xx series and the 622 series from dish network.
Only difference being, that the 622 has 2 Dish tuners, plus an off-air HD tuner. You can record from both tuners, and watch either recorded content or off air on both outputs, totalling 4 concurrent i/o streams.
This is easily solved. Take one of your old (probably broken wired) headsets you have lying around. Preferably one with the L-shaped 3.5mm mini-plug. Cut the wires to the quick. Plug it into the side of the laptop as part of the *unpacking* process.
Now when your laptop boots up, and starts to make it's sounds - it's routed out the headphone jack (electrical circuit open) - and no sound is made.
Is this worth it? No. Should we add it to the list of reasons we WON'T buy Vista? Yes.
How freaking self-centered does a person have to be to believe that their rights to pirate music are more relevant than the rights of the people who actually own the music?
Very few people are talking of PIRATING.
Remove the object from where you do your thinking, from the dark, dank, damp orifice from which it is currently residing, and get some fresh air.
The current rounds of DRM prevent you from doing the following:
#1 ) Backups - ie - backups that can be restored on any machine. (yes that's right, people have more than one, and not all of them run windows or mac os) #2 ) Convert to a format useable by different OSes. #3 ) Convert to a format usable by the player someone chooses to replace their iPod after having to repair / replace it 3 times in 3 months.
DRM has one purpose, and one purpose only. I'll give you a hint, it's NOT to stop pirating. The people who pirate content will do so regardless of what measures the ??AAs take. DRMs one and only purpose is to line the pockets of the ??AAs with ill-gotten gains. Ahh, your hard drive broke, you have no backup, ahhh too bad - re-purchase your music. Oh, you want to use an XYZ brand MP3 player - too bad, you only bought music for an iPod - re-buy it. The ??AAs are setting the stage where they will charge us, it's customers, it's sole reason for being, for every use of the media.
Slashdot Mirror
meh - arguing with a lawyer is like arguing with the feeble minded - whoever wins, you both loose.
And also that you, who are apparently not a lawyer, should probably keep your mouth shut on legal issues, instead of parroting the common misconceptions.
Just like a lawyer, trying to stamp out freedom of speech.
Maybe I'm not a lawyer, but I know the difference between right and wrong.
What the company e360 is trying to do is morally wrong, and if there were any justice in the world, should be illegal to attempt.
Any lawyer who would take the case would also appear to be morally corrupt.
Any lawyer who would defend the stance, whether legal or not, would again appear to be morally corrupt.
Since I haven't said anything, it's kind of hard for me to *keep my mouth shut* as it were.
Since I'm typing, the proper usage would have been "keep your hands of the keyboard", but I can understand where that might be over your head.
I do have one other question though.
When wrongs are defended by legalities, isn't it time to change the legal system?
Aye but they don't conduct BUSINESS in the US.
They are a non profit organization - get it?
They don't receive money, they don't sell anything - get it?
They offer information, that is in their opinion, correct.
Whether or not a business in the US chooses to use that information is up to the business in the US.
All of your statements above would be true, if Spamhaus was an American company.
Spamhaus is a British Non-Profit organization.
Said rules, laws, procedures don't apply - ever.
Spamhaus was probably following UK law in the way they responded, or didn't respond.
They have to follow the UK laws, not the US laws.
Forwarding *non spam* messages would not break the law.
By accepting e360 as a client, and working to get them un-blocklisted, they are morally accepting responsibility for e360's actions after said case.
Oh, I new my client was guilty, but by law, I had to try and get them off - or possibly in this case - I thought my client was a spammer, but I had to press forward in the case because they paid me to. What's this in my e-mail box?
If more lawyers had morals, fewer guilty parties would get off. ie - Oh, so you're telling me you are guilty?... Okay - thanks... Find yourself a new lawyer.
If said defendant/plaintiff can't seem to keep a lawyer, well - gee - doesn't that send a signal to the courts?
I read your link, and interesting as it is, the case still doesn't hold water.
= Legal%20Questions/
There was no defamation of character, and here's why.
If I state that I think xyz is a moron. That's stating an opinion.
Someone else hears that opinion and says - hey, I think xyz is a moron too. I don't want to listen to xyz.
Spamhaus has been evaluating e-mail for a long time. They've developed their own methods for determining what they think is spam, and what isn't. If they think what you're sending is spam, they add your sender information to their blocklist.
Now, company abc, has determined that they believe in Spamhaus's opinion, enough that it becomes their own opinion.
They instruct their e-mail servers to check the spamhaus blocklist for each e-mail coming in, and if Spamhaus thinks it's a spam, then they drop the message.
Essentially, all we have here, is a publicly available list of opinions made by Spamhaus.
Whether or not you agree with these opinions, is up to you.
If a company in the US wants to try and mess around with what apears to be a free speech issue, then go ahead - see where it takes them.
Now - as far as jurisdiction goes, Spamhaus's request basically stated that Illinois had no jurisdiction. If the court systems failed to agree with Spamhaus, and not move the venue, then Spamhaus stuck to their determination that Illinois had no jurisdiction by not appearing.
This, I believe, was the correct thing for them to do. Don't back down when you know you're right.
If, by some odd turn of events, that I cannot even fathom at this time, Spamhaus ends up in court, all they'll have to do is drop the list of messages sent by the plaintif into the evidence pile, and let the Judge see what was sent by e360, and the case will be closed with prejudice.
That's a big if, because I believe that Spamhaus will not back down, and e360 will never see anything from their case, and will continue to be blocklisted.
Now, what would really be interesting, is if Spamhaus took their evidence, and presented it to a court some place where e360 sent their e-mails, a place where spamming is illegal. Let's see how fast e360 uses the "jurisdiction" statement.
In this case, Spamhaus would actually have a leg to stand on, in that e360 did themselves, send their messages to people in countries where spamming is illegal.
--- BTW: Have you read the information in the FAQ on Spamhaus's site? ---
http://www.spamhaus.org/faq/answers.lasso?section
It's very enlightening and entertaining.....
I don't know about you, but it's a helluva lot cheaper to keep paper records around than it is to keep magnetic media forever, which is where a lot of corporations are headed.
There are many additional costs above and beyond paper printouts and storage fees.
#1 Constantly having to buy new storage media at $35 to $80 a pop, in 10k lots.
#2 Constantly having to send media offsite, expanding storage requirements and fees for said storage.
#3 Having to retrieve said media from offsite, so that it can be read, and re-copied to a new media so that the data is refreshed before the shelf-life expires. (Part of a corporate initiative to be pro-active on data retention)
#4 Having to keep old hardware around in case some data is needed from 8 year old media.
4a) Maintenance costs for said hardware.
4b) Floor space for said hardware.
4c) Keeping operators trained on operations of said hardware.
#5 The fact that most of said media could be stolen, copied or erased while offsite
Granted, paper reports can be destroyed - shredder, water damage, fire...
Electronic media has many more causes of damage above and beyond the 3 listed above.
I'm not in my 40s, however, I have been around the industry for over 20 years, and as long as there's any possible way that the data could be destroyed, there will be paper (or plastic) versions around.
In many cases, the paper copies are used as backups for the electronic versions.
Case in point:
A customer had religiously done their backups daily.
They rotated tapes between two sets for the daily backups, four sets for weekly, 12 sets for monthly, and used new tapes for quarterly and yearly backups.
All of these tapes were stored in a fire-proof, water-proof vault, that was closed and locked unless something was being put into or taken out of said vault.
A problem occurred, and said data needed to be restored. The client thought, no problem, just restore it.
Most recent tape goes in, start to restore - data error.
Next tape in, data error.
Next tape in, data error.
Now, each and every backup tape was verified before it was ejected and placed in the vault.
The client had to go back 3 months before they found a viable tape to restore from.
They then had to re-key all the transactions that had been entered since that backup was taken.
Cause of tape failures? A bad balast on a flourescent light in the vault - scrambled the bits on the tapes.
The flourescents were removed, and incandescents installed the next day.
What kind of lighting is used at your storage facility? Does the truck hauling media to and from your site ever stop by a major electrical substation? Is it shielded enough to withstand said EMF?
Yeah, they said it when I started working in the industry - we'll soon be a paperless society. They've said it every year since then. All I've seen is more and more paper production, not a decrease.
If and when we go truly paperless, I'll believe it. Until then, we're just echoing a tired old message down through time.
Send a special version which requires that an NDA be signed before being used.
Then if he shoots his big mouth off, sue his sorry ass.
Also, another option, don't sell the game in Florida, but advertise stating that it would have been available if Mr. Thompson hadn't been harassing Take Two so much. List his home address and phone numbers and let the populace decide.
Then finally, file a harassment suit. I know of many more games which have even more blood and violence than Take Two's games, and he doesn't seem to be going after them. Slap a gag order on him and watch his head explode.
The only people I know of who use paper in any amount are people who are 40+, the type of people who like to print off any website longer than a page because "it is easier to read".
You're forgetting the corporates that are financial institutions, insurance brokers, or those that deal with medical information.
There are all sorts of mandates which REQUIRE hardcopy printouts of all sorts of inane, dare I say it, anal retentive information.
Individuals may choose to go paperless, but many companies have no choice in the matter.
The judge should have noted the address of the defendant and thrown the case out - period.
He had no jurisdiction in the case.
Yet, since the service resides in the UK, and the *users* have to connect to their servers, it's a subscription. ie - the users chose to get the info, the publisher didn't push it down anyone's server. The publisher didn't broadcast it out to the public. It didn't force anyone to view or use the data. It wouldn't be any different than telemarketing companies trying to litigate against the US government because the do not call listing.
Spamhause provides a list, made from it's best efforts, of what it feels are spammers. Consumers choose to subscribe to this list. Spamhaus did nothing to physically block anyone's e-mails.
The Judge has it wrong, and needs to step down from the bench due to incompetence.
The article notes that the IE7 "containment wall" protected mode will not be available on XP, but only to those who purchase Vista.
In other words, "No one will have the containment wall?"
If you refuse to work with idiots, you'll never find a job...
I didn't seem to have any difficulties, and as I stated, my job is very rewarding. If I had to work for idiots, it sure as hell wouldn't be.
When the HR person is doing the filtering, they'd damned well better be doing according to the specs put there by the manager requesting the position. If the manager knows what they're doing, they're looking for experience. The job listing will state "X years of college, OR equivelent experience levels". Unless you are completely incompetent, you can't work in any industry for long without even accidentally learning the required skillsets, and that will show in your resume.
If I'm looking through a stack of 50 resumes and 15 of them have similar work experience, I'm going to interview the 5 who, on paper, demonstrate either some additional realm of knowledge or, as evident by continuing education, the assertiveness to keep learning.
Really?
Continuing education in what? Knitting 101?
If you're resume shows evolving skillsets - ie - Solaris 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 5.7, 5.8, 5.9, 5.10, AIX 3.3, 4.0, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 5.0, 5.1, 5.2, etc... That's continuing education in an appropriate field.
I've seen too many college graduates come into the field and you ask them to do something simple, and they just stare at you, waiting for you to HAND them the answer. They're missing key problem solving skills, because they focused all their energy on learning the dates that certain things happened, instead of the how it really works, and how to troubleshoot.
But hey, maybe you want to hire someone who can purl to manage your UNIX systems, instead of use PERL... More power to you.
As I said, I wouldn't want to work for you. You'd probably mis-manage the department into the ground.
I am a 30 something, who started in the field in '86 while still in high-school. Everything I know is self-taught. Experience is the key. Too many short term memorizations have made certifications not worth the paper they are printed on.
List your experiences, and areas on knowledge.
In most cases that's as good as or better than college / certifications. If someone out there won't even interview you because you don't have a college degree, or certifications, then they are an idiot, and you wouldn't want to work for them anyway.
I've been continuously employed in enjoyable and enriching positions (2 for the entire 20 year period). It took me all of 3 days to find a new position when I tired of the old company.
Even if it's a US resident, if they are overseas, there's NOTHING to prevent them from gambling.
Are they now going to track down travel itineraries before allowing a bet to be placed?
May want to see about getting your hands broken before you type shit about something you obviously are clueless about.
If a US citizen does something overseas, that is legal overseas, then the US can't do a damned thing about it once the citizen is back in the states.
This is very simple.
Off-shore betting company, routes CC through off-shore CC processing center.
There's NO way the US can pass a law that would disallow an American from using online gambling, if they were in another country.
ie - offshore company routes traffic through an off-shore proxy, which then makes it appear that the users are in Thailand or Jamaica, or wherever.
Then they place the bets, take the money, or give it back.
No US laws to worry about.
Not that I care about online gambling, as I don't gamble, period. It's enough of a gamble just to wake up every day. I just don't like seeing tax payer money wasted on stupid legislature which restricts what we as citizens can and cannot do.
"spelled correclty." --- "spelled correctly."
iTunes popular? to whom? it might be popular to the followers, the wanna-bes, but not to anyone with any kind of tech savvy.... here we talk about MS tightening the screws, and yet, iTunes is DRM'd from the get-go. I've watched people fumble with their iPods, trying to make them work using a work PC and a home PC. They had music that they'd ripped on both, and wanted to *merge* the music together. They finally figured it out, but it took them weeks...
I just carry my music on a portable drive, and attach it to either my home laptop, or my work laptop, and pick my favorite media player, and carry on. It took a while to rip my entire collection using FLAC, but it's worth it... If only that 160GB 2.5" drive wasn't so damned expensive to replace when my niece dropped it.
I owned the 9xx series for a little over a year, before upgrading to the 622.
I never had any failures, despite a complicated record / preference setup.
This leads us to conclude, that it could have been one of two things.
#1 - Defective unit
#2 - Operator error
Not sure which thread you were reading, however, I said Dish-Network, not DirecTV.
TiVO was first (to patent - not have hardware) for ANALOG only.
Dish patented digital - which is what HDTV is.
This setup sounds suspiciously like the 9xx series and the 622 series from dish network.
Only difference being, that the 622 has 2 Dish tuners, plus an off-air HD tuner.
You can record from both tuners, and watch either recorded content or off air on both outputs, totalling 4 concurrent i/o streams.
Post the sign on the front of the web page.
We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone we so choose to.
There - that covers any and every accessibility issue.
This is easily solved.
Take one of your old (probably broken wired) headsets you have lying around. Preferably one with the L-shaped 3.5mm mini-plug. Cut the wires to the quick. Plug it into the side of the laptop as part of the *unpacking* process.
Now when your laptop boots up, and starts to make it's sounds - it's routed out the headphone jack (electrical circuit open) - and no sound is made.
Is this worth it? No.
Should we add it to the list of reasons we WON'T buy Vista? Yes.
How freaking self-centered does a person have to be to believe that their rights to pirate music are more relevant than the rights of the people who actually own the music?
Very few people are talking of PIRATING.
Remove the object from where you do your thinking, from the dark, dank, damp orifice from which it is currently residing, and get some fresh air.
The current rounds of DRM prevent you from doing the following:
#1 ) Backups - ie - backups that can be restored on any machine. (yes that's right, people have more than one, and not all of them run windows or mac os)
#2 ) Convert to a format useable by different OSes.
#3 ) Convert to a format usable by the player someone chooses to replace their iPod after having to repair / replace it 3 times in 3 months.
DRM has one purpose, and one purpose only. I'll give you a hint, it's NOT to stop pirating.
The people who pirate content will do so regardless of what measures the ??AAs take.
DRMs one and only purpose is to line the pockets of the ??AAs with ill-gotten gains. Ahh, your hard drive broke, you have no backup, ahhh too bad - re-purchase your music.
Oh, you want to use an XYZ brand MP3 player - too bad, you only bought music for an iPod - re-buy it.
The ??AAs are setting the stage where they will charge us, it's customers, it's sole reason for being, for every use of the media.