what would be even better would be to use new technologies to document the bullying - then to catalog it all, and sue the fsck out of the bully kids shithead parents for damages (bikes, locker contents, clothes, glasses, etc) and for emotional distress.
if bullys can use their genetics to beat up on us little guys, we should be able to do the same.
This device is a "firewire device", yet it operates at slower than USB 1 speeds.
You wouldn't put up with that if it was a USB 2 device operating at 300 kbps, would you?
On the Apple Store's webpage, it clearly and openly says..
"Using software support that's built into your iPod (iPod software version 2.1 or later), transfer your pictures quickly via FireWire technology and you're ready to start shooting again. "
A reasonable person would assume that such a device would operate at such speeds. Or do we all quickly forget the 1st gen pre-Oxford 911 based IDE hard drive cases that were horribly slow and never mentioned that they couldn't possibly give you back even the the bandwidth of IDE, let alone Firewire. MacAlly got hammered in the press and by their customers over that whole debachle - as well they should have.
A reasonable person purchasing this product would assume that "transferring pictures quickly via Firewire" would not mean - "transfers slower than USB 1 devices".
"My issue" is that this $99 "Firewire technology" reader gets its ass handed to it by a $14 USB 1 device. That's unreasonable.
If they (Belkin and Apple on their store page) were to point out "while this uses Firewire, it does not transfer ANYWHERE near Firewire speeds, and in fact, its slower than USB 1", then there would be no "issue"
no offense... but you can buy 3 256 meg cards for the price of this reader.
my "issue" is that the biggest audience for this is pro users who want a quick easy way to dump their 512 and larger cards on the run... and that Belkin said it happened at "Firewire speeds".
300kb sec is not "Firewire speeds" on anyones planet. Its not even USB 1 speed.
the big deal is that it IS a pro add-on. Why would you spend $99 if you were an "average" user? You wouldn't.
And even so - you could buy 6 128 meg CF cards for the price of this lame reader...
ripping out a CF card and copying its contents to an iPod because you ran out of space is a PRO thing to do... average users will just either jam in their other 128 meg card or they will stop taking pictures.
the reader is $100. Most "average" cameras are about $200. That seems already to be out of range in price for most average users... i'm certianly not in the market for this thing.
no, its not poorly written - that's exactly what i said. And Belkin is "looking into it" to see if they can get a little more more speed, but they are certianly not saying that they are going to give the real users of this devices what they want - firweire speeds - like as are physically possible with a FireWire port.
If you RTFA, you'd see that the issue is that this $99 reader underperforms a $14 USB adaptor - and the reason why is that Belkin assumes that "typical consumers using a 128 meg card" are their audience. They stated that they chose price/performance and got a card reader that goes 300kb/sec, which is "fast enough" for their supposed target audience of average users.
The point is, typical consumers with cheap cameras and small CF cards are NOT not in any way the target audience for a $99 card reader to plug into a $300+ iPod when their camera doesn't cost anywhere near that range - and Belkin is just dumb to think that they are.
High-end geek pros with 512m and larger CF/Microdrive cards with cash to burn are the REAL target audience, and if you're going to give them a reader than dumps files to a 40 gig iPod, then you better make it a fast reader - because they aren't going to want the piece of shit if it only goes 300kb/sec.
I know 3 people - all of them have digital SLR owners that bought it thinking "ha, i no longer need to drag my powerbook with me to dump out picts from my 512 cards, i can just use this with my iPod".
Well, it turns out that each of these users says this thing is useless to them because its way too slow to be useable. Its also too big, and they couldn't give a shit less about SD and other card formats. All digital SLR's use CF.
so - without trying to write 5 paragrpahs explaining wtf the Belkin card reader is for the folks that care that already know - i simply pointed out that Belkin's excuse for the shitty performance of their card reader (which will not get much speed increase from any software updates by apple because the issue is with the card reader, not the iPod software) is that they thought that their buyers were going to be "average consumers'... which is very bad market research... and means that Belkin is lamer than almost everyone that's seen this device and thinking of who it was for - high-end users with big CF cards that want speed.
No one "average" gives a shit to spend $100 to dump picts from their cheap $200 cameras from their tiny little $20 128 meg CF cards to their $300+ iPods.
And, you must be new, so let me fill you in... this is news for nerds. If you "don't get why this is news" you may want to look into the mirror and realize that you're not one.
I think that the FSF should consult with wherever you register your copyright here in the US. If we give them probable cause - such as the software "they wrote" to allow you to run Linux software under their SCO Unix crap.
If i had an apple orchard, and you had one next to me - and you accused me of stealign your apples.... and when i said "hell no i didn't, here's all my apples - which ones are from your farm? And why is there a trail of fertilizer from my farm to your farm?" -
and then you said, "well, hey, you know, lets make all the apples are free to everyone"..
there has to be some mechanism to protect copywrited materials - the FSF should use whatever mechanism that is and pull a BSA raid on SCO Unix and their Linux compatibility software.
SCO has every reason in the world to see the GPL killed. That reason is that they have (most likely) been using GPL'd code in their proprietary code. They want to see the GPL nulled and voided so that when "they win their case", they can, at a later date, keep right on using Linux code in their shitty products.
now, it looks like i need to amend it slightly...
SCO has every reason in the world to see all GPL software made public domain. That reason is that they have (most likely) been using GPL'd code in their proprietary code. They want to see the GPL nulled and voided so that when "they win their case", they can, at a later date, keep right on using Linux code in their shitty products, as well as to prevent being sued into oblivion by a horde of GPL contibutors.
it sucks being right.
I'm telling you - we need to see SCO's "closed source" product code - for there, you will see that they have been going what they have accuesed everyone else of doing.
There is NO other reason for wanting all GPL code made "public domain".
SCO has every reason in the world to see the GPL killed. That reason is that they have (most likely) been using GPL'd code in their proprietary code. They want to see the GPL nulled and voided so that when "they win their case", they can, at a later date, keep right on using Linux code in their shitty products.
i'll keep saying it - this is the whole of the "why" behind their case, i'm telling you. They don't want to have to pay up to anyone - let alone thousands of individuals, for abusing their GPL code in their products...
Government programs take too long to acuqire - 4-8 years for a system like that.
meaning that by the time they actually wanted to start building the and fielding them, they couldn't buy the PIII-500's that they had speced/tested any more.
this is a constant issue with military programs being built on COTS. For example - the DSP farms of XServes going on the subs are already obsolete - they could have used half as many G5's to do it.
If someone wanted to change the face of military program development, come up with a way to NOT have to specify crucial parts until the very minute you went into production. Or at least make it so that you can move into the latest versions before you go into production.
We had a bitch of a time 6 years ago replacing some computers in a Air Force program.. it was impossible to find anyone to make us 286 machines.
so how do you explain to total and complete lack of consistency throughout the entire UI?
i swear - every day, i must find at least 3 or 4 new dialog boxes that throw the "ok" or "yes do it" button in a totally random location.. as opposed to the bottom right (the end of the Window for us left-right,top-bottom readers) its maddening.
and sure that top-bottom, right-left (japanese) folks find it just as annoying - because ITS INCONSISTENT.
Microsoft DOES NOT INDEMNIFY YOU - other than for the price of their software - THE SAME AS LINUX
Microsoft DOES NOT INDEMNIFY YOU - other than for the price of their software - THE SAME AS LINUX
Microsoft DOES NOT INDEMNIFY YOU - other than for the price of their software - THE SAME AS LINUX
How they (and SCO) get away with saying this is sheer madness. It is false advertising. There should be a lawsuit against Microsoft for making fraudulent claims. Fraudlent claims are not protected speech.
calling and asking to buy copies of license before i started my small business - to see what is involved with purchasing the license.
damn.. i got fscking voice mail.
I told him i wanted to get all the documentation and information on what I get for my purchases of the LInux license before I buy it - just so I know what it is I'm buying... and left him my phone number.
this is not legal in any sense whatsoever. To the law - there is no difference between me "stealing" something and Enron stealing somthing or Microsoft stealing something.
its still stealing.
They can't have it both ways - they cant tell me "i'm cool" but then tell Boeing they are not cool. What if i become the next Boeing in the next year because i come up with the ultimate something or other? Is my copy of Linux a personal or Fortune 1000 "verison"?
this was not a patent issue. This was a contract dispute. Period.
X10 paid them to do some work. They did the work - regardless of how easy the work was, they had a contract to do it...
The problem was, X-10 signed a contract before they researched what they were buying. When they found out "doh, this is easy" they reniged on the contract and started doing it themselves.
This is no different than signing a contract for some MSCE loser to admin your windows servers for a year to find out that if you install a Mac OS X box, you can do it all yourself with great ease. That does not remove your contractual responsibilities - and you owe that pimple faced moron his $$$.
Now, on that note, i think that any future revenues from pop-under ads shouldn't go their way - because that WOULD be some kind of lame-ass software patent issue.
I feel for the kids because their mom died and all.. and becuase i get the feeling that they think they should get paid for any pop-under ad.
BUT
they DO need to learn that they must continue to "innovate" in order to keep making money - their pop-under ad thing was a one time deal and is done and over.
They are smart, they will learn that, and move on.
This is the best idea ever. And once we have cheap, safe affordable Spacelift - that is, the ability to get into space with stuff - then all our spent fuel can easily be disposed of.
Once in orbit, you simply sypersync it toward the sun... or even better, use space elevators to directly fling the stuff to the sun. It doesn't travel thruought the cosmos to wreck someone else's problems, and there is no need to bury it in anyone's backyard. You can even use nuclear powered spacecraft to do it if you dont have a space elevator. At the sun, the spent nuclear fuel will be broken down into hydrogen and energy.
Small nuclear generators are the key to a pollution free future - you can even use them to get hydrogen for portable use.
Honestly - the so-called envrionmentalists who poo-poo everything nuclear do not remotely have the environment as their main conern - else they would work with the technologists to this ultimate solution of 100% nuclear powered planet with the spent fuel being dumped into the sun.
Their main driving forces are their politics - neo-communist luddites. Just look at the Nantucket catch-22 they are in. Wankers.
i have no fscking idea of how or why you see the need to "psych-out" a computer.
If you'd like to un-DRM your purchased files - because you must absolutely need to... there are two basic ways.
(I like to think i "discovered" this - as I was the first on/. to report it - check with Pudge and he'll confirm...)
1. Burn an audio CD from iTunes
rip the CD.
done. (okay, i didn't discover this)
2. import the iTMS AAC file into iMovie 3.
Save the iMovie project.
Check the media files folder. You'll find your song saved as an uncompressed AIFF file there.
Done.
Un-DRMing your files is 100% legitimate - I bought the files, and i wanted to play them on whatever device i wanted. There are plenty of MP3 players that don't play AAC files - like my Sony MPX-70 in-dash MP3 player in my Jeep - which is why i looked for this solution in the first place.
Of course, now that i bought an iPod, and my Sony has an audio input jack, i no longer bother to do this conversion.
whats sad is that sloth's comment is somwhow not common sense.
It fscking should be. Its a smart play by Apple - and I think it will work as they planned. If anyone has "gotten" what Apple did wrong for the last 20 years - its Apple. What's sad is that no one else can see that Apple gets it. (PCI, AGP, USB, PC-133 and DDR, IDE, Serial-ATA - but Macs are totally proprietary???)
maybe they'll never get to 10%, but definately should keep Apple at their Audi-like 5-7% US marketshare. (if Audi is even that high)
an thusly, you're not part of Apple's target market.
Sorry. They had to draw a line somewhere. Feel free to purchase the music in other places.
I honestly don't understand how audiophiles and audiophile wanna-bees don't get this. This is a MASS MARKET targeted service. Its not targeted to audiophiles. Its not complicated or hidden or even confusing.
What I think you're upset about is that you'll have to buy $18 cds to get the quality you want.
That's part of higher quality - it often costs more than average mass market-level quality...
Just like my PowerBook G4 12" cost me more than a Dell piece of shit laptop. The difference is that I don't bitch about it costing more - I know that i got a better product than the average consumer.
Pick and choose what you want to spend money on - and buy what fulfills your need. And for the 897,592nd time - iTMS is not for audiophiles with $25,000 stereo systems.
1) SCO is doing nothing but delay delay delay. 2) RedHat's discovery requests make it clear - they are going for the juggular. They are requesting Linux Kernel Personality code.. oh, and all of their other code. The reason why is clear - to determine if SCO has violated the GPL by putting Linux code in SCO UNIX products....
which would explain why SCO is so interested in seeing the GPL be voided in court in the IBM case - the most likely scenarios is that SCO has been stealing GPL code for their software, esp the Linux Kernel Personality - while claming that Linux has stolen SCO code in it.
Let me say that again....
SCO has every reason in the world to see the GPL killed. That reason is that they have (most likely) been using GPL'd code in their proprietary code. They want to see the GPL nulled and voided so that when "they win their case", they can, at a later date, keep right on using Linux code in their shitty products.
They are stalling and filing frivolous motions (like to dismiss) to get them to the point where the dumping can really rake in some money. But Red Hat is obviously onto this - by their discovery requests.
I wonder if they'll just Koresh themselves into their little SCO compound when it becomes obvious that they can no longer prevent the world from finding out that this was all a house of cards pump-and-dump, and that the only ones who've been truly in violation of "stealing IP" was them.
Slashdot Mirror
what would be even better would be to use new technologies to document the bullying - then to catalog it all, and sue the fsck out of the bully kids shithead parents for damages (bikes, locker contents, clothes, glasses, etc) and for emotional distress.
if bullys can use their genetics to beat up on us little guys, we should be able to do the same.
being for war isn't a non-humanity thing when there are people dying at the hands of tyrants.
just ask the Hatians, the People of Yougoslavia, the Somalians, or any of the people we worked to save during the Clinton Administration.
This device is a "firewire device", yet it operates at slower than USB 1 speeds.
You wouldn't put up with that if it was a USB 2 device operating at 300 kbps, would you?
On the Apple Store's webpage, it clearly and openly says..
"Using software support that's built into your iPod (iPod software version 2.1 or later), transfer your pictures quickly via FireWire technology and you're ready to start shooting again. "
A reasonable person would assume that such a device would operate at such speeds. Or do we all quickly forget the 1st gen pre-Oxford 911 based IDE hard drive cases that were horribly slow and never mentioned that they couldn't possibly give you back even the the bandwidth of IDE, let alone Firewire. MacAlly got hammered in the press and by their customers over that whole debachle - as well they should have.
A reasonable person purchasing this product would assume that "transferring pictures quickly via Firewire" would not mean - "transfers slower than USB 1 devices".
"My issue" is that this $99 "Firewire technology" reader gets its ass handed to it by a $14 USB 1 device. That's unreasonable.
If they (Belkin and Apple on their store page) were to point out "while this uses Firewire, it does not transfer ANYWHERE near Firewire speeds, and in fact, its slower than USB 1", then there would be no "issue"
no offense... but you can buy 3 256 meg cards for the price of this reader.
my "issue" is that the biggest audience for this is pro users who want a quick easy way to dump their 512 and larger cards on the run... and that Belkin said it happened at "Firewire speeds".
300kb sec is not "Firewire speeds" on anyones planet. Its not even USB 1 speed.
the big deal is that it IS a pro add-on. Why would you spend $99 if you were an "average" user? You wouldn't.
And even so - you could buy 6 128 meg CF cards for the price of this lame reader...
ripping out a CF card and copying its contents to an iPod because you ran out of space is a PRO thing to do... average users will just either jam in their other 128 meg card or they will stop taking pictures.
the reader is $100. Most "average" cameras are about $200. That seems already to be out of range in price for most average users... i'm certianly not in the market for this thing.
no.
there are already CF Firewire adaptors out there.. CF can go really fast...
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/mediacompare/
this shows that moost cards can write around 2MB/sec and read almost twice that speed...
its an issue with the reader that its only going 300kb/sec... as even the cheapest cards can go about 2000kb/sec.
no, its not poorly written - that's exactly what i said. And Belkin is "looking into it" to see if they can get a little more more speed, but they are certianly not saying that they are going to give the real users of this devices what they want - firweire speeds - like as are physically possible with a FireWire port.
If you RTFA, you'd see that the issue is that this $99 reader underperforms a $14 USB adaptor - and the reason why is that Belkin assumes that "typical consumers using a 128 meg card" are their audience. They stated that they chose price/performance and got a card reader that goes 300kb/sec, which is "fast enough" for their supposed target audience of average users.
The point is, typical consumers with cheap cameras and small CF cards are NOT not in any way the target audience for a $99 card reader to plug into a $300+ iPod when their camera doesn't cost anywhere near that range - and Belkin is just dumb to think that they are.
High-end geek pros with 512m and larger CF/Microdrive cards with cash to burn are the REAL target audience, and if you're going to give them a reader than dumps files to a 40 gig iPod, then you better make it a fast reader - because they aren't going to want the piece of shit if it only goes 300kb/sec.
I know 3 people - all of them have digital SLR owners that bought it thinking "ha, i no longer need to drag my powerbook with me to dump out picts from my 512 cards, i can just use this with my iPod".
Well, it turns out that each of these users says this thing is useless to them because its way too slow to be useable. Its also too big, and they couldn't give a shit less about SD and other card formats. All digital SLR's use CF.
so - without trying to write 5 paragrpahs explaining wtf the Belkin card reader is for the folks that care that already know - i simply pointed out that Belkin's excuse for the shitty performance of their card reader (which will not get much speed increase from any software updates by apple because the issue is with the card reader, not the iPod software) is that they thought that their buyers were going to be "average consumers'... which is very bad market research... and means that Belkin is lamer than almost everyone that's seen this device and thinking of who it was for - high-end users with big CF cards that want speed.
No one "average" gives a shit to spend $100 to dump picts from their cheap $200 cameras from their tiny little $20 128 meg CF cards to their $300+ iPods.
And, you must be new, so let me fill you in... this is news for nerds. If you "don't get why this is news" you may want to look into the mirror and realize that you're not one.
yes.
I think that the FSF should consult with wherever you register your copyright here in the US. If we give them probable cause - such as the software "they wrote" to allow you to run Linux software under their SCO Unix crap.
If i had an apple orchard, and you had one next to me - and you accused me of stealign your apples.... and when i said "hell no i didn't, here's all my apples - which ones are from your farm? And why is there a trail of fertilizer from my farm to your farm?" -
and then you said, "well, hey, you know, lets make all the apples are free to everyone"..
there has to be some mechanism to protect copywrited materials - the FSF should use whatever mechanism that is and pull a BSA raid on SCO Unix and their Linux compatibility software.
i used to say...
SCO has every reason in the world to see the GPL killed. That reason is that they have (most likely) been using GPL'd code in their proprietary code. They want to see the GPL nulled and voided so that when "they win their case", they can, at a later date, keep right on using Linux code in their shitty products.
now, it looks like i need to amend it slightly...
SCO has every reason in the world to see all GPL software made public domain. That reason is that they have (most likely) been using GPL'd code in their proprietary code. They want to see the GPL nulled and voided so that when "they win their case", they can, at a later date, keep right on using Linux code in their shitty products, as well as to prevent being sued into oblivion by a horde of GPL contibutors.
it sucks being right.
I'm telling you - we need to see SCO's "closed source" product code - for there, you will see that they have been going what they have accuesed everyone else of doing.
There is NO other reason for wanting all GPL code made "public domain".
i have said it before, and i will say it again...
SCO has every reason in the world to see the GPL killed. That reason is that they have (most likely) been using GPL'd code in their proprietary code. They want to see the GPL nulled and voided so that when "they win their case", they can, at a later date, keep right on using Linux code in their shitty products.
i'll keep saying it - this is the whole of the "why" behind their case, i'm telling you. They don't want to have to pay up to anyone - let alone thousands of individuals, for abusing their GPL code in their products...
because after this - everyone will go after them.
Government programs take too long to acuqire - 4-8 years for a system like that.
meaning that by the time they actually wanted to start building the and fielding them, they couldn't buy the PIII-500's that they had speced/tested any more.
this is a constant issue with military programs being built on COTS. For example - the DSP farms of XServes going on the subs are already obsolete - they could have used half as many G5's to do it.
If someone wanted to change the face of military program development, come up with a way to NOT have to specify crucial parts until the very minute you went into production. Or at least make it so that you can move into the latest versions before you go into production.
We had a bitch of a time 6 years ago replacing some computers in a Air Force program.. it was impossible to find anyone to make us 286 machines.
so how do you explain to total and complete lack of consistency throughout the entire UI?
i swear - every day, i must find at least 3 or 4 new dialog boxes that throw the "ok" or "yes do it" button in a totally random location.. as opposed to the bottom right (the end of the Window for us left-right,top-bottom readers) its maddening.
and sure that top-bottom, right-left (japanese) folks find it just as annoying - because ITS INCONSISTENT.
then why the hell am i surrounded by hundreds of MSCE drones telling me "Linux servers bad, Windows servers good"?
repeat after me.
Microsoft DOES NOT INDEMNIFY YOU - other than for the price of their software - THE SAME AS LINUX
Microsoft DOES NOT INDEMNIFY YOU - other than for the price of their software - THE SAME AS LINUX
Microsoft DOES NOT INDEMNIFY YOU - other than for the price of their software - THE SAME AS LINUX
How they (and SCO) get away with saying this is sheer madness. It is false advertising. There should be a lawsuit against Microsoft for making fraudulent claims. Fraudlent claims are not protected speech.
calling and asking to buy copies of license before i started my small business - to see what is involved with purchasing the license.
damn.. i got fscking voice mail.
I told him i wanted to get all the documentation and information on what I get for my purchases of the LInux license before I buy it - just so I know what it is I'm buying... and left him my phone number.
oh well - they can't say that I didn't try.
bullshit bullshit bullshit.
this is not legal in any sense whatsoever. To the law - there is no difference between me "stealing" something and Enron stealing somthing or Microsoft stealing something.
its still stealing.
They can't have it both ways - they cant tell me "i'm cool" but then tell Boeing they are not cool. What if i become the next Boeing in the next year because i come up with the ultimate something or other? Is my copy of Linux a personal or Fortune 1000 "verison"?
bullshit bullshit bullshit
this was not a patent issue. This was a contract dispute. Period.
X10 paid them to do some work. They did the work - regardless of how easy the work was, they had a contract to do it...
The problem was, X-10 signed a contract before they researched what they were buying. When they found out "doh, this is easy" they reniged on the contract and started doing it themselves.
This is no different than signing a contract for some MSCE loser to admin your windows servers for a year to find out that if you install a Mac OS X box, you can do it all yourself with great ease. That does not remove your contractual responsibilities - and you owe that pimple faced moron his $$$.
Now, on that note, i think that any future revenues from pop-under ads shouldn't go their way - because that WOULD be some kind of lame-ass software patent issue.
I feel for the kids because their mom died and all.. and becuase i get the feeling that they think they should get paid for any pop-under ad.
BUT
they DO need to learn that they must continue to "innovate" in order to keep making money - their pop-under ad thing was a one time deal and is done and over.
They are smart, they will learn that, and move on.
This is the best idea ever. And once we have cheap, safe affordable Spacelift - that is, the ability to get into space with stuff - then all our spent fuel can easily be disposed of.
Once in orbit, you simply sypersync it toward the sun... or even better, use space elevators to directly fling the stuff to the sun. It doesn't travel thruought the cosmos to wreck someone else's problems, and there is no need to bury it in anyone's backyard. You can even use nuclear powered spacecraft to do it if you dont have a space elevator. At the sun, the spent nuclear fuel will be broken down into hydrogen and energy.
Small nuclear generators are the key to a pollution free future - you can even use them to get hydrogen for portable use.
Honestly - the so-called envrionmentalists who poo-poo everything nuclear do not remotely have the environment as their main conern - else they would work with the technologists to this ultimate solution of 100% nuclear powered planet with the spent fuel being dumped into the sun.
Their main driving forces are their politics - neo-communist luddites. Just look at the Nantucket catch-22 they are in. Wankers.
fuck them.
so this DRM thing really couldn't stop me much.
(hint: it has a built in camera)
the second thing the US launched into space was a spy satellite (well, an attempted spy satellite at any rate - see Corona program)
Space has not been peaceful - ever. Space is alredy militarized - and was from the get go.
Also - if you think 'space wars" involves blowing up satellites, you're thinking is very childlike - and yo've seen too many Lucas films.
Think more like a hacker...
i have no fscking idea of how or why you see the need to "psych-out" a computer.
/. to report it - check with Pudge and he'll confirm...)
If you'd like to un-DRM your purchased files - because you must absolutely need to... there are two basic ways.
(I like to think i "discovered" this - as I was the first on
1. Burn an audio CD from iTunes
rip the CD.
done. (okay, i didn't discover this)
2. import the iTMS AAC file into iMovie 3.
Save the iMovie project.
Check the media files folder. You'll find your song saved as an uncompressed AIFF file there.
Done.
Un-DRMing your files is 100% legitimate - I bought the files, and i wanted to play them on whatever device i wanted. There are plenty of MP3 players that don't play AAC files - like my Sony MPX-70 in-dash MP3 player in my Jeep - which is why i looked for this solution in the first place.
Of course, now that i bought an iPod, and my Sony has an audio input jack, i no longer bother to do this conversion.
whats sad is that sloth's comment is somwhow not common sense.
It fscking should be. Its a smart play by Apple - and I think it will work as they planned. If anyone has "gotten" what Apple did wrong for the last 20 years - its Apple. What's sad is that no one else can see that Apple gets it. (PCI, AGP, USB, PC-133 and DDR, IDE, Serial-ATA - but Macs are totally proprietary???)
maybe they'll never get to 10%, but definately should keep Apple at their Audi-like 5-7% US marketshare. (if Audi is even that high)
an thusly, you're not part of Apple's target market.
Sorry. They had to draw a line somewhere. Feel free to purchase the music in other places.
I honestly don't understand how audiophiles and audiophile wanna-bees don't get this. This is a MASS MARKET targeted service. Its not targeted to audiophiles. Its not complicated or hidden or even confusing.
What I think you're upset about is that you'll have to buy $18 cds to get the quality you want.
That's part of higher quality - it often costs more than average mass market-level quality...
Just like my PowerBook G4 12" cost me more than a Dell piece of shit laptop. The difference is that I don't bitch about it costing more - I know that i got a better product than the average consumer.
Pick and choose what you want to spend money on - and buy what fulfills your need. And for the 897,592nd time - iTMS is not for audiophiles with $25,000 stereo systems.
The only thing stopping creative from being able to play iTMS songs is Creative's decision to not support.
The AAC format is an OPEN STANDARD.
This is similar to what is stopping Apple from putting Ogg on the iPod... Apple's decision.
Now, on the flip side...
I don't suppose that the new music services using WMA files would be compatible with the iPod.
No - and that is not Apple's fault. WMA files are a closed, proprietary standard.
There are two points in it.
0 90 42543818
1) SCO is doing nothing but delay delay delay.
2) RedHat's discovery requests make it clear - they are going for the juggular. They are requesting Linux Kernel Personality code.. oh, and all of their other code. The reason why is clear - to determine if SCO has violated the GPL by putting Linux code in SCO UNIX products....
which would explain why SCO is so interested in seeing the GPL be voided in court in the IBM case - the most likely scenarios is that SCO has been stealing GPL code for their software, esp the Linux Kernel Personality - while claming that Linux has stolen SCO code in it.
Let me say that again....
SCO has every reason in the world to see the GPL killed. That reason is that they have (most likely) been using GPL'd code in their proprietary code. They want to see the GPL nulled and voided so that when "they win their case", they can, at a later date, keep right on using Linux code in their shitty products.
They are stalling and filing frivolous motions (like to dismiss) to get them to the point where the dumping can really rake in some money. But Red Hat is obviously onto this - by their discovery requests.
I wonder if they'll just Koresh themselves into their little SCO compound when it becomes obvious that they can no longer prevent the world from finding out that this was all a house of cards pump-and-dump, and that the only ones who've been truly in violation of "stealing IP" was them.
http://www.groklaw.com/article.php?story=200310