That's some really interesting information - I am surprised that the federal rules are as harsh as they are. It looks like the moral is to be charge by state enforcement and not federal.
So congress passes a law saying anyone who has ever been convicted of j-walking can't assemble at a protest. It's the same kind of thing. Felons don't get to own guns any more. And j-walkers don't get to protest. Never mind that such a penalty did not exist at the time they committed the offense or that they have a constitutional right to protest!
Right. Just like people who smoke can no longer smoke in a restaraunt. That's what I said.
The parent post ends with a definition of ex post facto. The definition was written just a few years prior to the constitution. Clause three of the definition:
3: Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed.
Which is what I implied. Smokers are being punished for not even committing a crime.
What I'm questioning/suggesting is that (as the parent post also challenged), these are not really punishments. They are changes in policy. Like I said, a fine, pedantic, line.
An even better question is about taking away their right to vote, especially considering that some felonies could easily be considered political crimes, eg smoking a joint in the privacy of your home. Once convicted you can never vote to change the possibly unjust law.
I don't think that's a felony. Well, at least not in California. I'd be [a little] surprised if it was anywhere.
IANAL... The government makes ex post facto laws, and the supreme court approves them when it gets to see them, regardless of the prohibitions of the constitution.... One is the prohibition on felons from owning firearms, though the law did not exist at the time of the felon's sentencing and the judge did not declare that a prohibition of owning firearms was a specific part of the punishment to be meted out...
That's not the same as making it illegal to have done something and then charging someone for having done it. It would be ex post facto if they passed that law and then sent a felon up for having owned a gun last week. That's just a change in the law.
Smoking is no longer permitted in restaurants in California. It's the same kind of thing. People don't get to do that anymore. Felons don't get to own guns anymore.
Felons can argue that it's a violation of their rights, but I don't think you can reasonably call that ex post facto.
The other is the registering of "sexual offenders" (Pee on a bush lately? Date someone a year too young on the wrong side of an age line?) where again, the registration was not ordered by a judge and no such law existed at the time, but the law applies retroactively to offenders...
No, the law applies to past offenders. They are not charged for failing to register ex post facto.
It's a pedantic argument, but most legal stuff is at some level.
You mean the potential Mac game developers who weren't at WWDC because they were developing for Windows now?
Were you at WWDC? I wasn't. But I do read slashdot, and some other pages, too. So I somehow heard about this even though I'm not in the gaming biz.
Oh, oh, so this was targeted at the potential Mac game developers (who weren't at WWDC) who hadn't heard of Cider, to try and convince someone to really port some games to the Mac.
Notice how I (and Steve) made more noise about how the Mac was going to be a more viable gaming platform because there were going to be more game on it, and thus it will be a bigger marketplace. Notice how nothing was really said about ease of development or tools or anything.
I don't think it mattered if you were there or not, or had heard of Cider or not.
As far as Mac developers are concerned, it's irrelevant.
Howdy, potential Mac game developer! In the past you've heard that we don't care about game developers, nor do we treat them well. For that reason, very few games have been ported/written for the Mac in the past [decade].
We're in the process of changing that. EA is going to port [some of] their games to the Mac. ID software will, too. This will make the mac a more viable gaming platform, so we thing you should port/write your game for the Mac, too. People will no longer dis the Mac as a game machine, and if you don't port your game, you'll miss out on this great market!
It's to act as a development vehicle for iPhone, since all third party iPhone apps will be rich Web 2.0/AJAX applications.
More than that: it's to act as a deployment vehicle for all the custom corporate apps that are going to be built for the iPhone.
(mmmm. cool-aid)
Seriously, if you want to do a corporate web based application, and you need to code it to iPhone/Safari standards, all your windows users will now be able to use it instead of having to also keep an IE port in sync.
I keep waiting for Ford to release a real multi-button mouse; it's just about as likely. In the meantime, I use whatever multi-button mouse I have handy with my Mac.
Everyone sells multi-button mice. They all work fine. Don't expect Apple to jump on the bandwagon. It just isn't Steve's style.
Firewalls could certainly be configured correctly by default on routers, you do not need Network Address Translation to block incoming connections.
I nearly said that. But if you then go and mess up your firewall config, you're [potentially] hosed. NAT would take a fair amount of luck to poke a bad hole in.
All this would take is a better user interface and a solid default configuration.
And smarter users. Good luck with that.
This is one of the worst arguments I have heard in a long time, and would be similar to arguing dial up is better than broadband because your computer is less exposed.
Gotta disagree there. Dialup means your just as exposed - just not as fast. So that arguement is just plain wrong. What about my arguement is wrong? NAT acts as a 100% inbound firewall.
I can't tell you how many problems NAT has caused me over the years, and it's a kludge that should be fixed.
I'm sorry you've had so much trouble with something that works perfectly as it was designed to. You say it should be fixed - I wonder what you mean - it's not broken.
All those that want to keep NAT because it's secure don't understand network security.
I don't think you understand why people want to keep NAT. They want to keep it because it solves a simple problem: how do I connect multiple machine through one IP address. It does a fine job of that. It also does a great job of blocking all incoming packets from those machines -- bonus!
I'm all for IPv6. I'll be ready when it arrives. I asked my ISP if they would support it anytime soon a few years ago. Note that IPv6 doesn't mean the end of NAT. There's no telling how IP addresses will be doled out if we ever go v6, but I bet ISPs will still skimp on handing them out.
For restricting connections, a firewall is the right tool for the job. That is exactly what firewalls are meant for.
For translating one address range to another, a NAT is the right tool for the job. If one of the address ranges is private, the NAT has the side effect of preventing incoming connections, but it's not actually designed for that purpose, and it's not the most appropriate tool for the job. It's sufficient, in most cases, but a firewall is preferable.
A well configured NAT functions as a firewall for inbound connections (in effect). A poorly configured NAT functions as a firewall for inbound connections (in effect).
A well configured firewall functions as a firewall. A poorly configured firewall does not function as a firewall.
For most users in most circumstances, a NAT is the best advice for protecting their systems. You have to really make some effort to have a NAT not work as a 100% perfect firewall *for inbound connections*. I would much rather have someone use NAT than have them use a real firewall if they don't know just what they're doing.
Setting up a NAT has the added bonus of allowing more computers on the network in the future - even if there is just one to start.
I have no problem with firewalls. I just don't like it when folks say that NAT is never a good firewall solution - usually it's just fine. (not that you said that).
If you don't want someone to be able to initiate connections to you, you use a firewall. NAT is the wrong tool for the job.
No - NAT is a tool for the job, and so is a firewall.
If you don't want someone to be able to initiate connections to a subnet, you use NAT. You could also use a firewall for that - but what's the point?
The bottom line is that NAT is fine, and firewalls are fine. We're all fine. We may start running out of IP space, or we may not. Nobody knows, and it's almost certain that we dumb americans won't change until we have to, or there is a really compelling reason for us to change. Note that "because the rest of the world/the smart people/joe tech says it would be a good thing" is not a compelling reason.
While allowing the opposing factions to play the "other faction's" class (paly/shaman) isn't really adding classes, it sure feels like it to our horde guild. In addition, the various talent trees have been more clearly defined, which creates more distinctive build possibilities for each class - which also isn't new classes, but is also very interesting.
Finally, I don't know that no new classes is a "glaring flaw". I certainly didn't expect any.
From what others have written, the issue seems to be more that Apple stores the songs without DRM in its database, encrypting them only when the customer downloads. Apple probably instead refuses to invest the programming hours to come up with a solution that flags whether encryption is required or not, since it also means ensuring that there are no mistakes (songs unencrypted where the distributor demands DRM, or DRM added to a song that was supposed to be free, or retroactive release from DRM).
I think that's the biggest issue: if you allow songs to not use DRM, then someone who wants DRM will screw up and post it incorrectly and not get DRM.
Cost of adding DRM to songs that don't want/need it? Some whining on/. Cost of failing to add DRM to songs that need it (even if it isn't Apple's fault)? Labels unhappy, threaten to leave, etc, etc./. whiners lose.
What is amazing to me is that Jobs/Apple have a near monopoly on digital music downloads/players that would only be hurt by a lack of DRM lock-in and yet Jobs is still advocating for the change. Would any other company or CEO do this?
The only people who buy music from any online vendor are those that want to BUY music form an ONLINE vendor.
People who want free music pirate it. People who want to buy music, but not online, go to a store.
It really is that simple. Jobs isn't an idiot.
Who on slashdot would buy more music from Apple if it were DRM free? I would (and I do buy some there).
Who on slashdot would buy less music form Apple if it were DRM free?
...You think companies like to advertise? They would rather give the money to R&D if the drugs actually sold themselves. Most drugs, however, do not sell themselves. Most of the medication sold in this country has little effect or could easily be replaced by an older drug which is 1/10 the cost and only 3 to 4% less effective.
... It's a tightly held secret that drug companies often pursue avenues that yield JACK SQUAT.
If by "tightly held secret", you mean that it is something they holler to anyone who is in earshot, then I agree. What is kept under tighter wraps is your previous statement - that most drugs released are 10x the cost and just a few percent more effective than older drugs.
The worthless 'celebrex' and 'nexium' medications pay for those dead ends and niche drugs. And their marketing allows them to do that.
Drugs like Celebrex which show barely any improvement over placebo, and medications that take care of problems related to obesity (a relatively easily-cured disease) wouldn't be flying off the counters if it weren't for those commercials.
Oh? What's the cure?
So, to sum up, the pharmaceutical system in the US is the best money could buy. If central planning were the answer, the US wouldn't be lapping the socialized world in pharmacological research. When government starts telling doctors what to prescribe and price fixing on drugs in America, we'll see a quick restructuring inside these companies in which R&D will fall through the floor.
OK, let's say that we have the best drug program we can get in a capitalistic system. Maybe a capitalistic system is not the best way to do drug discovery. How do we cure obesity? In nearly all cases, the answer is consume less [and exercise more]. That doesn't sell a lot of pills.
As the old saying goes: an ounce of prevention is woth a pound of cure. But that isn't in pharma's interest. But it is in the interest of the public good. Capitalism doesn't reallly encourage this kind of thinking, though.
No, it really is a problem with the DRM... I dumped 4 AAC files to my laptop. I chucked my laptop in my bag and headed for the airport.
You and I disagree on what "the system" is. You think it's the hardware, OS, and the player. I think it's the player. The OS and the hardware are just support for the player. You tried to use the supporting subsystems to bypass the player, and it bit you in the ass.
There's no such thing as good DRM. Wait until you're 9000KM from home and you try to play something on a laptop that you forgot to ask the almighty Apple's permission to use.
iTunes could us a fair amount of work, still. It works just fine in the happy mode, but there should be more checks for unhappiness. You should be able to make sure all your media is present, non-duplicated, and playable - all with a single click. Hell, it should happen in the background for you automagically. That's not a problem with the DRM, it's a problem with the player.
For me to buy a track from the same store, I would have to download some software, register, provide a CC number and information, download tracks, burn tracks to CD, rip CD to MP3's, re-enter ID3 tags, (CDDB doesn't work with DL tracks) and then copy them to my flash player, jukebox, car CF player, etc.
Can we skip the Burn to CD's, Rip from CD's, manualy type in ID3 information steps? I find them very much not non-intrusive. It requires quite a bit of an investment in materials (blank CD's), time, labor, and quality (losses from Burn/Rip & possible typo's).
Since I'm a programmer (or can use google), all that would happen automatically for me (without CD media).
Please don't tell me to buy one of the DRM format players to fix the intrusive DRM problems. I like my player. It can record off of the radio and mic and it saves the result as a MP3 which can be easly copied off the player and archived.
Most DRM players do not support moving files off the player.
But Apple's does - as long as your talking about the computer. iPods are too easy to steal - can you imagine? The little iPod is worth a few hundred bucks, but the music on it is worth (potentially) 10's of thousands - if you could trivially (without googling) take the songs off it.
Nor do VCR tapes work in car stereos. If you don't have the hardware/software to play a given media, then it really doesn't matter to me if you like the DRM it sports.
What about the movies?
If I cared, I'd use a VCR (or other recording device). Though there may be software solutions to this "issue" - I've not looked.
You also must know that reencoding a file at similar bitrates over and over will introduce horrible noticeable artifacts right?
blah blah blah not as good as vinyl.
I don't think it's reasonable. I can't even play iTunes crap on any of my modern devices here.
By "crap", I guess you mean "sour grapes".
I've tried to help people with cases where after a iTunes upgrade, people just couldn't play their old iTunes files anymore -- How do you deal with that?
Can't help you with that. I don't know anyone who has ever had a problem. Sorry.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.tuaw.com/2007/07/27/create-iphone-ringt ones-from-itunes-previews/
http://www.ambrosiasw.com/utilities/itoner/
I don't have an iPhone for testing, etc
This is a story about a company that says they have a story.
Let's just wait until the actual story next time? (since it doesn't seem likely there will be a real one, here, anyway)
That's some really interesting information - I am surprised that the federal rules are as harsh as they are. It looks like the moral is to be charge by state enforcement and not federal.
c hap3.htm
R ML_KS_State_Penalties.pdf
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/moscone/
http://www.canorml.org/laws/calmjlaws.html
So in california, smoking a joint in your home (first offense): misdemeanor.
Anything having to do with selling: felony.
That doesn't surprise me.
Looks like it's about the same in Kansas (random sample):
http://www.norml.org/pdf_files/state_penalties/NO
So congress passes a law saying anyone who has ever been convicted of j-walking can't assemble at a protest. It's the same kind of thing. Felons don't get to own guns any more. And j-walkers don't get to protest. Never mind that such a penalty did not exist at the time they committed the offense or that they have a constitutional right to protest!
Right. Just like people who smoke can no longer smoke in a restaraunt. That's what I said.
The parent post ends with a definition of ex post facto. The definition was written just a few years prior to the constitution. Clause three of the definition:
3: Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed.
Which is what I implied. Smokers are being punished for not even committing a crime.
What I'm questioning/suggesting is that (as the parent post also challenged), these are not really punishments. They are changes in policy. Like I said, a fine, pedantic, line.
An even better question is about taking away their right to vote, especially considering that some felonies could easily be considered political crimes, eg smoking a joint in the privacy of your home. Once convicted you can never vote to change the possibly unjust law.
I don't think that's a felony. Well, at least not in California. I'd be [a little] surprised if it was anywhere.
IANAL ... The government makes ex post facto laws, and the supreme court approves them when it gets to see them, regardless of the prohibitions of the constitution. ... One is the prohibition on felons from owning firearms, though the law did not exist at the time of the felon's sentencing and the judge did not declare that a prohibition of owning firearms was a specific part of the punishment to be meted out...
That's not the same as making it illegal to have done something and then charging someone for having done it. It would be ex post facto if they passed that law and then sent a felon up for having owned a gun last week. That's just a change in the law.
Smoking is no longer permitted in restaurants in California. It's the same kind of thing. People don't get to do that anymore. Felons don't get to own guns anymore.
Felons can argue that it's a violation of their rights, but I don't think you can reasonably call that ex post facto.
The other is the registering of "sexual offenders" (Pee on a bush lately? Date someone a year too young on the wrong side of an age line?) where again, the registration was not ordered by a judge and no such law existed at the time, but the law applies retroactively to offenders...
No, the law applies to past offenders. They are not charged for failing to register ex post facto.
It's a pedantic argument, but most legal stuff is at some level.
You mean the potential Mac game developers who weren't at WWDC because they were developing for Windows now?
Were you at WWDC? I wasn't. But I do read slashdot, and some other pages, too. So I somehow heard about this even though I'm not in the gaming biz.
Oh, oh, so this was targeted at the potential Mac game developers (who weren't at WWDC) who hadn't heard of Cider, to try and convince someone to really port some games to the Mac.
Notice how I (and Steve) made more noise about how the Mac was going to be a more viable gaming platform because there were going to be more game on it, and thus it will be a bigger marketplace. Notice how nothing was really said about ease of development or tools or anything.
I don't think it mattered if you were there or not, or had heard of Cider or not.
As far as Mac developers are concerned, it's irrelevant.
Howdy, potential Mac game developer! In the past you've heard that we don't care about game developers, nor do we treat them well. For that reason, very few games have been ported/written for the Mac in the past [decade].
We're in the process of changing that. EA is going to port [some of] their games to the Mac. ID software will, too. This will make the mac a more viable gaming platform, so we thing you should port/write your game for the Mac, too. People will no longer dis the Mac as a game machine, and if you don't port your game, you'll miss out on this great market!
It's to act as a development vehicle for iPhone, since all third party iPhone apps will be rich Web 2.0/AJAX applications.
More than that: it's to act as a deployment vehicle for all the custom corporate apps that are going to be built for the iPhone.
(mmmm. cool-aid)
Seriously, if you want to do a corporate web based application, and you need to code it to iPhone/Safari standards, all your windows users will now be able to use it instead of having to also keep an IE port in sync.
MACFuse
http://code.google.com/p/macfuse/
"beta"
ZFS on Fuse
http://www.wizy.org/wiki/ZFS_on_FUSE
"beta"
sshfs on macfuse is pretty slick, lemme tell ya.
You might want to think about that for a minute. It might be cause for you to worry.
Or it may not.
I keep waiting for Ford to release a real multi-button mouse; it's just about as likely. In the meantime, I use whatever multi-button mouse I have handy with my Mac.
Everyone sells multi-button mice. They all work fine. Don't expect Apple to jump on the bandwagon. It just isn't Steve's style.
I play on an RP server, because talking crap is a bannable offense there.
I installed SpamSentry yesterday because of the spam:
http://ui.worldofwar.net/ui.php?id=3451
Works like a charm.
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en& q=osx+subversion&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
s ubversion-client-1.3.1.dmg
1st hit:
http://metissian.com/projects/macosx/subversion/
Nice installer:
http://metissian.com/downloads/macosx/subversion/
Firewalls could certainly be configured correctly by default on routers, you do not need Network Address Translation to block incoming connections.
I nearly said that. But if you then go and mess up your firewall config, you're [potentially] hosed. NAT would take a fair amount of luck to poke a bad hole in.
All this would take is a better user interface and a solid default configuration.
And smarter users. Good luck with that.
This is one of the worst arguments I have heard in a long time, and would be similar to arguing dial up is better than broadband because your computer is less exposed.
Gotta disagree there. Dialup means your just as exposed - just not as fast. So that arguement is just plain wrong. What about my arguement is wrong? NAT acts as a 100% inbound firewall.
I can't tell you how many problems NAT has caused me over the years, and it's a kludge that should be fixed.
I'm sorry you've had so much trouble with something that works perfectly as it was designed to. You say it should be fixed - I wonder what you mean - it's not broken.
All those that want to keep NAT because it's secure don't understand network security.
I don't think you understand why people want to keep NAT. They want to keep it because it solves a simple problem: how do I connect multiple machine through one IP address. It does a fine job of that. It also does a great job of blocking all incoming packets from those machines -- bonus!
I'm all for IPv6. I'll be ready when it arrives. I asked my ISP if they would support it anytime soon a few years ago. Note that IPv6 doesn't mean the end of NAT. There's no telling how IP addresses will be doled out if we ever go v6, but I bet ISPs will still skimp on handing them out.
For restricting connections, a firewall is the right tool for the job. That is exactly what firewalls are meant for.
For translating one address range to another, a NAT is the right tool for the job. If one of the address ranges is private, the NAT has the side effect of preventing incoming connections, but it's not actually designed for that purpose, and it's not the most appropriate tool for the job. It's sufficient, in most cases, but a firewall is preferable.
A well configured NAT functions as a firewall for inbound connections (in effect).
A poorly configured NAT functions as a firewall for inbound connections (in effect).
A well configured firewall functions as a firewall.
A poorly configured firewall does not function as a firewall.
For most users in most circumstances, a NAT is the best advice for protecting their systems. You have to really make some effort to have a NAT not work as a 100% perfect firewall *for inbound connections*. I would much rather have someone use NAT than have them use a real firewall if they don't know just what they're doing.
Setting up a NAT has the added bonus of allowing more computers on the network in the future - even if there is just one to start.
I have no problem with firewalls. I just don't like it when folks say that NAT is never a good firewall solution - usually it's just fine. (not that you said that).
If you don't want someone to be able to initiate connections to you, you use a firewall. NAT is the wrong tool for the job.
No - NAT is a tool for the job, and so is a firewall.
If you don't want someone to be able to initiate connections to a subnet, you use NAT. You could also use a firewall for that - but what's the point?
The bottom line is that NAT is fine, and firewalls are fine. We're all fine. We may start running out of IP space, or we may not. Nobody knows, and it's almost certain that we dumb americans won't change until we have to, or there is a really compelling reason for us to change. Note that "because the rest of the world/the smart people/joe tech says it would be a good thing" is not a compelling reason.
While allowing the opposing factions to play the "other faction's" class (paly/shaman) isn't really adding classes, it sure feels like it to our horde guild. In addition, the various talent trees have been more clearly defined, which creates more distinctive build possibilities for each class - which also isn't new classes, but is also very interesting.
Finally, I don't know that no new classes is a "glaring flaw". I certainly didn't expect any.
From what others have written, the issue seems to be more that Apple stores the songs without DRM in its database, encrypting them only when the customer downloads. Apple probably instead refuses to invest the programming hours to come up with a solution that flags whether encryption is required or not, since it also means ensuring that there are no mistakes (songs unencrypted where the distributor demands DRM, or DRM added to a song that was supposed to be free, or retroactive release from DRM).
/. /. whiners lose.
I think that's the biggest issue: if you allow songs to not use DRM, then someone who wants DRM will screw up and post it incorrectly and not get DRM.
Cost of adding DRM to songs that don't want/need it? Some whining on
Cost of failing to add DRM to songs that need it (even if it isn't Apple's fault)? Labels unhappy, threaten to leave, etc, etc.
What is amazing to me is that Jobs/Apple have a near monopoly on digital music downloads/players that would only be hurt by a lack of DRM lock-in and yet Jobs is still advocating for the change. Would any other company or CEO do this?
The only people who buy music from any online vendor are those that want to BUY music form an ONLINE vendor.
People who want free music pirate it. People who want to buy music, but not online, go to a store.
It really is that simple. Jobs isn't an idiot.
Who on slashdot would buy more music from Apple if it were DRM free? I would (and I do buy some there).
Who on slashdot would buy less music form Apple if it were DRM free?
...You think companies like to advertise? They would rather give the money to R&D if the drugs actually sold themselves. Most drugs, however, do not sell themselves. Most of the medication sold in this country has little effect or could easily be replaced by an older drug which is 1/10 the cost and only 3 to 4% less effective.
... It's a tightly held secret that drug companies often pursue avenues that yield JACK SQUAT.
If by "tightly held secret", you mean that it is something they holler to anyone who is in earshot, then I agree. What is kept under tighter wraps is your previous statement - that most drugs released are 10x the cost and just a few percent more effective than older drugs.
The worthless 'celebrex' and 'nexium' medications pay for those dead ends and niche drugs. And their marketing allows them to do that.
Drugs like Celebrex which show barely any improvement over placebo, and medications that take care of problems related to obesity (a relatively easily-cured disease) wouldn't be flying off the counters if it weren't for those commercials.
Oh? What's the cure?
So, to sum up, the pharmaceutical system in the US is the best money could buy. If central planning were the answer, the US wouldn't be lapping the socialized world in pharmacological research. When government starts telling doctors what to prescribe and price fixing on drugs in America, we'll see a quick restructuring inside these companies in which R&D will fall through the floor.
OK, let's say that we have the best drug program we can get in a capitalistic system. Maybe a capitalistic system is not the best way to do drug discovery. How do we cure obesity? In nearly all cases, the answer is consume less [and exercise more]. That doesn't sell a lot of pills.
As the old saying goes: an ounce of prevention is woth a pound of cure. But that isn't in pharma's interest. But it is in the interest of the public good. Capitalism doesn't reallly encourage this kind of thinking, though.
No, it really is a problem with the DRM... I dumped 4 AAC files to my laptop. I chucked my laptop in my bag and headed for the airport.
You and I disagree on what "the system" is. You think it's the hardware, OS, and the player. I think it's the player. The OS and the hardware are just support for the player. You tried to use the supporting subsystems to bypass the player, and it bit you in the ass.
There's no such thing as good DRM. Wait until you're 9000KM from home and you try to play something on a laptop that you forgot to ask the almighty Apple's permission to use.
iTunes could us a fair amount of work, still. It works just fine in the happy mode, but there should be more checks for unhappiness. You should be able to make sure all your media is present, non-duplicated, and playable - all with a single click. Hell, it should happen in the background for you automagically. That's not a problem with the DRM, it's a problem with the player.
For me to buy a track from the same store, I would have to download some software, register, provide a CC number and information, download tracks, burn tracks to CD, rip CD to MP3's, re-enter ID3 tags, (CDDB doesn't work with DL tracks) and then copy them to my flash player, jukebox, car CF player, etc.
Can we skip the Burn to CD's, Rip from CD's, manualy type in ID3 information steps? I find them very much not non-intrusive. It requires quite a bit of an investment in materials (blank CD's), time, labor, and quality (losses from Burn/Rip & possible typo's).
Since I'm a programmer (or can use google), all that would happen automatically for me (without CD media).
Please don't tell me to buy one of the DRM format players to fix the intrusive DRM problems. I like my player. It can record off of the radio and mic and it saves the result as a MP3 which can be easly copied off the player and archived.
Most DRM players do not support moving files off the player.
But Apple's does - as long as your talking about the computer. iPods are too easy to steal - can you imagine? The little iPod is worth a few hundred bucks, but the music on it is worth (potentially) 10's of thousands - if you could trivially (without googling) take the songs off it.
Not for me, does not work on Linux
Nor do VCR tapes work in car stereos. If you don't have the hardware/software to play a given media, then it really doesn't matter to me if you like the DRM it sports.
What about the movies?
If I cared, I'd use a VCR (or other recording device). Though there may be software solutions to this "issue" - I've not looked.
You also must know that reencoding a file at similar bitrates over and over will introduce horrible noticeable artifacts right?
blah blah blah not as good as vinyl.
I don't think it's reasonable. I can't even play iTunes crap on any of my modern devices here.
By "crap", I guess you mean "sour grapes".
I've tried to help people with cases where after a iTunes upgrade, people just couldn't play their old iTunes files anymore -- How do you deal with that?
Can't help you with that. I don't know anyone who has ever had a problem. Sorry.