Not DRM that the iPod can read. Apple's DRM can only be used by ITMS, they have refused to licence it to third parties. Weren't they trying to legislate against Rhapsody (or something like that?) for selling DRMed content that the iPod could play?
Yes, that would be Real Networks, which owns Rhapsody. Real apparently reverse-engineered Apple's FairPlay DRM without licensing it from Apple (because Apple wouldn't license it to them), and Apple wasn't happy.
But...ooops! That acknowledges the existence of other gods. Fundamentalist apologists claim it was Satan who did this, but that is a completely unjustified interpretation of it. Or that Pharoah's priest used sleight-of-hand (but of course, honest Moses didn't.)
My impression was that the priests were using sleight-of-hand to try to show the Pharaoh that they're just as powerful as Moses, and Moses countered by doing things that clearly couldn't be done with sleight-of-hand. It's been awhile since I read it, though.
She spends a lot of time trying to kill a child for the high crime of happening to be inside the house that fell on her sister.
We the audience know Dorothy was not responsible for the house landing there, but does the Witch know that? Why should she believe that Dorothy just happened to be there? It was Dorothy's house, after all! And houses don't just fly through the air all on their own - at least, they don't in Oz.
I also recommend Wicked; it's not as good as I thought it could have been, but it does give you a different perspective.
Thanks for pointing out my omission; I wasn't thinking of the publishing rights. As another poster said, though, surely in many cases it's the same entity?
Says the record companies. When is a distribution company going to put the record companies in their place and do what what everybody wants?
Um, yeah, well see, the record companies own the copyrights to the music people want to listen to, so distribution companies can't do anything.
Unless, of course, a distribution company becomes a powerful monopoly, and the balance of power shifts because the record labels wouldn't be able to sell their music if that company refused to sell it. That's exactly what they're afraid of happening with Apple, which is why they're so reluctant to cooperate - they don't WANT Apple to become too successful, because that would mean Apple would become more powerful than they are.
If it were anybody else, this wouldn't be hysterically funny, but think about it:
Record companies are terrified of Apple becoming a monopoly.
Please remember that not all content is illegal to copy and distribute. There is plenty of content licensed for free distribution, and if you create your own content, you can always license it however you want. This is true of music too, not just software.
Though I haven't tried it, I'm wondering if you can buy a song from the US iTunes web site with an Australian credit card (say a visa one). Does it not work even if you pretend the browser is in the US?
I'm pretty sure it's based entirely on the billing address for your credit card. I'm not sure about the free songs they have every week though - here in the US, you can download them without a credit card (you have to sign up with a username and password, but a credit card is not required until you actually spend money on something). Look for the "Free Download - Single of the Week" box on the front page (it changes every Tuesday).
You can definitely play the 30-second previews from any country.
I'm sure there are numerous world branches of just about every major record label out there. What's stopping Apple from running a global iTunes Music Store?
The record companies. The songs are licensed for sale in one country only. Apple would love to be able to offer their entire catalog to anybody anywhere, but the record companies won't allow that. They have to negotiate completely separate licensing agreements for each country.
Don't forget the moving of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday at the Council of Laodicea in the 4th century, which was done to accommodate the local pagan religions which worshipped on Sunday.
Speaking of pagan religions... Easter is the first Sunday after the first full moon after the Spring Equinox (this is why the date changes every year). Sound a little suspicious?
But I'm inclined to think that there isn't just one way to run pay-as-you-go. For example, you could transfer the whole balance to the phone in some encrypted manner, or you could have the phone check every minute whether the balance expired.
That would be stupid, because you're trusting the phone to tell you how much time the customer has paid for, and the customer owns the phone, so as soon as DVD Jon (or whoever) cracks the encryption, your entire business model goes out the window.
You could keep its own true account, or you can model it as a phone with infinite airtime and a forced calling card.
Sorry, I'm not following you here - could you explain what you mean?
I haven't read the patent, but consider this scenario:
Joe has a pre-paid phone, which has a phone number assigned to it (presumably at the time of purchase/initial activation). Joe pays for 500 minutes of talk time, and uses it all up. Unlike most of the rest of the world, here in the US the owner of the phone pays to receive calls as well as make outbound calls. Since Joe has used all his time, he should no longer be able to make or receive calls.
Jane calls Joe's pre-paid phone. The call enters the wireless carrier's network. They do a database query based on the phone number to look up Joe's account and find out if he has any minutes left; if not, the call is redirected to a recorded message saying that the phone is not in service. If so, the call is sent to the phone, and the account is debited for however many minutes are used (and the call is forcibly disconnected if the available minutes are exceeded - there are a couple of ways this could be implemented).
The problem is, it sounds like this patent might cover looking up the account information in the database using the phone number as a key, in order to determine whether or not to accept the call. If that's the case, I really can't think of another way to do it - and the patent should clearly be invalid, because it's really obvious.
Of course, there may be more to it than that - I can't seem to find a link to the actual patent in question.
Apple has worked on improving boot times in Mac OS X 10.4 by redesigning the boot sequence so things can load in parallel instead of one after the other. Perhaps some Linux distro will do the same, hopefully by using Apple's code.
AFAIK this was a requirement by the record labels before they would permit digital distribution of the music files. So is the anti-competitive behaviour Apple's or the RIAA cartel's?
This is America; you can sue anyone for anything. Just because it wasn't Apple's fault doesn't mean they won't be held responsible for it someday.
Nice thought. In a sales point of view this makes total sense... Looking at it that way, I'm suprised he didn't donate more. Well with the billions that he has
Would donating more money have bought more advertising? Really?
Oh yeah, one more thing - what color is \x0313287foo? (If my notation isn't clear, I mean a single \x03 character, followed by the eight characters 13287foo.) How should a client render that? Where does the color code stop, and the text string begin?
uses a protocol that is not only open, but also an Internet RFC, and probably has more implementations than any other protocol; both clients and servers.
Obviously you've never actually read any of the IRC RFCs, have you? They're terrible. The RFCs were clearly written as afterthoughts to try to document the protocol that was already in use, but since each client and each server implements things slightly differently, no RFC (or combination of them) actually completely describes anything accurately.
What's the maximum length of a nickname? RFCs 1459 and 2812 both say nine characters, but most servers allow some other length.
RFC 2812 says the characters {}|~ are equivalent to []\^ for case-insensitive matching, e.g. when comparing nicks. RFC 1459 erroneously omitted the ~ and ^ equivalency. Many servers (e.g. what's used on FreeNode) don't adhere to this specification at all, treating them as different characters (so foo[] and foo{} can be two different users on the same network, which the RFCs forbid).
Which channel modes take arguments, and which don't? Show me where an RFC explains how to correctly parse/MODE #channel +om-vcb nick1 nick2 nick3!name@example.org. What was just done to nick2, and how can you tell?
A solution to all these problems (ISUPPORT) was submitted as a proposed RFC, but never approved by the IETF. It's worth mentioning that ISUPPORT conflicts with the existing RFCs, but that's OK because nobody ever implemented the feature it conflicts with. If the server doesn't support ISUPPORT, you pretty much just have to guess.
Those are just examples I can think of off the top of my head. Yes, by your definition, I'm a proper hacker.
BZZT! Wrong! If you hate ads as much as you do, use an alternative: Not AIM, not MSN, not Yahoo, not ICQ. Jabber.
Um, Jabber's not much of an alternative, since it won't let me talk to.. well, practically anyone. I've signed up for Google Talk, and I've got two people on my buddy list, but I have no reason to use Jabber to talk to them, instead of just using AIM like everybody else.
What are these ads you speak of? Yahoo shows me no ads, iChat shows me no ads (or I can use a hacked AIM client with the ads hidden), and.. well, I can just move the MSN buddy list down so the ads are off the screen.
Yahoo's webcam support isn't stable on Mac OS X either (or perhaps it's the macam drivers that aren't stable, I'm not entirely sure), but it's the only IM client I've found that actually works cross-platform for video. Of course they haven't released a new version in over two years, and that was only a minor update....
Slashdot Mirror
Not DRM that the iPod can read. Apple's DRM can only be used by ITMS, they have refused to licence it to third parties. Weren't they trying to legislate against Rhapsody (or something like that?) for selling DRMed content that the iPod could play?
Yes, that would be Real Networks, which owns Rhapsody. Real apparently reverse-engineered Apple's FairPlay DRM without licensing it from Apple (because Apple wouldn't license it to them), and Apple wasn't happy.
"Microsoft set up a clean computer and then infected it."
So they switched it on and connected it to the net?
Yes, exactly. The article isn't especially well written.
So the new cell phones don't make phone calls well?
That's correct, many of them don't.
But...ooops! That acknowledges the existence of other gods. Fundamentalist apologists claim it was Satan who did this, but that is a completely unjustified interpretation of it. Or that Pharoah's priest used sleight-of-hand (but of course, honest Moses didn't.)
My impression was that the priests were using sleight-of-hand to try to show the Pharaoh that they're just as powerful as Moses, and Moses countered by doing things that clearly couldn't be done with sleight-of-hand. It's been awhile since I read it, though.
She spends a lot of time trying to kill a child for the high crime of happening to be inside the house that fell on her sister.
We the audience know Dorothy was not responsible for the house landing there, but does the Witch know that? Why should she believe that Dorothy just happened to be there? It was Dorothy's house, after all! And houses don't just fly through the air all on their own - at least, they don't in Oz.
I also recommend Wicked; it's not as good as I thought it could have been, but it does give you a different perspective.
It doesn't work on Linux either.
Subtlety? You must be new here...
Yeah.. damn n00bs! Boy, if this CmdrTaco guy had been around in my day, he'd have a lot more respect for this site!
As Violated, nobody ever will recognize me for my day job.
Well, now that you've posted it on Slashdot, maybe they will!
Thanks for pointing out my omission; I wasn't thinking of the publishing rights. As another poster said, though, surely in many cases it's the same entity?
Says the record companies. When is a distribution company going to put the record companies in their place and do what what everybody wants?
Um, yeah, well see, the record companies own the copyrights to the music people want to listen to, so distribution companies can't do anything.
Unless, of course, a distribution company becomes a powerful monopoly, and the balance of power shifts because the record labels wouldn't be able to sell their music if that company refused to sell it. That's exactly what they're afraid of happening with Apple, which is why they're so reluctant to cooperate - they don't WANT Apple to become too successful, because that would mean Apple would become more powerful than they are.
If it were anybody else, this wouldn't be hysterically funny, but think about it:
Record companies are terrified of Apple becoming a monopoly.
That just cracks me up.
how about Itunes service that includes NZ too?
Sure, how about record companies license their music for sale on iTunes in NZ? Not happening yet? Well, too bad.
Please remember that not all content is illegal to copy and distribute. There is plenty of content licensed for free distribution, and if you create your own content, you can always license it however you want. This is true of music too, not just software.
Though I haven't tried it, I'm wondering if you can buy a song from the US iTunes web site with an Australian credit card (say a visa one). Does it not work even if you pretend the browser is in the US?
I'm pretty sure it's based entirely on the billing address for your credit card. I'm not sure about the free songs they have every week though - here in the US, you can download them without a credit card (you have to sign up with a username and password, but a credit card is not required until you actually spend money on something). Look for the "Free Download - Single of the Week" box on the front page (it changes every Tuesday).
You can definitely play the 30-second previews from any country.
I'm sure there are numerous world branches of just about every major record label out there. What's stopping Apple from running a global iTunes Music Store?
The record companies. The songs are licensed for sale in one country only. Apple would love to be able to offer their entire catalog to anybody anywhere, but the record companies won't allow that. They have to negotiate completely separate licensing agreements for each country.
Don't forget the moving of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday at the Council of Laodicea in the 4th century, which was done to accommodate the local pagan religions which worshipped on Sunday.
Speaking of pagan religions... Easter is the first Sunday after the first full moon after the Spring Equinox (this is why the date changes every year). Sound a little suspicious?
That would be stupid, because you're trusting the phone to tell you how much time the customer has paid for, and the customer owns the phone, so as soon as DVD Jon (or whoever) cracks the encryption, your entire business model goes out the window.
You could keep its own true account, or you can model it as a phone with infinite airtime and a forced calling card.
Sorry, I'm not following you here - could you explain what you mean?
I haven't read the patent, but consider this scenario:
The problem is, it sounds like this patent might cover looking up the account information in the database using the phone number as a key, in order to determine whether or not to accept the call. If that's the case, I really can't think of another way to do it - and the patent should clearly be invalid, because it's really obvious.
Of course, there may be more to it than that - I can't seem to find a link to the actual patent in question.
Covad is still alive and kicking. SpeakEasy is a nationwide DSL ISP that (AFAIK) offers service through Covad exclusively.
Apple has worked on improving boot times in Mac OS X 10.4 by redesigning the boot sequence so things can load in parallel instead of one after the other. Perhaps some Linux distro will do the same, hopefully by using Apple's code.
AFAIK this was a requirement by the record labels before they would permit digital distribution of the music files. So is the anti-competitive behaviour Apple's or the RIAA cartel's?
This is America; you can sue anyone for anything. Just because it wasn't Apple's fault doesn't mean they won't be held responsible for it someday.
Nice thought. In a sales point of view this makes total sense... Looking at it that way, I'm suprised he didn't donate more. Well with the billions that he has
Would donating more money have bought more advertising? Really?
I wonder if they are going to preserve key points and dialogues in computing history like "No one needs 640 kilobytes of ram..."
FYI, the quote you're thinking of is an urban legend; Gates didn't actually say it. (If anyone here believes otherwise, please cite your sources.)
Oh yeah, one more thing - what color is \x0313287foo ? (If my notation isn't clear, I mean a single \x03 character, followed by the eight characters 13287foo.) How should a client render that? Where does the color code stop, and the text string begin?
uses a protocol that is not only open, but also an Internet RFC, and probably has more implementations than any other protocol; both clients and servers.
/MODE #channel +om-vcb nick1 nick2 nick3!name@example.org. What was just done to nick2, and how can you tell?
Obviously you've never actually read any of the IRC RFCs, have you? They're terrible. The RFCs were clearly written as afterthoughts to try to document the protocol that was already in use, but since each client and each server implements things slightly differently, no RFC (or combination of them) actually completely describes anything accurately.
What's the maximum length of a nickname? RFCs 1459 and 2812 both say nine characters, but most servers allow some other length.
RFC 2812 says the characters {}|~ are equivalent to []\^ for case-insensitive matching, e.g. when comparing nicks. RFC 1459 erroneously omitted the ~ and ^ equivalency. Many servers (e.g. what's used on FreeNode) don't adhere to this specification at all, treating them as different characters (so foo[] and foo{} can be two different users on the same network, which the RFCs forbid).
Which channel modes take arguments, and which don't? Show me where an RFC explains how to correctly parse
A solution to all these problems (ISUPPORT) was submitted as a proposed RFC, but never approved by the IETF. It's worth mentioning that ISUPPORT conflicts with the existing RFCs, but that's OK because nobody ever implemented the feature it conflicts with. If the server doesn't support ISUPPORT, you pretty much just have to guess.
Those are just examples I can think of off the top of my head. Yes, by your definition, I'm a proper hacker.
BZZT! Wrong! If you hate ads as much as you do, use an alternative: Not AIM, not MSN, not Yahoo, not ICQ. Jabber.
Um, Jabber's not much of an alternative, since it won't let me talk to.. well, practically anyone. I've signed up for Google Talk, and I've got two people on my buddy list, but I have no reason to use Jabber to talk to them, instead of just using AIM like everybody else.
What are these ads you speak of? Yahoo shows me no ads, iChat shows me no ads (or I can use a hacked AIM client with the ads hidden), and.. well, I can just move the MSN buddy list down so the ads are off the screen.
Yahoo's webcam support isn't stable on Mac OS X either (or perhaps it's the macam drivers that aren't stable, I'm not entirely sure), but it's the only IM client I've found that actually works cross-platform for video. Of course they haven't released a new version in over two years, and that was only a minor update....