This is what they should have been doing from the beginning, instead of trying to weasel their way around the law and demanding proprietary customer information from ISPs so they can bully them with settlement offers. This gets the process into the courts where it belongs.
Sure the RIAA is still evil, but they're improving their tactics, and should be commended for that. Going after P2P sharing services is wrong, demanding proprietary information from ISPs is wrong, filing John Doe copyright infringement suits is NOT WRONG - it's EXACTLY what you should do if you find people sharing binary apps derived from your GPL'd project and you don't have a way to contact them yourself.
your mail server is NOT BlackListed! If you look at the listing it is at level 2 the [2] means level 2. Read the SPEWS FAQ. No one blocks on level 2 listings.
Level 2 listings are netblocks which are watched carefully for evidence of abuse, usually because the adjoining netblocks are in use by spammers, and because the provider (NAC in this case) is ignoring complaints about the abuse, or is doing nothing to remove the abusers.
But, from the SPEWS FAQ, The Level 2 list... can still be used by small ISPs or individuals who want a stricter level of blocking/filtering. "No one blocks on level 2 listings" is obviously wrong.
I just looked at Arcanum by Acoustic Alchemy (it was near the top alphabetically and I've liked what I've heard of the group before); each track is $0.90 and the album is $8.60. iTMS is $0.99/track and $9.99/album, so that's $1.39 cheaper, but as another poster complained, it's WMA.
I noticed when I went to Italy in '96 that they did NOT do the x.99 pricing thing, everything was nice round numbers. When the smallest coin is 50 at an exchange rate of around 1500 to $1, it just really wouldn't make sense.
But yeah, they've switched to euros now, so have probably started the 0.99 thing like everybody else.
Everybody seems to be whining about what a bloaded piece of crap the current RealPlayer is, how it eats system resources, changes your settings, can't be gotten rid of, and installs a pile of spyware. I don't know how much of that is true of the Windows version, but the Mac version is pretty benign. It doesn't change system settings I don't want it to, it doesn't run automatically in the background, uninstallation is as simple as dragging the single icon from the Applications folder to the Trash, and it uses less RAM than AIM, Safari, Mail, iTunes or even Terminal.
The most annoying thing is that it requires you to sign up for an account on real.com with an e-mail address and password. What's the point of this? It's a hassle, the first time you set it up.
Another minor annoyance is that the application quits when you close the window, and you can't have more than one window open simultaneously, but that's forgivable.
Here is a screen shot from BBEdit (text editor of the gods) on Mac OS X 10.3, for comparison. The list of mounted volumes (top left) wouldn't really apply on Linux I suppose. Columns to navigate are kinda nice (it's a NeXT thing), but we got along without them just fine in Mac OS 9.
I suppose you kinda have to find someone to buy the old one, but you're right, 1-year-old Apple notebooks don't drop very much.
If you don't like eBay, try PowerMax. Call them and give them specs; they'll quote you a price.
For those in the Portland area, they're in a business park in Lake Oswego. It's the same company as the Portland Mac Store (formerly The Computer Store) at Lloyd Center. For the rest of you, you can ship it via FedEx/UPS/ABX/whatever.
If too much spam starts coming from a particular IP block, AOL sends a nastygram to the ISP that owns the IP block, threatening to blacklist the IP block, or the entire ISP. If that happens, no customers of that ISP can send mail to @aol.com at all, so the ISP pretty much has to do their own policing, or risk causing major problems for all their other customers.
As much as I'd love for AOL to start kicking down spammers' doors, they can't exactly do that legally themselves.
Anybody attorneys want to comment on the feasibility of filing lawsuits on that kind of scale?
Also, Windows Media Player and Realplayer establish browser connections to their media homepages anyway; does it count as a browser connection? In most cases, it is not even initiated by the user (the user might be wanting to play MP3's).
QuickTime Player does that too.
Several apps establish Internet connections to look for new versions. On my Mac, in addition to Apple's Software Update, there's BBEdit, GraphicConverter, AIM, Acquisition, and probably others.
Also, iTunes does CDDB lookups whenever I insert an audio CD.
Note that there's nothing particularly special about hitting 100 years after epoch, being that 100 years is not a technically interesting length of time and the epoch being 1/1/1904 isn't non-technically interesting.
A technically interesting length of time (such as 2^32 seconds) from epoch would be noteworthy, but that's a few decades off.
A non-technically interesting length of time (such as 20 years) from the date the Macintosh was first introduced would also be noteworthy, and that's later this month I believe.
I have difficulty imagining the usefulness of this, but I'm really glad they're working together to develop a common standard instead of each company doing their own thing. I suspect someone will find something really cool to do with this technology that nobody's thought of yet, now that the framework exists.
Um, sounds like you're the one new to the Apple world. Of course installing a CPU upgrade will void your warranty, but if it's still under warranty, you shouldn't be upgrading it yet anyway.
There are , I am sure, a few that use their Macs for just this, but I would have thought the majority might like to flex the power of iLife
Um, no, the majority of Mac users don't edit and burn their own movies on DVD. It's cool that the option is there, but come on - average people do average things with their Macs.
I do some Perl hacking with BBEdit (text editor of the gods), and I do have a USB MIDI adapter so I can connect a keyboard, but I own neither a DVD burner nor FireWire camera and have no plans of buying either in the near future. I don't use Photoshop; GraphicConverter is fine for what I do.
There are people illegally trading music files. The RIAA wanted to get their names in order to prosecute them individually (which is what Slashdotters used to say they should do back when they were suing Napster). What was wrong with the RIAA going after people infringing on their copyrights again? What do I lose from them doing that? Nobody has ever offered an actual, cohesive argument.
Try this one:
The RIAA can file a "John Doe" lawsuit, which is a lawsuit against someone whose identity they don't know. The court can then order the ISP to disclose the identity of their customer, and that person can then be served with the lawsuit. Instead, the RIAA want to be able to go to the ISP themselves, without a court order, claim that copyright infringement has occurred, and obtain this confidential information. Once the person's identity is known, they can do whatever they want with it - file a lawsuit, blackmail, bribe, sell the person's contact info to sleazy telemarketers or spammers etc., all without the involvement of the legal system.
Add to that the fact that there have been well-publicized cases of mistaken identity. A judge might require better evidence before issuing a subpoena.
What if I decide I want to obtain someone's personal information for my own nefarious purposes, and I send their ISP a fake log showing a few songs I claim they've downloaded, saying I represent the copyright holder, and demand that they turn over the info? Should the ISP be legally obligated to take my word for it? I could be anybody.
What if I really DO represent the copyright holder, but we're not affiliated with the RIAA? A friend of mine recently recorded an album. In the unlikely event that I were to catch someone pirating his music, should I be able to obtain the infringer's personal info from their ISP without going through the court system? Compare to previous paragraph.
(Watch this space for info on that album I mentioned; someday there may be an actual web site there.)
I've talked to people before who thought Netscape was their ISP. Not quite as common as thinking Yahoo is their web browser, but not terribly unusual. Now imagine how annoying it will be for tech support reps when they talk to a customer who's using Internet Explorer with Netscape's ISP and insists their browser is Netscape...
Slashdot Mirror
This is what they should have been doing from the beginning, instead of trying to weasel their way around the law and demanding proprietary customer information from ISPs so they can bully them with settlement offers. This gets the process into the courts where it belongs.
Sure the RIAA is still evil, but they're improving their tactics, and should be commended for that. Going after P2P sharing services is wrong, demanding proprietary information from ISPs is wrong, filing John Doe copyright infringement suits is NOT WRONG - it's EXACTLY what you should do if you find people sharing binary apps derived from your GPL'd project and you don't have a way to contact them yourself.
But, from the SPEWS FAQ, The Level 2 list
I just looked at Arcanum by Acoustic Alchemy (it was near the top alphabetically and I've liked what I've heard of the group before); each track is $0.90 and the album is $8.60. iTMS is $0.99/track and $9.99/album, so that's $1.39 cheaper, but as another poster complained, it's WMA.
Be the first to rate this album!
So um, the price goes up with demand?
I noticed when I went to Italy in '96 that they did NOT do the x.99 pricing thing, everything was nice round numbers. When the smallest coin is 50 at an exchange rate of around 1500 to $1, it just really wouldn't make sense.
But yeah, they've switched to euros now, so have probably started the 0.99 thing like everybody else.
You see all of these other examples work becouse the shipping costs out way any possible advantage of pricing.
The word you're looking for is outweigh: to exceed in weight, value, or importance.
Regretfully --- Bob G. Oatse .cx?
Everybody seems to be whining about what a bloaded piece of crap the current RealPlayer is, how it eats system resources, changes your settings, can't be gotten rid of, and installs a pile of spyware. I don't know how much of that is true of the Windows version, but the Mac version is pretty benign. It doesn't change system settings I don't want it to, it doesn't run automatically in the background, uninstallation is as simple as dragging the single icon from the Applications folder to the Trash, and it uses less RAM than AIM, Safari, Mail, iTunes or even Terminal.
The most annoying thing is that it requires you to sign up for an account on real.com with an e-mail address and password. What's the point of this? It's a hassle, the first time you set it up.
Another minor annoyance is that the application quits when you close the window, and you can't have more than one window open simultaneously, but that's forgivable.
will they release RealPorn? if they're so interested in giving us what we want, give us the RealPorn!
Try this instead?
Interesting! Anyone know if this is still the case at Qwest?
Somebody is going to complain about the Mac only including a one-button mouse, I just know it. :-P
Here is a screen shot from BBEdit (text editor of the gods) on Mac OS X 10.3, for comparison. The list of mounted volumes (top left) wouldn't really apply on Linux I suppose. Columns to navigate are kinda nice (it's a NeXT thing), but we got along without them just fine in Mac OS 9.
I suppose you kinda have to find someone to buy the old one, but you're right, 1-year-old Apple notebooks don't drop very much.
If you don't like eBay, try PowerMax. Call them and give them specs; they'll quote you a price.
For those in the Portland area, they're in a business park in Lake Oswego. It's the same company as the Portland Mac Store (formerly The Computer Store) at Lloyd Center. For the rest of you, you can ship it via FedEx/UPS/ABX/whatever.
Watch this at 9am PST (noon EST, 5pm UTC)
If too much spam starts coming from a particular IP block, AOL sends a nastygram to the ISP that owns the IP block, threatening to blacklist the IP block, or the entire ISP. If that happens, no customers of that ISP can send mail to @aol.com at all, so the ISP pretty much has to do their own policing, or risk causing major problems for all their other customers.
As much as I'd love for AOL to start kicking down spammers' doors, they can't exactly do that legally themselves.
Anybody attorneys want to comment on the feasibility of filing lawsuits on that kind of scale?
Also, Windows Media Player and Realplayer establish browser connections to their media homepages anyway; does it count as a browser connection? In most cases, it is not even initiated by the user (the user might be wanting to play MP3's).
QuickTime Player does that too.
Several apps establish Internet connections to look for new versions. On my Mac, in addition to Apple's Software Update, there's BBEdit, GraphicConverter, AIM, Acquisition, and probably others.
Also, iTunes does CDDB lookups whenever I insert an audio CD.
Note that there's nothing particularly special about hitting 100 years after epoch, being that 100 years is not a technically interesting length of time and the epoch being 1/1/1904 isn't non-technically interesting.
A technically interesting length of time (such as 2^32 seconds) from epoch would be noteworthy, but that's a few decades off.
A non-technically interesting length of time (such as 20 years) from the date the Macintosh was first introduced would also be noteworthy, and that's later this month I believe.
I'm a bit tired; did anyone grok that?
I have difficulty imagining the usefulness of this, but I'm really glad they're working together to develop a common standard instead of each company doing their own thing. I suspect someone will find something really cool to do with this technology that nobody's thought of yet, now that the framework exists.
You must be new to the Apple world. No upgrades!
Um, sounds like you're the one new to the Apple world. Of course installing a CPU upgrade will void your warranty, but if it's still under warranty, you shouldn't be upgrading it yet anyway.
There are , I am sure, a few that use their Macs for just this, but I would have thought the majority might like to flex the power of iLife
Um, no, the majority of Mac users don't edit and burn their own movies on DVD. It's cool that the option is there, but come on - average people do average things with their Macs.
I do some Perl hacking with BBEdit (text editor of the gods), and I do have a USB MIDI adapter so I can connect a keyboard, but I own neither a DVD burner nor FireWire camera and have no plans of buying either in the near future. I don't use Photoshop; GraphicConverter is fine for what I do.
...no, nobody else does.
Wouldn't that be Y2Ki?
Precisely. Get with the new abbreviations, people!
There are people illegally trading music files. The RIAA wanted to get their names in order to prosecute them individually (which is what Slashdotters used to say they should do back when they were suing Napster). What was wrong with the RIAA going after people infringing on their copyrights again? What do I lose from them doing that? Nobody has ever offered an actual, cohesive argument.
Try this one:
The RIAA can file a "John Doe" lawsuit, which is a lawsuit against someone whose identity they don't know. The court can then order the ISP to disclose the identity of their customer, and that person can then be served with the lawsuit. Instead, the RIAA want to be able to go to the ISP themselves, without a court order, claim that copyright infringement has occurred, and obtain this confidential information. Once the person's identity is known, they can do whatever they want with it - file a lawsuit, blackmail, bribe, sell the person's contact info to sleazy telemarketers or spammers etc., all without the involvement of the legal system.
Add to that the fact that there have been well-publicized cases of mistaken identity. A judge might require better evidence before issuing a subpoena.
What if I decide I want to obtain someone's personal information for my own nefarious purposes, and I send their ISP a fake log showing a few songs I claim they've downloaded, saying I represent the copyright holder, and demand that they turn over the info? Should the ISP be legally obligated to take my word for it? I could be anybody.
What if I really DO represent the copyright holder, but we're not affiliated with the RIAA? A friend of mine recently recorded an album. In the unlikely event that I were to catch someone pirating his music, should I be able to obtain the infringer's personal info from their ISP without going through the court system? Compare to previous paragraph.
(Watch this space for info on that album I mentioned; someday there may be an actual web site there.)
You have a point.
I've talked to people before who thought Netscape was their ISP. Not quite as common as thinking Yahoo is their web browser, but not terribly unusual. Now imagine how annoying it will be for tech support reps when they talk to a customer who's using Internet Explorer with Netscape's ISP and insists their browser is Netscape...
Shit, I wonder what would happen if you threw Emacs into an mp3 player? Hehe
Would that be sort of the opposite of this?