Don't you have to spend a lot of time by running a sound recorder app, starting it, playing the song, and then ending it after the Nap WMV stops playing?
Did you get any sleep? Or name any of the songs? Winamp used to allow such automated conversion, but they crippled it quickly.
"Posting without reading for comprehension should be illegal, but sadly it isn't."
This is some kind of record. The very first word of the article (its title) is "buying". Somehow, he missed it, and went off on a rant about getting music without buying it. I wonder if Bwaling started at the END of the article before he started bawling.
"Could someone translate what DVDjon has to do with Asterix?!?"
Did you read the "Asterix in Civil Court" graphic novel? It's the one where the bard Cacaphonix is replaced with a guy named "DRMfix" who carries around a boombox playing "stolen" Kazaa and iTMS music files.
"dont you think there are more important things to hack than stealing music from apple?"
It is hard to be more incorrect:
The term "stealing" cannot apply to iTunes usage. The software allows copying of files from a server, not theft.
Even if you use the odd claim that copying without paying is theft, you are incorrect in this claim, as well. The DRM-remover described here requires the users to pay, as usual, for the download files.
There are amazing things that can be learned from reading the article. Or even reading the title, where the word "buying" can be found.
"Simply put to those who use this sort of software, why do you purchase from iTMS? "
I don't purchase from iTMS. However, I would strongly consider it if it would let me listen the music I bought on my own equipment without file format conversion hassles.
Bwaling's Law: Any time there is an article about DRM or downloading music, as soon as someone mentions the word "free", someone will whine about everyone stealing music for free. Even if the word "free" is in an unrelated context (as in: "The songs are free from DRM restrictions" or "I downloaded the Free Willy soundtrack".
"I'm afraid that the long history of people breaking DRM controls (especially by this person) can only lead to one logical conclusion"
Most individuals happen to be walking around with built-in DRM removers. They have TWO of them, in fact (double the fine paid!): one on each side of the skull.
"This is illegal. It isn't cool or important. RIAA music isn't free, and it isn't anyone's right or obligation to make it free"
Did you read the article? Or even its title? This is about BUYING drm files from iTMS, not downloading them for free. It is quite cool, as the DRM makes it a big hassle for purchasers to listen to the music on their own equipment.
RIAA music isn't free
How is this relevant? It is not free if you are buying it by the cassette, the CD, or by iTMS with AND without this DRM-remover.
"Hmm.. I never had anything against the Ewoks. They weren't abrasive like the Gungans (with emphasis on Jar-Jar and that irritating King.. or whatever the hell he's supposed to be)"
If it is non-abrasive it is OK? I suppose you are first in line at Care Bears and "Hello Kitty" movies!
" I'm sorry the default behavior isn't what you'd prefer, but that behavior is intended and I wouldn't expect it to change"
Why not add -inanchor as a checkbox next to the search window? It would be nicer than having to type it each time!
I guess I am not in the majority, as I search only for pages that have what I am looking for in the search criteria. It sure is frustrating, however, as I've seen search engines develop for many years now, and this "toss in bad results with good ones" trend is unfortunate. Even Altavista has copied it.
""three quarters of them would have paid for the games if they hadn't been available for free.""
I think they misread the survey results. It is far more likely that the respondants all said: "They would have paid three-quarters (75 cents) if the games hadn't been available for free.".
"It is trivial for the target sites to add the phrase it is google-bombing in it's body text."
Typically, in google bombing, the target sites are not participating. The most famous example is a search on "miserable failure" coming up with George W Bush's White House site. It might be trivial to do so, but I don't think that George W Bush is going to add "miserable failure" to his OWN web site.
"The shakespeare biography site is 'www.tobeornottobe.com', hardly an irrelevant site"
It is very irrelevant, as it does not contain the phrase being searched for. A smashed-together word is not the same as a phrase. Or do you think that "now here" searches should produce all results with "nowhere"? The same goes for "2Bee", also not relevant as it is not spelled right. If I wanted bad misspelled results, I would have asked for them. Accuracy and relevance of search results should not be too much to ask for. Other search engines do not have this problem, and Google would be "perfect" if it got rid of the sloppiness in the results.
"So if you type the search ["to be or not to be" -inanchor:"to be or not to be"] then you get the search that you want, AtariAmarok."
Yes. I mentioned the inanchor. It sure is kludgey to have to do this to ensure accurate and relevant results.
"Being able to search for something like [stanford univ] and being able to return Stanford University (even though the word "univ" might not occur on the stanford.edu page) is usually a nice win for search quality"
That is a big loss for search quality, if you look specifically for one word and get another. Lycos, while it produces fewer results, has no problem with irrelevant results polluting the listings. "To be or not to be" is only the most glaring example. I get bogus results that I never asked for in many searches.
"I mean that the Wikipedia presents issues which are normally clouded in contentious polemic in an academically impartial and non-contentious way. I think this is what you mean also"
I don't mean that, as I think the opposite is true. I think that you are (would have been?) much more likely to find an impartial entry about Bush or Kerry in the old-style traditional encyclopedias. On Wikipedia, all you will see is a freeze-frame in a war of ideologues who battled it out using the edit tab.
"Not sure if we're using the same Google here... "to be or not be" has to have the phrase, that's the point of the quotes... did you bother looking at the results?"
I used www.google.com. Perhaps you forgot the scroll bar. Look at entries 7 and 8. They do not have the phrase.
"Where is the -1 Patently False moderation tag when you need it?"
Saving it for you. The "ignore or" does not apply if you put quotes around your search.
You goofed up real big when you searched WITH quotes to get the 773,000 results with NO warning about ignoring or. Then you did the entirely separate search without quotes, which gave the warning. You treated them as the same search, when they are not.
"Results 1 - 10 of about 773,000 for "to be or not to be". . (0.14 seconds)"
At which point you listed only FOUR results. You left out the two in the top 10 that did not contain the phrase. There's a new invention in browsers: the scroll bar.
" I firmly believed that the only way for Lucas to win back the audience was by starting out the second with a black screen and have Jar-Jar walk on and spontaneously combust... and roll around for about ten minutes."
Hell, he'll win me back if he makes "Sith" nothing more than a 2 hour extremely bloody high body count Gungan snuff flick. The only time the Gungan slaughter stops is when the Ewoks show up and they become the target.
"This is great -- but are they in any danger of copyright infringement?"
Haven't you been reading the slashdot arguments every time someone mentions Kazaa and p2p??? You can't call it copyright infringment. It is "Theft!" now. Just like war is peace and freedo is slavery.
The producers of the film are thieves, as are you if you watch it.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks a lot! I already looked on Google, and found about 60 pieces of crapware/nagware.
That's a good point. Anyone hated by #1 Political Troll "Concern" can't be all bad!
Don't you have to spend a lot of time by running a sound recorder app, starting it, playing the song, and then ending it after the Nap WMV stops playing?
Did you get any sleep? Or name any of the songs? Winamp used to allow such automated conversion, but they crippled it quickly.
This is some kind of record. The very first word of the article (its title) is "buying". Somehow, he missed it, and went off on a rant about getting music without buying it. I wonder if Bwaling started at the END of the article before he started bawling.
Did you read the "Asterix in Civil Court" graphic novel? It's the one where the bard Cacaphonix is replaced with a guy named "DRMfix" who carries around a boombox playing "stolen" Kazaa and iTMS music files.
It is hard to be more incorrect:
The term "stealing" cannot apply to iTunes usage. The software allows copying of files from a server, not theft.
Even if you use the odd claim that copying without paying is theft, you are incorrect in this claim, as well. The DRM-remover described here requires the users to pay, as usual, for the download files.
There are amazing things that can be learned from reading the article. Or even reading the title, where the word "buying" can be found.
I don't purchase from iTMS. However, I would strongly consider it if it would let me listen the music I bought on my own equipment without file format conversion hassles.
Bwaling's Law: Any time there is an article about DRM or downloading music, as soon as someone mentions the word "free", someone will whine about everyone stealing music for free. Even if the word "free" is in an unrelated context (as in: "The songs are free from DRM restrictions" or "I downloaded the Free Willy soundtrack".
Most individuals happen to be walking around with built-in DRM removers. They have TWO of them, in fact (double the fine paid!): one on each side of the skull.
Did you read the article? Or even its title? This is about BUYING drm files from iTMS, not downloading them for free. It is quite cool, as the DRM makes it a big hassle for purchasers to listen to the music on their own equipment.
RIAA music isn't free
How is this relevant? It is not free if you are buying it by the cassette, the CD, or by iTMS with AND without this DRM-remover.
If it is non-abrasive it is OK? I suppose you are first in line at Care Bears and "Hello Kitty" movies!
Do I have to buy the special boxed edition of "The Ringfather II" to see this?
Why not add -inanchor as a checkbox next to the search window? It would be nicer than having to type it each time!
I guess I am not in the majority, as I search only for pages that have what I am looking for in the search criteria. It sure is frustrating, however, as I've seen search engines develop for many years now, and this "toss in bad results with good ones" trend is unfortunate. Even Altavista has copied it.
If Freedo was a bounter hunter, then why didn't he turn Aragorn over to the orcs?
I think they misread the survey results. It is far more likely that the respondants all said: "They would have paid three-quarters (75 cents) if the games hadn't been available for free.".
Typically, in google bombing, the target sites are not participating. The most famous example is a search on "miserable failure" coming up with George W Bush's White House site. It might be trivial to do so, but I don't think that George W Bush is going to add "miserable failure" to his OWN web site.
It is very irrelevant, as it does not contain the phrase being searched for. A smashed-together word is not the same as a phrase. Or do you think that "now here" searches should produce all results with "nowhere"? The same goes for "2Bee", also not relevant as it is not spelled right. If I wanted bad misspelled results, I would have asked for them. Accuracy and relevance of search results should not be too much to ask for. Other search engines do not have this problem, and Google would be "perfect" if it got rid of the sloppiness in the results.
Yes. I mentioned the inanchor. It sure is kludgey to have to do this to ensure accurate and relevant results.
"Being able to search for something like [stanford univ] and being able to return Stanford University (even though the word "univ" might not occur on the stanford.edu page) is usually a nice win for search quality"
That is a big loss for search quality, if you look specifically for one word and get another. Lycos, while it produces fewer results, has no problem with irrelevant results polluting the listings. "To be or not to be" is only the most glaring example. I get bogus results that I never asked for in many searches.
I don't mean that, as I think the opposite is true. I think that you are (would have been?) much more likely to find an impartial entry about Bush or Kerry in the old-style traditional encyclopedias. On Wikipedia, all you will see is a freeze-frame in a war of ideologues who battled it out using the edit tab.
Never argue with a Motie. They'll kill you at poker and rock-paper-scissors too. You never know what they will do next!
I haven't seen this yet. Does it end with wet cats like the original "Wing Commander" did?
I used www.google.com. Perhaps you forgot the scroll bar. Look at entries 7 and 8. They do not have the phrase.
Saving it for you. The "ignore or" does not apply if you put quotes around your search.
You goofed up real big when you searched WITH quotes to get the 773,000 results with NO warning about ignoring or. Then you did the entirely separate search without quotes, which gave the warning. You treated them as the same search, when they are not.
"Results 1 - 10 of about 773,000 for "to be or not to be". . (0.14 seconds)"
At which point you listed only FOUR results. You left out the two in the top 10 that did not contain the phrase. There's a new invention in browsers: the scroll bar.
Hell, he'll win me back if he makes "Sith" nothing more than a 2 hour extremely bloody high body count Gungan snuff flick. The only time the Gungan slaughter stops is when the Ewoks show up and they become the target.
Haven't you been reading the slashdot arguments every time someone mentions Kazaa and p2p??? You can't call it copyright infringment. It is "Theft!" now. Just like war is peace and freedo is slavery.
The producers of the film are thieves, as are you if you watch it.