That reminds me of something that happened at a college back in the 1970s during the energy crisis, when everyone was asked to save energy by lowering their thermostats to 68 degrees. I was taking some classes at a Junior College in Arizona at the time. They lowered the thermostats to 68 degrees during the winter to save energy, as requested, and then several weeks later they discovered that the air conditioning system had come on automatically to get the building down to 68 degrees.
Will these proposed new radio-controlled thermostats be designed well enough to avoid those kinds of mistakes?
Well, all it needs is one guy smart enough to tell the difference between "heating" and "cooling".
You want to know why Carter is believed to be the worst president? Start with Carters economic policies that caused 17% annual inflation, go from there. You mean the Inflation that started under Nixon? That later got under control because Carter appointed Paul Volcker as Chairman of the Federal Reserve, who was so good that even Reagan couldn't find anyone better?
Personally I'm of the mind that iTunes tracks have always been DRM free though, since you are allowed to burn them to CD.
Sorry, but that's nonsense. The fact that it is possible to burn to an inconvenient physical format an then rip to a DRM free format does not make iTunes DRM free. There is an inevitable loss of quality in this time-consuming process.
Sorry, but the sound from the "original" file and that of the riped CD are exactly the same, and turning that into a lossless format is in fact also lossless (compared to the original download at least) - and I doubt that the loss with converting it to a high-bit-rate format will be notable. A typical losslessly compressed file is around 700-800 kbps. 128 kbps CBR quality (iTunes DRM) at 700 kbps files sizes sounds like a shitty option to me. Which has jack-shit to do DRM. Thanks for playing.
Personally I'm of the mind that iTunes tracks have always been DRM free though, since you are allowed to burn them to CD.
Sorry, but that's nonsense. The fact that it is possible to burn to an inconvenient physical format an then rip to a DRM free format does not make iTunes DRM free. There is an inevitable loss of quality in this time-consuming process. Sorry, but the sound from the "original" file and that of the riped CD are exactly the same, and turning that into a lossless format is in fact also lossless (compared to the original download at least) - and I doubt that the loss with converting it to a high-bit-rate format will be notable.
I guess I must be living in phantasy land - I buy some phone, insert the SIM and 'it just works'. After the SIM card magically appeared in your hands with an account fully set up.
Yeah, I kinda have to laugh at the ingenuity of making someone pay for violating your copyright by making them appear to link to goatse. That guy is all right in my book. Gee, you'ld think if Microsoft is going to steal (oh wait, it isn't stealing, is it?) an image, they wouldn't actually just deep link to it and also steal (now that may atually be stealing) his bandwidth. OTOH, would he have noticed they used his picture if they had just copied it?
Tweaking a Windows virus into a Unix one is like tweaking a Ford Fiesta into an Abrams tank. Which, I might add, is not the same as the much easeier "tweaking a Ford Fiesta under an Abrams tank".
What does it mean, Apple's become too powerful, so Sony needs another distribution channel? Is Apple driving the prices up? Is Apple restricting Sony to only sell DRM'd music? Is Apple incapable of supporting non-DRM formats?
None of your hypotheticals. It simply means that Apple wants too big a cut of the profit. Sony feels it can't make money selling downloads that don't work on iPod, and Apple has said that they need to either use no DRM, or give Apple a big check to use Apple's DRM. Otherwise no-iPods. Sony has chosen to ditch DRM rather than pay Apple. It has nothing to do with Apple restricting, or failing to be able to support anything.
Whether this is what Apple intended or not, we should be thanking them for things like this. You know what's wrong with your theory? The fact that Sony didn't think they made too little money on the songs they sold via the iTMS when they still thought it would be a failure. IOW "Apple wants too big a cut of the profit" actually means "Apple profits - period".
Duh, it could dynamically expand the menu as more files are scanned. Also, thanks to the modern marvels of caching, only new files would have to be scanned. So how does either have to do with multitasking, and how does the first make waiting for the last song that gets scanned any less long?
It used to be web browsers wouldn't display a page until all component files were downloaded. Now IE, Firefox, and others let you read part of a page even if a 20MB Flash advertising monstrosity is still loading. No solitaire needed. You almost had me - until you mentioned Firefox, which for me will regularly stop in its track for far more than 10 seconds on a dual 3 GHz Pentium IV. Actually, it just did it again when I switched languages in the spell checker.
IOW, multitasking is not a panacea, and everyone who thinks it is also believes in fairy tales.
If/. became the place where all frivolous lawsuits are posted as articles, even just the ones against Apple, it wouldn't have time to do anything else. The article isn't that dumb, it's the lawsuit that is. Both the "Apple sues Fake Steve Jobs" and the "Steve Jobs forces iPod videos on DVDs for extra $" were much dumber articles.
So Apple choose not to support WMA (and the DRM pays for sure) well before the market made it the "monopoly" of legal media downloads. Even before that market even existed. Actually, at the time the iPod came out, WMA was the only format of legal music downloads (by major labels that is). But the iPod was at first a Mac only device - and you couldn't play nor buy WMA songs if you had a Mac (not to mention all the other restriction that came with it), so supporting it would not have helped iPod users any. Well, looks like Microsoft has itself to blame.
I find it odd that people like you never complained that those "cheap" WMAs couldn't (and still can't) be played on Macs, neither can you even purchase them from most of the stores when you dare use a Mac. Typical monopoly behavior by Apple.
It says that there is this newfangled thing called "multitasking". You might want to give it a try.
So how does "multitasking" make scanning the ID3 information from 40 GB of MP3 files before it can display a menu of available tracks any faster? No, being able to play a round of Solitaire isn't the answer.
You do have a choice not to buy an iPod, however, you can't use AAC format files on some other players, so you can't put music from iTunes on them. That would make sense if you had no choice not to buy from the iTS - alas...
When the SDK is released all the developers who've already made apps will have a big head start All? Even those who can't afford some significant annual fee for the SDK? Or can you cite an announcement that Apple won't be charging for the SDK? Can you cite one that they will charging for the SDK? Esp. one that sys they will charge "some significant annual fee"? Can you cite a source that they charge for any of their SDKs? Can you cite a source that proves Linus won't ask you for a gazillion $ per month if you want to use Linux tomorrow? Is there anything else you want to make up and sell for truth?
Do you have proof that it will cost something? I have proof that "ADC Compatibility Labs Access" and "ADC Business and Marketing Programs" cost something. See Apple Developer Connection - Products. So what do these have to do with the SDK? Let alone the out-off-your-ass price you quoted?
I said "stuff like this". Not "this". Please learn to read above a fourth-grade level before replying, thanks. And by "stuff like this" you mean stuff made up by people like you. Yeah, you sure showed me.
Focused protons would likely give you better superpowers, too. I mean, we all know what gamma rays do, and I, for one, don't want to prance around with green skin and purple short shorts when I'm angry. Well, I don't want to prance around in that outfit in any other mood, for that matter.
Slashdot Mirror
That reminds me of something that happened at a college back in the 1970s during the energy crisis, when everyone was asked to save energy by lowering their thermostats to 68 degrees. I was taking some classes at a Junior College in Arizona at the time. They lowered the thermostats to 68 degrees during the winter to save energy, as requested, and then several weeks later they discovered that the air conditioning system had come on automatically to get the building down to 68 degrees.
Will these proposed new radio-controlled thermostats be designed well enough to avoid those kinds of mistakes?
Well, all it needs is one guy smart enough to tell the difference between "heating" and "cooling".Isn't it odd how most who claim others are members of a "cult" are zealous fanatics themselves?
Sorry, but that's nonsense. The fact that it is possible to burn to an inconvenient physical format an then rip to a DRM free format does not make iTunes DRM free. There is an inevitable loss of quality in this time-consuming process. Sorry, but the sound from the "original" file and that of the riped CD are exactly the same, and turning that into a lossless format is in fact also lossless (compared to the original download at least) - and I doubt that the loss with converting it to a high-bit-rate format will be notable.
None of your hypotheticals. It simply means that Apple wants too big a cut of the profit. Sony feels it can't make money selling downloads that don't work on iPod, and Apple has said that they need to either use no DRM, or give Apple a big check to use Apple's DRM. Otherwise no-iPods. Sony has chosen to ditch DRM rather than pay Apple. It has nothing to do with Apple restricting, or failing to be able to support anything.
Whether this is what Apple intended or not, we should be thanking them for things like this. You know what's wrong with your theory? The fact that Sony didn't think they made too little money on the songs they sold via the iTMS when they still thought it would be a failure. IOW "Apple wants too big a cut of the profit" actually means "Apple profits - period".
Repeatedly doing a research makes the results better.
You almost had me - until you mentioned Firefox, which for me will regularly stop in its track for far more than 10 seconds on a dual 3 GHz Pentium IV. Actually, it just did it again when I switched languages in the spell checker.
IOW, multitasking is not a panacea, and everyone who thinks it is also believes in fairy tales.
If
I find it odd that people like you never complained that those "cheap" WMAs couldn't (and still can't) be played on Macs, neither can you even purchase them from most of the stores when you dare use a Mac. Typical monopoly behavior by Apple.
It says that there is this newfangled thing called "multitasking". You might want to give it a try.
So how does "multitasking" make scanning the ID3 information from 40 GB of MP3 files before it can display a menu of available tracks any faster? No, being able to play a round of Solitaire isn't the answer.
Let me tell you: it isn't working with me either, not even the second time you try it.
RIAA sues producers for making music nicer for pirates.
Don't tell me "the others kids are worse than me" worked with your mom.