And AOL users are constantly not getting emails that are valid emails. An ex-coworker of mine was constantly bitching about not getting important emails from people.
Sooo... my conclusion... AOL sucks! Oh wait! We knew that already!
Others may follow this trend. But then again, it wouldn't matter if you just setup your local SMTP daemon to send mail through a relay just like an email client does. Then you use an authorized relay, but still gain the advantages of having your local MTA handle delivering mail.
My friends do. Generally, they come back with a good crack at the US. I don't take nationalism seriously anyway. I'm half French, half Russian (parents) and born in Brooklyn, NY. I question all political agendas, and trust no government. I support those that believe similarly than I do, and for the most part... live and let live. Except my good Canadian friends. I gotta bug them once in a while. It's all good fun.
No, I see exactly why it's such an insult. And I, by no means, believe it to be in any way true or feel it should be true.
Like I said, I say that to good friends. I happen to have had a lot of Canadian friends. I just like to see them get all huffy about it, and they usually come back with a good crack about the US. It's all good fun if you know it's a joke.
Backup the AAC files. Burning to CD would require you to recompress to put back into another typical format (mp3, aac, ogg, etc). It would be better to burn the files themselves to a CD, preserving your original download. AND you'd be able to fit more on a CD.
I have been running an SMTP server from my house for a number of years now. Few (if any) mail servers are configured to block delivery from a "suspicious" hostname/address.
The way it works is that a mail server will only allow relaying (sending mail to a user that that particular server doesn't manage) from a source address that is within it's network/subnet (or other allowed subnets). A server almost always accepts a connection for email to be delivered to an address that it handles (ie. where it's the end of the line).
Running sendmail (or other SMTP servers) on your local machine will only enable you to queue up your mail. Sendmail (by default configurations) does not attempt to relay the mail through another server. It tries to go directly to the mail server responsible for handling the mail. Essentially, you would have your local sendmail only allow relaying from your local host (or other home machines), and the sendmail server would deliver it to where it has to go.
THese are not likely to be blocked because they are on dialup. Few people put a system in place that it going to try and "determine" if it's a dynamic or dialup IP address. There's no real way for the sendmail server to know, unless it subscribes to a maintained list. And that would likely result in many failed deliveries, as many lists are not terribly accurate (I've dealt with some for other purposes).
So, if it doesn't work, it will be for a small minority or emails to be delivered.
So, maybe you did something wrong. Maybe you had open relaying enabled. THAT is something mail servers will refuse connections for.
Just my $0.02 on a post I think was mod'd up too much.:)
Since when it is Big Brother to know if your car is in the place it's supposed to be?
And keeping track of your kids... that's a parent's JOB! Granted, when your kids get to be teen agers, a parent should start to separate and trust their kids to be in the right place. But who are you to say that a parent shouldn't have such a right or option? I think it's great for younger kids though. Puts a parent's mind at ease in a big way to know that their child is in the right place.
Now, if someone else puts a tracking device on MY car, or MY child, you're damn right I will be finding out who that info is going to and sue them or have them put in jail.
Yeah, but they didn't understand time travel in the 80s like we do in the 21st century. They didn't have the advantages of all the Star Trek experiments to iron out all the kinks of time travel theory. *grin*
If you think about before the first one came through (original Terminator) there was no need for a model to "copy". We eventually created it on our own. That was part of the point of this movie was that regardless of set-backs or certain delaying events some things will happen regardless.
With the original terminator having left something behind, humans could could make leaping breakthroughs. I think that that was even a line in T2. Just because the hand and chips were destroyed in the second movie, do you really think that all knowledge gained from it was lost??? Any tech company worth its shreddings keeps such knowledge safe. You wouldn't keep it all in one scientist's head. You also keep your data backed up at remote locations! If the military was involved, then that DEFINITELY took place.
Also think that not everything revolved around the building technologies of the robots themselves. The beginning of Skynet was with the AI. Who is to say that the other variables that led to the destruction of the population were all tied to what was left behind? We figured it out ourselves in the first movie.
And finally... why didn't they send back the T-X in T2? Hmmm. Why didn't they send T2 back to the earlier times that T1 was sent, and Sarah Connor was more vulnerable? AND you could have had 2 Terminators even. It's a MOVIE! That's why! They can't take the absolute easiest path to accomplish the "goal". They need to make it difficult. THEY created the rules... don't presume that reality was a model. I mean... we're talking about time travel in a ball of electricity and fire that only flesh can go through. I mean, what kind of dumb ass designed a time machine that only scanned the surface for flesh???
Innovation creates potential for good. However, it also creates potential for evil. Think of innovation as the flux of ideas.
Companies do not target the whole. They target the best market share that they can achieve, and then exploit it. Unfortunately, companies rarely can create something that appeals to all, or "sells" to all. So, they find the least common denominator. In doing so, they end up destroying true innovation.
I mean look at what companies did to the Internet. And I don't mean the dotcom economical dive. I am referring to the content of the Net. Before the Net's extreme commercialization, it was more of a place for sharing ideas. Then commercialism took control, companies acted like the Net was theirs to do as they will (as opposed to taking a more respectful community approach), and tore each other apart. There were many great ideas that were ruined because of the greed and corporate self-interest. This was counter productive.
Now, with the dotcom days being dead, the Net is actually regaining some of its original purpose. Free information is again being more easily found with fewer commercial sites fighting for people's attention.
So, innovation CAN be a good thing... but it can also turn very ugly... not because of the innovation itself, but because commericalism turn it to the darkside. Don't forget, commercialism is not in favor of the consumer or customer. It's in favor of itself. It just so happens that at first, the company's initial interest IS to serve the consumer... until the company gets to the point that abusing the consumer brings them more money.
One thing I have to say about Apple's spin on benchmarks... Has Apple Marketing finally figured out how the rest of the companies play the game??? If so, Apple might stand a chance afterall!!!
Yes, you CAN call those servers. I know that IBM puts them in their server line. That was my point. However, IBM's server lines don't help Apple. APPLE wants some server market share. They need the beefy chips in order to compete.
I know the AIX machines well. I used to work for IBM as an admin.:)
Agreed. I finally had to retire my old Cyrix P166+. After numerous upgrades (RAM, HDD, video, etc...) the motherboard just started to crap out. And once that was gone, it made no sense to just replace that (if I even could). I stuck to low-end to replace it's functionality, but that was still a 1.4GHz AMD. A heck of a lot more power than the existing 150MHz. heh.
Although, unless you're speaking of a laptop, I think you're a little mistaken about the ease of upgrading recent Macs. Years ago, I would totally agree with you. I hated Macs until recently. The insides of the PowerMacs are beautifully laid out, use PCI, IDE, and standard PC133 RAM. Although, you do have to be conscious of what brands you get, for support reasons, it's quite flexible.
I've added in a SCSI card (have a couple old devices), upgraded RAM through 3rd party, and added a new Western Digital ATA100 drive to my PowerMac. No problems, no headache. Even the nicer PC cases I've dealt with didn't come close to the ease of access to the PowerMac case design.
As for overclocking... true. But I generally avoid overclocking my chips. It's no secret that you risk processor failure much more by doing so. If that's not an issue for you, great. But if you are like me, and need your system to be stable (for a server, let's say), you don't want to screw with the tested/reliable/warratied clock speed.
I've been a PC user for WELL over a decade. Only recently have I switched to a Mac (2 years ago), and that was because of the nice hardware and OS X. And mind you, that was a collective decision. If either was like Macs used to be, I would still be 100% PC user. When MacOS went the *nix route, I was sold. Don't regret the decision in the least, yet.:)
Oh, and by the way... it's not just high end users. When was the last time you tried to use iMovie and apply some effects. Dear God that sucks up CPU. And THAT is the app that Apple encourages the average user to use!!! Continue to iPhoto, iDVD, etc... all of this stuff is CPU intensive. Apple is pushing this for your average user! Not the power user!
So, tell me again how the computing power of today is enough. It barely looks like it keeps up with the apps Apple is trying to push on it.
My comments weren't just about raw power. They are about where things are going to be in the next few years. Whether it's because software developers are writing inefficient code or that the software really does need that kind of power to do what it does is irrelevant as far as an end-user goes.
As a developer myself, I agree that programmers should be better about trying to conserve CPU cycles. Most do, after an initial release or two.
What I find rediculous is that people fight getting faster machines! I mean, you can only benefit from having a machine that can do more things at once, or do certain things in less time.
And I know that going from 1GHz to 3GHz doesn't give you 3 times the power. I never bought into the MHz Myth. Hell that just makes my point even more. We won't even have 2-3 times the power with a 2-3 times boost in CPU speed. But we will have more than we have now.
My whole point is that you WILL (future) need more, and it will be much sooner than most expect. This is mere fact... for whatever reason, for whoever's fault, the processing power of today will not last you very long unless it's big and beefy by today's standards. Only then will it hold up to tomorrow's needs, making your investment a bit more enduring, rather than just be obsolete in 6-12 months.
When I buy a computer (especially a Mac), I expect to have GOOD use out of it for 2 years. Granted, I may buy computer more often than even that...but that doesn't mean I don't want my older machines to be useful.
Power consumption is an issue for laptops. And great strides have been made over the last couple years. Show me a time when a laptop lasted 4-6 hours of continuous regular use in the past. If 3 times the clock speed only yields 2 times the benchmark speed (a bit more realistic than you 12%/6%), then we need to push for even MORE clockspeed increases to provide for significant benchmark increases. So, if this is the case, why fight against it more?? Your statements and your chosen side of the argument don't make sense to me.
But anyway... my whole point being... it's about where WILL things be in the near future. If I'm going to shell out $3000-4000 for a computer, I want the damn thing to last and perform for a good while... not just 6-12 months. I'm sure Apple would prefer to push you the other way so you spend more money in the long haul. I'd rather spend an extra amount for a better processor that will last a while longer, than have to spend the money on a whole new computer just because the processors in the old ones couldn't keep up with the demand.
Oh please! 1GHz is a sweet spot? Give me a break! Software will constantly push the limits of CPU power. Hell, even the operating system will start to push it over time.
There are so many reasons why Apple needs more speed out of their processors. For one, I am not going to invest in a machine that won't be able to run the operating system being released in 2-3 years. Even if it's a little slow, being a few years old, it should at least be able to deal with things well.
There are also a lot of people that need power. Apple wants a share of the server market. They're not going to do it with only dual 1.4GHz G4s. They need more power!
20% is a joke! The real promise is still IBM's 970s. Almost double the computing power at the same GHz, and higher available speeds. Sure, power consumption might be of concern for laptops, with their recent focus, but 20% still isn't going to hold much water in a PowerBook.
Stop making the age-old mistake of saying "no one needs more" about technology. Every idiot who has said that has been proven to be rediculously wrong. Hell! Bill Gates said no one would need more than 640K on a computer, didn't he? And I can't tell you how many time I've heard that same general statement from people over the years. Just accept that you WILL need more, and it will be sooner than you think or expect. History has shown this time and time again.
I totally blame the "fuckheads". I understand Apple's need to do this. It's still disappointing, though. Personally, I hope SpyMac and all sites that brought to light and exercised the potential danger of this feature crash and fade away.
And yes. I do have to copy it all. I really don't want to spend time sifting through music periodically to decide in advanced what I want to listen to. I just want to be in a mood and pick my music.:)
I didn't say it was. I said I hope that it doesn't turn into that if/when they enable sharing again with tighter controls. I was referring to the comment about using authorization for music that isn't bought their their service.
Don't get me wrong. I completely understand Apple's need to do this. I think it sucks as an honest user, because all the pirate pricks can't respect the laws currently in place... but I understand why this was done. I expected it actually. I just hope that in order to regain such a nice feature it doesn't border on invasiveness. If Apple remains true to its history, they will be careful on this topic and respect their users.
I still have faith in Apple to try their best for the customers... just stating a potential concern.
Sure, cite all the legal codes you want. However, you might want to lookup your definitions in your little legal book. Should be a glossary in the back.
Distribution is defined as "The process of marketing and supplying goods". My sharing of music is completely covered by fair use. What you call distribution would equally qualify for allowing the audio signal read by my CD player to travel through the RCA connectors to a series of other audio devices (amplifier, audio mixer, etc).
Coping MY CD's (ie. I bought them and have all right entitled) to digital format for MY personal listening and use is completely legal. It is not a license agreement or subscription when buying an audio CD. You are purchasing the goods and OWN it. The limitations of the audio itself is a different story. This does not mean the bits making up sound, but rather the composition. And with all the regulations placed on that, I don't violate a single one.
Please know your definitions before you go spouting BS that will make consumers think they have less rights than they do.
Slashdot Mirror
And AOL users are constantly not getting emails that are valid emails. An ex-coworker of mine was constantly bitching about not getting important emails from people.
Sooo... my conclusion... AOL sucks! Oh wait! We knew that already!
Others may follow this trend. But then again, it wouldn't matter if you just setup your local SMTP daemon to send mail through a relay just like an email client does. Then you use an authorized relay, but still gain the advantages of having your local MTA handle delivering mail.
-Alex
Damn good question! (never said I was pro-US gov't either).
-Alex
My friends do. Generally, they come back with a good crack at the US. I don't take nationalism seriously anyway. I'm half French, half Russian (parents) and born in Brooklyn, NY. I question all political agendas, and trust no government. I support those that believe similarly than I do, and for the most part... live and let live. Except my good Canadian friends. I gotta bug them once in a while. It's all good fun.
-Alex
No, I see exactly why it's such an insult. And I, by no means, believe it to be in any way true or feel it should be true.
Like I said, I say that to good friends. I happen to have had a lot of Canadian friends. I just like to see them get all huffy about it, and they usually come back with a good crack about the US. It's all good fun if you know it's a joke.
-Alex
My suggestion was not a way around the DRM. It was a way to preserve the files from deletion (assuming that was even true).
-Alex
Backup the AAC files. Burning to CD would require you to recompress to put back into another typical format (mp3, aac, ogg, etc). It would be better to burn the files themselves to a CD, preserving your original download. AND you'd be able to fit more on a CD.
Just a thought.
-Alex
No it's not. Canada is just a US territory. We just let them think they're a country. ;)
J/K! I tease my Canadian friends with this all the time. Heh. Always gets them fired up. *grin*
-Alex
Oh yeah! And it was on OS/2! Heh.
-Alex
Shiiiit. I had my newphew playing Boggle agsinst a boggle bot on IRC (EfNet, back when there were only 3-4 networks or so) when he was 9.
;)
You sister is slipping man! You need to get her up on her geek-skillz. *grin*
-Alex
I have been running an SMTP server from my house for a number of years now. Few (if any) mail servers are configured to block delivery from a "suspicious" hostname/address.
:)
The way it works is that a mail server will only allow relaying (sending mail to a user that that particular server doesn't manage) from a source address that is within it's network/subnet (or other allowed subnets). A server almost always accepts a connection for email to be delivered to an address that it handles (ie. where it's the end of the line).
Running sendmail (or other SMTP servers) on your local machine will only enable you to queue up your mail. Sendmail (by default configurations) does not attempt to relay the mail through another server. It tries to go directly to the mail server responsible for handling the mail. Essentially, you would have your local sendmail only allow relaying from your local host (or other home machines), and the sendmail server would deliver it to where it has to go.
THese are not likely to be blocked because they are on dialup. Few people put a system in place that it going to try and "determine" if it's a dynamic or dialup IP address. There's no real way for the sendmail server to know, unless it subscribes to a maintained list. And that would likely result in many failed deliveries, as many lists are not terribly accurate (I've dealt with some for other purposes).
So, if it doesn't work, it will be for a small minority or emails to be delivered.
So, maybe you did something wrong. Maybe you had open relaying enabled. THAT is something mail servers will refuse connections for.
Just my $0.02 on a post I think was mod'd up too much.
-Alex
Since when it is Big Brother to know if your car is in the place it's supposed to be?
And keeping track of your kids... that's a parent's JOB! Granted, when your kids get to be teen agers, a parent should start to separate and trust their kids to be in the right place. But who are you to say that a parent shouldn't have such a right or option? I think it's great for younger kids though. Puts a parent's mind at ease in a big way to know that their child is in the right place.
Now, if someone else puts a tracking device on MY car, or MY child, you're damn right I will be finding out who that info is going to and sue them or have them put in jail.
-Alex
Yeah, but they didn't understand time travel in the 80s like we do in the 21st century. They didn't have the advantages of all the Star Trek experiments to iron out all the kinks of time travel theory. *grin*
-Alex
Well, this is just a silly comment/question.
If you think about before the first one came through (original Terminator) there was no need for a model to "copy". We eventually created it on our own. That was part of the point of this movie was that regardless of set-backs or certain delaying events some things will happen regardless.
With the original terminator having left something behind, humans could could make leaping breakthroughs. I think that that was even a line in T2. Just because the hand and chips were destroyed in the second movie, do you really think that all knowledge gained from it was lost??? Any tech company worth its shreddings keeps such knowledge safe. You wouldn't keep it all in one scientist's head. You also keep your data backed up at remote locations! If the military was involved, then that DEFINITELY took place.
Also think that not everything revolved around the building technologies of the robots themselves. The beginning of Skynet was with the AI. Who is to say that the other variables that led to the destruction of the population were all tied to what was left behind? We figured it out ourselves in the first movie.
And finally... why didn't they send back the T-X in T2? Hmmm. Why didn't they send T2 back to the earlier times that T1 was sent, and Sarah Connor was more vulnerable? AND you could have had 2 Terminators even. It's a MOVIE! That's why! They can't take the absolute easiest path to accomplish the "goal". They need to make it difficult. THEY created the rules... don't presume that reality was a model. I mean... we're talking about time travel in a ball of electricity and fire that only flesh can go through. I mean, what kind of dumb ass designed a time machine that only scanned the surface for flesh???
-Alex
Male, between 12 and 65 (older if you take Viagra). :)
-Alex
Innovation creates potential for good. However, it also creates potential for evil. Think of innovation as the flux of ideas.
:)
Companies do not target the whole. They target the best market share that they can achieve, and then exploit it. Unfortunately, companies rarely can create something that appeals to all, or "sells" to all. So, they find the least common denominator. In doing so, they end up destroying true innovation.
I mean look at what companies did to the Internet. And I don't mean the dotcom economical dive. I am referring to the content of the Net. Before the Net's extreme commercialization, it was more of a place for sharing ideas. Then commercialism took control, companies acted like the Net was theirs to do as they will (as opposed to taking a more respectful community approach), and tore each other apart. There were many great ideas that were ruined because of the greed and corporate self-interest. This was counter productive.
Now, with the dotcom days being dead, the Net is actually regaining some of its original purpose. Free information is again being more easily found with fewer commercial sites fighting for people's attention.
So, innovation CAN be a good thing... but it can also turn very ugly... not because of the innovation itself, but because commericalism turn it to the darkside. Don't forget, commercialism is not in favor of the consumer or customer. It's in favor of itself. It just so happens that at first, the company's initial interest IS to serve the consumer... until the company gets to the point that abusing the consumer brings them more money.
Just my $0.02 of ramblings.
-Alex
I agree. Wait for the REAL benchmarks.
One thing I have to say about Apple's spin on benchmarks... Has Apple Marketing finally figured out how the rest of the companies play the game??? If so, Apple might stand a chance afterall!!!
-Alex
Yes, you CAN call those servers. I know that IBM puts them in their server line. That was my point. However, IBM's server lines don't help Apple. APPLE wants some server market share. They need the beefy chips in order to compete.
:)
I know the AIX machines well. I used to work for IBM as an admin.
-Alex
Agreed. I finally had to retire my old Cyrix P166+. After numerous upgrades (RAM, HDD, video, etc...) the motherboard just started to crap out. And once that was gone, it made no sense to just replace that (if I even could). I stuck to low-end to replace it's functionality, but that was still a 1.4GHz AMD. A heck of a lot more power than the existing 150MHz. heh.
:)
Although, unless you're speaking of a laptop, I think you're a little mistaken about the ease of upgrading recent Macs. Years ago, I would totally agree with you. I hated Macs until recently. The insides of the PowerMacs are beautifully laid out, use PCI, IDE, and standard PC133 RAM. Although, you do have to be conscious of what brands you get, for support reasons, it's quite flexible.
I've added in a SCSI card (have a couple old devices), upgraded RAM through 3rd party, and added a new Western Digital ATA100 drive to my PowerMac. No problems, no headache. Even the nicer PC cases I've dealt with didn't come close to the ease of access to the PowerMac case design.
As for overclocking... true. But I generally avoid overclocking my chips. It's no secret that you risk processor failure much more by doing so. If that's not an issue for you, great. But if you are like me, and need your system to be stable (for a server, let's say), you don't want to screw with the tested/reliable/warratied clock speed.
I've been a PC user for WELL over a decade. Only recently have I switched to a Mac (2 years ago), and that was because of the nice hardware and OS X. And mind you, that was a collective decision. If either was like Macs used to be, I would still be 100% PC user. When MacOS went the *nix route, I was sold. Don't regret the decision in the least, yet.
-Alex
Holy cow! Another person that thinks beyond the next 6 months!?!?!?! I didn't think there were anymore out there! :)
-Alex
Oh, and by the way... it's not just high end users. When was the last time you tried to use iMovie and apply some effects. Dear God that sucks up CPU. And THAT is the app that Apple encourages the average user to use!!! Continue to iPhoto, iDVD, etc... all of this stuff is CPU intensive. Apple is pushing this for your average user! Not the power user!
So, tell me again how the computing power of today is enough. It barely looks like it keeps up with the apps Apple is trying to push on it.
-Alex
My comments weren't just about raw power. They are about where things are going to be in the next few years. Whether it's because software developers are writing inefficient code or that the software really does need that kind of power to do what it does is irrelevant as far as an end-user goes.
As a developer myself, I agree that programmers should be better about trying to conserve CPU cycles. Most do, after an initial release or two.
What I find rediculous is that people fight getting faster machines! I mean, you can only benefit from having a machine that can do more things at once, or do certain things in less time.
And I know that going from 1GHz to 3GHz doesn't give you 3 times the power. I never bought into the MHz Myth. Hell that just makes my point even more. We won't even have 2-3 times the power with a 2-3 times boost in CPU speed. But we will have more than we have now.
My whole point is that you WILL (future) need more, and it will be much sooner than most expect. This is mere fact... for whatever reason, for whoever's fault, the processing power of today will not last you very long unless it's big and beefy by today's standards. Only then will it hold up to tomorrow's needs, making your investment a bit more enduring, rather than just be obsolete in 6-12 months.
When I buy a computer (especially a Mac), I expect to have GOOD use out of it for 2 years. Granted, I may buy computer more often than even that...but that doesn't mean I don't want my older machines to be useful.
Power consumption is an issue for laptops. And great strides have been made over the last couple years. Show me a time when a laptop lasted 4-6 hours of continuous regular use in the past. If 3 times the clock speed only yields 2 times the benchmark speed (a bit more realistic than you 12%/6%), then we need to push for even MORE clockspeed increases to provide for significant benchmark increases. So, if this is the case, why fight against it more?? Your statements and your chosen side of the argument don't make sense to me.
But anyway... my whole point being... it's about where WILL things be in the near future. If I'm going to shell out $3000-4000 for a computer, I want the damn thing to last and perform for a good while... not just 6-12 months. I'm sure Apple would prefer to push you the other way so you spend more money in the long haul. I'd rather spend an extra amount for a better processor that will last a while longer, than have to spend the money on a whole new computer just because the processors in the old ones couldn't keep up with the demand.
-Alex
Oh please! 1GHz is a sweet spot? Give me a break! Software will constantly push the limits of CPU power. Hell, even the operating system will start to push it over time.
There are so many reasons why Apple needs more speed out of their processors. For one, I am not going to invest in a machine that won't be able to run the operating system being released in 2-3 years. Even if it's a little slow, being a few years old, it should at least be able to deal with things well.
There are also a lot of people that need power. Apple wants a share of the server market. They're not going to do it with only dual 1.4GHz G4s. They need more power!
20% is a joke! The real promise is still IBM's 970s. Almost double the computing power at the same GHz, and higher available speeds. Sure, power consumption might be of concern for laptops, with their recent focus, but 20% still isn't going to hold much water in a PowerBook.
Stop making the age-old mistake of saying "no one needs more" about technology. Every idiot who has said that has been proven to be rediculously wrong. Hell! Bill Gates said no one would need more than 640K on a computer, didn't he? And I can't tell you how many time I've heard that same general statement from people over the years. Just accept that you WILL need more, and it will be sooner than you think or expect. History has shown this time and time again.
-Alex
I totally blame the "fuckheads". I understand Apple's need to do this. It's still disappointing, though. Personally, I hope SpyMac and all sites that brought to light and exercised the potential danger of this feature crash and fade away.
:)
And yes. I do have to copy it all. I really don't want to spend time sifting through music periodically to decide in advanced what I want to listen to. I just want to be in a mood and pick my music.
-Alex
I didn't say it was. I said I hope that it doesn't turn into that if/when they enable sharing again with tighter controls. I was referring to the comment about using authorization for music that isn't bought their their service.
Don't get me wrong. I completely understand Apple's need to do this. I think it sucks as an honest user, because all the pirate pricks can't respect the laws currently in place... but I understand why this was done. I expected it actually. I just hope that in order to regain such a nice feature it doesn't border on invasiveness. If Apple remains true to its history, they will be careful on this topic and respect their users.
I still have faith in Apple to try their best for the customers... just stating a potential concern.
-Alex
Sure, cite all the legal codes you want. However, you might want to lookup your definitions in your little legal book. Should be a glossary in the back.
Distribution is defined as "The process of marketing and supplying goods". My sharing of music is completely covered by fair use. What you call distribution would equally qualify for allowing the audio signal read by my CD player to travel through the RCA connectors to a series of other audio devices (amplifier, audio mixer, etc).
Coping MY CD's (ie. I bought them and have all right entitled) to digital format for MY personal listening and use is completely legal. It is not a license agreement or subscription when buying an audio CD. You are purchasing the goods and OWN it. The limitations of the audio itself is a different story. This does not mean the bits making up sound, but rather the composition. And with all the regulations placed on that, I don't violate a single one.
Please know your definitions before you go spouting BS that will make consumers think they have less rights than they do.
-Alex