What's FUD about wondering whether Apple policy will change? In case you hadn't noticed, there's a reason for all the 'reserves the right to change...' clauses in legal documents. Try guaranteeing someone something in perpituity and you'll soon find out what I mean.
You ignored the main point, though. Everything you buy from ITMS should be turned into an ordinary audio CD within minutes of downloading it. To do anything else is to be careless with your purchases. At that point, who cares if Apple blows up?
You obviously don't have an iPod, otherwise you wouldn't be going on about how any music you've bought 'should' (who says 'should', exactly, apart from you?!) be burned to a cumbersome and rapidly-becoming-outdated format.
Yes, we should make backups. No, those backups should not be in Red Book format on low-capacity media.
Um. Actually, you've got that totally wrong. There were a few IDIOTS who assumed that iTools would be free forever, and they made such a stink about.Mac that it gave the whole community the cramps.
Unless you've got hard numbers to demonstrate your position, I think it's reasonable to think that most people assume continuation of the status quo by default. Don't forget, assumptions are often passive: if people had *thought* about whether or not the service would remain free, in full knowledge of how the economics of free services work, they might have thought differently; but if they didn't think it would change, they assumed it would remain the same.
No, it IS a fuckin absurd question, because the answer DOES NOT MATTER. If Apple goes away TODAY I'll still have perpetual fair use of all the music I bought from them, because it's all on CD.
No, it's not. The Apple music store does not sell CDs.
If you choose to handle your music differently, then it's YOUR problem if you get caught with your pants down. It's not Apple's fault at all.
As previously explained, it's you who chooses to handle his music differently.
Let me draw an analogy so that even someone as stupid as yourself might be able to understand. Would you play a game of Russian Roulette with me, if you had to hold the gun to your head on your turn, but I was able to point it at the sky on my turn? No? Why not? If you don't want to die, that's YOUR problem. You just need to re-adjust your spiritual outlook so that death isn't such a big deal.
iTunes to Windows is like BMW giving away their engine to Ford
No, it's like BMW making car stereos for Ford. You bought a Mac because you wanted the best driving experience. Nothing has changed there.
But it seems that if Apple had wanted to make money they would have put the store at www.allOSbuymusic.com, instead of built-into a proprietary software product.
For an Mac user, you don't seem to have much of a concept of the 'ease of use' advantage!
On the other hand, the un-heralded feature of iTunes 4 is that it allows you (sometimes) to share over a network, if millions of Windows users started doing this, we could get a pretty good P2P file-trading network going.
Why do people always say things like this? Computers have been networked for a lot longer than P2P apps have been around. If someone emailed you an MP3, would you immediately start rushing about getting excited about email being the Next Big P2P Thing?!
The Apple platform has made more progress in the past two years than MS Windows has made in the last eight years since Windows 95.
This is, quite simply, not true. My platform of choice is OS X, but if I have to use Windows, I'll use one of the NT variants. To parallel your biased comparison: given a choice between OS 9 and Windows XP, I'll install cygwin on the latter, thank you very much, and you can keep your buggy application bringing down the whole OS.
NT has been in preparation since the early nineties. So has Rhapsody. If you think that Jaguar is better than anything Microsoft has to offer (as I do), make that claim, not some other, baseless one.
If data is encrypted and then encrypted again with another algorithm, and in between the bytes are scrambled, no mathematical attack can ever be successful.
Crikey! You've cracked it! You're going to make a fortune!
Either you mean 'one-time pad' when you say 'byte-scrambling algorithm', or you are the sort of layman for each of which cryptanalysts wish they had a penny.
The fact that you're trying to add two Integer objects together seems like "a bit too much work" to me. Use primitives, then wrap them iff necessary.
Anyway that wasn't the falsehood to which I was referring. Many languages don't even have Integer objects. Therefore, the statement in your sig is patently false...
From the man himself: "Those who win one hundred triumphs in one hundred conflicts do not have supreme skill. Those who have supreme skill use strategy to bend others without coming to conflict"
I hope that one of the dying unix firms will see this and make a last ditch effort to save themselves by producing a new desktop.
They'd have to compete with Apple, which would be difficult, because Apple were a dying "high design" firm who made a last-ditch effort to save themselves by putting something decent under the hood (OS X's excellence does not come from high design alone).
Your sarcasm only serves to highlight your short-sightedness even more. If corporations screwed their customers overnight, they'd go out of business. Part of the trick is to do it day by day.
Are you being deliberately obtuse or do you not realise that there are several market segments between "desktop PC" and "mainframe" ?
Yeah, one of them being 'workstation'. So if you're going to say that Apple doesn't have a high-end desktop PC (dual 1.4GHz PowerMac) because it is "barely even playing the same game as a dual 3Ghz Xeon workstation w/hyperthreading, 4GB of RAM and some 15k RPM SCSI drives", I can say that Intel doesn't have a high-end workstation (dual 3GHz Xeon) because it's not playing the same game as an IBM mainframe.
Certainly here in.au, a dual 3GHz Xeon would only cost about 10 - 15% more than a dual 1.4GHz G4.
Your mileage may vary. I reckon it costs about twice as much. Admittedly when you've kitted them both out with 4GB DDR memory and some 15kRPM drives the difference will not be so great.
I was merely pointing out that there is most likely a significant chunk of the market that have no need for an ethernet port. For some reason you seem unable to grasp that.
Ok, sorry if I misunderstood you. I don't agree with you about ethernet ports; they're integral in Apple's vision of the digital hub, and more and more people have ethernet broadband modems these days. And I think that the reason people want colour displays is that they were given them (you don't need them for wordprocessing, spreadsheets, etc.)
Er, no. It's like saying they don't have a high end machine because they don't have anything that competes in terms of bang/buck with high end intel workstations. A dual 1.4GHz PowerMac is barely even playing the same game as a dual 3Ghz Xeon workstation w/hyperthreading, 4GB of RAM and some 15k RPM SCSI drives (unless you want to pick out the few corner cases like RC5).
Which in turn is as much less powerful than IBM's big iron.
Particularly when that Xeon workstation doesn't cost much more.
Er, have you considered some people might not have anything that might *use* that ethernet port ?
Some people might not need colour. Others might not need sound. Many PCs come with unneeded CD rewriters; those PCs certainly don't need floppy drives. What is this 'need' thing, exactly?
The trouble is that at the moment they're selling low-end machines for high profit margins and mid-range machines for even higher profit margins.
Whatever. That's like saying Intel don't make high-end processors because IBM don't use them in their server farms.
Slashdot Mirror
Nice FUD job.
.Mac that it gave the whole community the cramps.
What's FUD about wondering whether Apple policy will change? In case you hadn't noticed, there's a reason for all the 'reserves the right to change...' clauses in legal documents. Try guaranteeing someone something in perpituity and you'll soon find out what I mean.
You ignored the main point, though. Everything you buy from ITMS should be turned into an ordinary audio CD within minutes of downloading it. To do anything else is to be careless with your purchases. At that point, who cares if Apple blows up?
You obviously don't have an iPod, otherwise you wouldn't be going on about how any music you've bought 'should' (who says 'should', exactly, apart from you?!) be burned to a cumbersome and rapidly-becoming-outdated format.
Yes, we should make backups. No, those backups should not be in Red Book format on low-capacity media.
Um. Actually, you've got that totally wrong. There were a few IDIOTS who assumed that iTools would be free forever, and they made such a stink about
Unless you've got hard numbers to demonstrate your position, I think it's reasonable to think that most people assume continuation of the status quo by default. Don't forget, assumptions are often passive: if people had *thought* about whether or not the service would remain free, in full knowledge of how the economics of free services work, they might have thought differently; but if they didn't think it would change, they assumed it would remain the same.
No, it IS a fuckin absurd question, because the answer DOES NOT MATTER. If Apple goes away TODAY I'll still have perpetual fair use of all the music I bought from them, because it's all on CD.
No, it's not. The Apple music store does not sell CDs.
If you choose to handle your music differently, then it's YOUR problem if you get caught with your pants down. It's not Apple's fault at all.
As previously explained, it's you who chooses to handle his music differently.
Let me draw an analogy so that even someone as stupid as yourself might be able to understand. Would you play a game of Russian Roulette with me, if you had to hold the gun to your head on your turn, but I was able to point it at the sky on my turn? No? Why not? If you don't want to die, that's YOUR problem. You just need to re-adjust your spiritual outlook so that death isn't such a big deal.
iTunes to Windows is like BMW giving away their engine to Ford
No, it's like BMW making car stereos for Ford. You bought a Mac because you wanted the best driving experience. Nothing has changed there.
But it seems that if Apple had wanted to make money they would have put the store at www.allOSbuymusic.com, instead of built-into a proprietary software product.
For an Mac user, you don't seem to have much of a concept of the 'ease of use' advantage!
On the other hand, the un-heralded feature of iTunes 4 is that it allows you (sometimes) to share over a network, if millions of Windows users started doing this, we could get a pretty good P2P file-trading network going.
Why do people always say things like this? Computers have been networked for a lot longer than P2P apps have been around. If someone emailed you an MP3, would you immediately start rushing about getting excited about email being the Next Big P2P Thing?!
...do you not understand?
It's a dial. It rotates. Of course there are moving parts. A rotary dial with no moving parts is commonly referred to as 'stuck'.
Depends on the program. Even something like right-clicking on a file causes quite a few registry searches.
The Apple platform has made more progress in the past two years than MS Windows has made in the last eight years since Windows 95.
This is, quite simply, not true. My platform of choice is OS X, but if I have to use Windows, I'll use one of the NT variants. To parallel your biased comparison: given a choice between OS 9 and Windows XP, I'll install cygwin on the latter, thank you very much, and you can keep your buggy application bringing down the whole OS.
NT has been in preparation since the early nineties. So has Rhapsody. If you think that Jaguar is better than anything Microsoft has to offer (as I do), make that claim, not some other, baseless one.
Godwin's law has nothing to say about thread termination; merely thread length.
I have been in several situations thus far where I had no choice but dialup
Well... you have been in several situations thus far where you have had to choose between dialup and waiting to use broadband.
I'd still bet that if, in some alternative reality, you were banned from using broadband, you wouldn't stop using the internet.
If I have to choose between dialup and no Internet, I choose no Internet.
"If I have to choose between the ability to do something and the inability to do it, I choose the inability."
You say that because you don't have to choose between dialup and no internet. If you did, you'd choose dialup.
who wants to listen to audio at lower (read: poorer) bitrates
No, for 'lower', don't read 'poorer'. That was the entire point of the post to which you were replying. Getting it yet?
MacBU at Microsoft is one of the most profitable centers for MS because... they face so much competition for Office on Windows? I hardly think so.
If data is encrypted and then encrypted again with another algorithm, and in between the bytes are scrambled, no mathematical attack can ever be successful.
Crikey! You've cracked it! You're going to make a fortune!
Either you mean 'one-time pad' when you say 'byte-scrambling algorithm', or you are the sort of layman for each of which cryptanalysts wish they had a penny.
The fact that you're trying to add two Integer objects together seems like "a bit too much work" to me. Use primitives, then wrap them iff necessary.
Anyway that wasn't the falsehood to which I was referring. Many languages don't even have Integer objects. Therefore, the statement in your sig is patently false...
Java: The only language where you can't add 2 Integers together
1. You mean Integer objects. In which case the statement is patently false.
2. You mean int primitives. In which case the statement is patently false.
no body
Here's how we're gonna stomp Saddam. [amazon.com]
From the man himself:
"Those who win one hundred triumphs in one hundred conflicts do not have supreme skill. Those who have supreme skill use strategy to bend others without coming to conflict"
I hope that one of the dying unix firms will see this and make a last ditch effort to save themselves by producing a new desktop.
They'd have to compete with Apple, which would be difficult, because Apple were a dying "high design" firm who made a last-ditch effort to save themselves by putting something decent under the hood (OS X's excellence does not come from high design alone).
Your sarcasm only serves to highlight your short-sightedness even more. If corporations screwed their customers overnight, they'd go out of business. Part of the trick is to do it day by day.
My computer may be five feet away... but in a different room from the one I want to listen to iTunes in.
Now all I need is a T68i instead of this 6310i!
NetInfo is always consulted first. Just use NetInfo.
You're not looking for a better unix; you're looking for a simpler unix.
Perhaps you don't understand what's better about it? I can't really take your 'unix hacker' mentality seriously if you're using PGP rather than gnupg.
[hobbit:~] ls
[hobbit:~] echo "double-click on what?"
Hmmm. Looks like apt-get wins.
Are you being deliberately obtuse or do you not realise that there are several market segments between "desktop PC" and "mainframe" ?
.au, a dual 3GHz Xeon would only cost about 10 - 15% more than a dual 1.4GHz G4.
Yeah, one of them being 'workstation'. So if you're going to say that Apple doesn't have a high-end desktop PC (dual 1.4GHz PowerMac) because it is "barely even playing the same game as a dual 3Ghz Xeon workstation w/hyperthreading, 4GB of RAM and some 15k RPM SCSI drives", I can say that Intel doesn't have a high-end workstation (dual 3GHz Xeon) because it's not playing the same game as an IBM mainframe.
Certainly here in
Your mileage may vary. I reckon it costs about twice as much. Admittedly when you've kitted them both out with 4GB DDR memory and some 15kRPM drives the difference will not be so great.
Or were we talking about the 17" powerbook, not the 12"?
A PowerMac under the desk and a cinema display on top of it would save more space.
I was merely pointing out that there is most likely a significant chunk of the market that have no need for an ethernet port. For some reason you seem unable to grasp that.
Ok, sorry if I misunderstood you. I don't agree with you about ethernet ports; they're integral in Apple's vision of the digital hub, and more and more people have ethernet broadband modems these days. And I think that the reason people want colour displays is that they were given them (you don't need them for wordprocessing, spreadsheets, etc.)
Er, no. It's like saying they don't have a high end machine because they don't have anything that competes in terms of bang/buck with high end intel workstations. A dual 1.4GHz PowerMac is barely even playing the same game as a dual 3Ghz Xeon workstation w/hyperthreading, 4GB of RAM and some 15k RPM SCSI drives (unless you want to pick out the few corner cases like RC5).
Which in turn is as much less powerful than IBM's big iron.
Particularly when that Xeon workstation doesn't cost much more.
I don't think this is true.
Er, have you considered some people might not have anything that might *use* that ethernet port ?
Some people might not need colour. Others might not need sound. Many PCs come with unneeded CD rewriters; those PCs certainly don't need floppy drives. What is this 'need' thing, exactly?
The trouble is that at the moment they're selling low-end machines for high profit margins and mid-range machines for even higher profit margins.
Whatever. That's like saying Intel don't make high-end processors because IBM don't use them in their server farms.