I love how no one is allowed to like Apple products on their own merits and decide for themselves that said merits outweigh their drawbacks. That's just what I'd expect a filthy pirate like you to say (because you're anti-DRM, get it?)
This is astroturfing and unsubstantiated FUD.
What stores have less annoying DRM? There are stores with zero DRM, but see point 2 for why that's not feasible for Apple.
Proprietary DRM is the cornerstone of Apple's online music business
No, RIAA music is the cornerstone of Apple's online music business. DRM was how Apple secured their cooperation. Do you think the music store would have been a fraction as successful as it was if it was stocked with unknown independents?
They can't, because these cats are not the product of genetic engineering, just traditional breeding. There are already "natural" cats with this hypoallergenic property- you're paying $4000 for a guaranteed that your cat will have it.
Where is that quote about 'a pain' from? It's not anywhere in the linked article.
And there's always the cynical view of "Apple's DRM is a pain because with a single company dominating the market we can't play competing stores off against each other like we used to".
The vast majority of albums on iTunes (including the one in your example) are $9.99 even if they have more than 10 tracks (and $N if the number of tracks is less than 10). In general the only ones that exceed this have unusually high durations or numbers of tracks.
And it's not just that AOMP3 is not paying any royalties to the artist- they also don't shoulder any of the cost of production at all.
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses (X) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected ( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money ( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks (X) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it (X) Users of email will not put up with it ( ) Microsoft will not put up with it ( ) The police will not put up with it ( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers (X) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once (X) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers ( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists ( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it (X) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email ( ) Open relays in foreign countries ( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses ( ) Asshats ( ) Jurisdictional problems ( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes ( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money (X) Huge existing software investment in SMTP ( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack ( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email (X) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes ( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches (X) Extreme profitability of spam ( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft ( ) Technically illiterate politicians ( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers ( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with Microsoft ( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with Yahoo ( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves ( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering (X) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical ( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable ( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation ( ) Blacklists suck ( ) Whitelists suck ( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored ( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud ( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks (X) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually ( ) Sending email should be free ( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers? ( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses ( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem ( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome ( ) I don't want the government reading my email ( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work. ( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid company for suggesting it. ( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
The court might use the same line of reasoning as a US court used in the Grokster case- declare that the site "encourages" copyright infringement and thus is responsible for any copyright infringement that occurs as a direct result of a third party accessing information on it.
I must be misunderstanding you... it is possible and very easy to sort by Artist or Album. What do you mean?
I think he wants to have the music sorted by artist name and then within each artist block the songs are also sorted alphabetically by album name. While it's true that iTunes can't do this, I can't imagine it's a feature there's tremendous demand for.
Actually, no they didn't. Apple's Macintosh ads have always been horrible (remember The Power To Be Your Best?) and accomplished little more than preaching to the choir and giving existing evangelists questionable ammunition. The recent ones with the "Mac dude" and the "PC guy" are doing nothing but inflaming platform wars. The iPod ads with the dancing silhouettes are another thing entirely, and very successful by any measure.
It's also not true that an iPod is required to use the ITMS. iTunes itself will play back music bought from the store.
The iPod wasn't the first HD player, but it was at the time one of the smallest and the only one that didn't take hours to fill thanks to its (at the time, unique) Firewire connection.
They've already taken that class, but also taken high-performance game design 101 (minimize network traffic with client-side prediction) and economics 101 (the studio is not able to maintain the server farm needed to support the Halo 2 Live population).
There was virtually no cheating in Halo 1 not because of robust network code but because it didn't support Internet play- virtually all network games were played with people in the same room/house as you, and if you catch someone cheating in that situation you can go force them to stop. I have no idea how much of a problem cheating was on the tunneling programs that let Halo 1 play over a VPN, but generally all Halo 1 games were among players who knew and trusted each other, or who all consented to using a modded game beforehand.
People already do that. You can spot them easily- they're the ones who spawn, throw a grenade at the wall, and kill themselves over and over again, or who just fuck around and get killed instead of pulling their weight. And if they happen to be on your team, they'll drag you down with them in their quest to throw the game and pwn more noobs. It's annoying as fuck, but there's no feasible way to force a player to play at the best of his ability if he doesn't want to, and no way to determine that a string of losses is due to malice instead of just having an off day.
It's not that the company didn't have the resources to fight it (although it's true that they didn't), it's that it was causing so much collateral damage. Once the spammer had taken down the primary BlueSecurity site, he took down the third-party site hosting the blog on which BlueSecurity's response to the first takedown was posted, and showed every sign of being ready to take down any other site that overtly supported BlueSecurity. Faced with the choice of shutting down or being indirectly responsible for a DDoS epidemic of unpredictable but probably massive proportions, they shut down.
Users have proven themselves to be perfectly willing to manually unzip and otherwise reconstitute untrusted executables from formats that cannot be scanned by automated filtering.
I don't know exactly what CoreForce is, but how are you going to differentiate between IM programs and trusted programs? Is it some sort of automated system, or a static list that the user must manage? If it's automated it can be fooled (what prevents any random program from declaring itself non-IM?) and if it's manual what prevents the user from being convinced to register an IM program?
Again, how do you differentiate in a way that is vulnerable to neither programmers nor end users?
We (well, Microsoft) could solve this problem with a central signing authority, but that has disadvantages that far outweigh the gains it would provide.
The usefulness of email is already plummeting. Sooner or later those 4 points are going to be outweighed by sheer volume. Is 50% spam too much? How about 95%? When your line is saturated for several minutes at a time downloading useless email? When a good percentage of your own messages are counted as false positives by aggressive automated spamblockers and never reach their destination?
Slashdot Mirror
You're assuming that solving those problems permanently takes less time, money, and effort than colonizing another planet. History puts that in doubt.
I love how no one is allowed to like Apple products on their own merits and decide for themselves that said merits outweigh their drawbacks. That's just what I'd expect a filthy pirate like you to say (because you're anti-DRM, get it?)
This is astroturfing and unsubstantiated FUD.
What stores have less annoying DRM? There are stores with zero DRM, but see point 2 for why that's not feasible for Apple.
Proprietary DRM is the cornerstone of Apple's online music business
No, RIAA music is the cornerstone of Apple's online music business. DRM was how Apple secured their cooperation. Do you think the music store would have been a fraction as successful as it was if it was stocked with unknown independents?
They can't, because these cats are not the product of genetic engineering, just traditional breeding. There are already "natural" cats with this hypoallergenic property- you're paying $4000 for a guaranteed that your cat will have it.
Where is that quote about 'a pain' from? It's not anywhere in the linked article.
And there's always the cynical view of "Apple's DRM is a pain because with a single company dominating the market we can't play competing stores off against each other like we used to".
No, the scientific approach would be to determine whether or not your finger would fall off before having the procedure done.
A worthy successor to "IP protocol" or "ATM machine".
The vast majority of albums on iTunes (including the one in your example) are $9.99 even if they have more than 10 tracks (and $N if the number of tracks is less than 10). In general the only ones that exceed this have unusually high durations or numbers of tracks.
And it's not just that AOMP3 is not paying any royalties to the artist- they also don't shoulder any of the cost of production at all.
Your company advocates a
(X) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
(X) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
(X) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
(X) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
(X) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
(X) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
(X) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
( ) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
( ) Asshats
( ) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
(X) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
(X) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
(X) Extreme profitability of spam
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with Microsoft
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with Yahoo
( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
(X) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
(X) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Sending email should be free
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid company for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
The court might use the same line of reasoning as a US court used in the Grokster case- declare that the site "encourages" copyright infringement and thus is responsible for any copyright infringement that occurs as a direct result of a third party accessing information on it.
I must be misunderstanding you... it is possible and very easy to sort by Artist or Album. What do you mean?
I think he wants to have the music sorted by artist name and then within each artist block the songs are also sorted alphabetically by album name. While it's true that iTunes can't do this, I can't imagine it's a feature there's tremendous demand for.
Actually, no they didn't. Apple's Macintosh ads have always been horrible (remember The Power To Be Your Best?) and accomplished little more than preaching to the choir and giving existing evangelists questionable ammunition. The recent ones with the "Mac dude" and the "PC guy" are doing nothing but inflaming platform wars. The iPod ads with the dancing silhouettes are another thing entirely, and very successful by any measure.
It's also not true that an iPod is required to use the ITMS. iTunes itself will play back music bought from the store.
The iPod wasn't the first HD player, but it was at the time one of the smallest and the only one that didn't take hours to fill thanks to its (at the time, unique) Firewire connection.
They've already taken that class, but also taken high-performance game design 101 (minimize network traffic with client-side prediction) and economics 101 (the studio is not able to maintain the server farm needed to support the Halo 2 Live population).
There was virtually no cheating in Halo 1 not because of robust network code but because it didn't support Internet play- virtually all network games were played with people in the same room/house as you, and if you catch someone cheating in that situation you can go force them to stop. I have no idea how much of a problem cheating was on the tunneling programs that let Halo 1 play over a VPN, but generally all Halo 1 games were among players who knew and trusted each other, or who all consented to using a modded game beforehand.
People already do that. You can spot them easily- they're the ones who spawn, throw a grenade at the wall, and kill themselves over and over again, or who just fuck around and get killed instead of pulling their weight. And if they happen to be on your team, they'll drag you down with them in their quest to throw the game and pwn more noobs. It's annoying as fuck, but there's no feasible way to force a player to play at the best of his ability if he doesn't want to, and no way to determine that a string of losses is due to malice instead of just having an off day.
It's not that the company didn't have the resources to fight it (although it's true that they didn't), it's that it was causing so much collateral damage. Once the spammer had taken down the primary BlueSecurity site, he took down the third-party site hosting the blog on which BlueSecurity's response to the first takedown was posted, and showed every sign of being ready to take down any other site that overtly supported BlueSecurity. Faced with the choice of shutting down or being indirectly responsible for a DDoS epidemic of unpredictable but probably massive proportions, they shut down.
Well, duh. It's their current baby and a bigger source of revenue than the original Xbox is at this point.
Although, not being fully backwards-compatible is a strong disincentive for me to buy one, since only about 25% of my Xbox 1 games are supported.
No disassemble!
Don't we need a viable first generation before we can have a next?
(H-bombs and fusion-capable energy sinks (reactors that have failed to achieve break-even) don't count as generations.)
- Users have proven themselves to be perfectly willing to manually unzip and otherwise reconstitute untrusted executables from formats that cannot be scanned by automated filtering.
- I don't know exactly what CoreForce is, but how are you going to differentiate between IM programs and trusted programs? Is it some sort of automated system, or a static list that the user must manage? If it's automated it can be fooled (what prevents any random program from declaring itself non-IM?) and if it's manual what prevents the user from being convinced to register an IM program?
- Again, how do you differentiate in a way that is vulnerable to neither programmers nor end users?
We (well, Microsoft) could solve this problem with a central signing authority, but that has disadvantages that far outweigh the gains it would provide.You'll also have heat problems from running the machine inside your bag.
Push technology didn't crater, it was reincarnated as RSS.
That's a severe misuse of the term "prosecuted". Any business is free to refuse service to a particular customer.
The usefulness of email is already plummeting. Sooner or later those 4 points are going to be outweighed by sheer volume. Is 50% spam too much? How about 95%? When your line is saturated for several minutes at a time downloading useless email? When a good percentage of your own messages are counted as false positives by aggressive automated spamblockers and never reach their destination?