there are only so many ways for DNA to create a thumb
Actually, there are probably a near-infinite combination of ways for DNA to code for the form of a function of a thumb. Many thumbs and thumb-bearing taxa evolved through homologous synapomorphies, but some evolved as simple look-alike analogies and may not share any common genes.
Humans don't really seem to be able to live harmoniously with other humans, despite massive, long-term evolutionary refinement. What makes them think a hunk of nuts and bolts will do any better?
Apple never intended for them to be used as audio recorders, and they have no control over the quality of third party dongles.
Your analogy is flawed or, rather, you are too passive. These are not "third party dongles", these are licensed and manufactured in partnership with Apple (that provides the firmware support and allows access to the iPod's innards). You don't get Apple's blessing, you don't get very far. Look at the incredibly slow progress the iPod Linux has made relative to, say, RockBox. This is because Apple actively works to lock out unauthorised development.
The iPod's hardware seems well capable of supporting high-fidelity recording, both analog and digital. The PortalPlayer PP5002B chipset (and derivatives on current models) used in all the big iPods since the early days is capable, according to PortalPlayer itself, of encoding MP3, WAV, AIFF, WMA, and ATRAC3 at up to 320Kbit/s.
A little over a year ago iPods switched to the Wolfson WM8731L ADC/DAC ($5 each in small lots!), which can sample at 44.1kHz, 48kHz or 96kHz. I haven't kept up with current iPod offerings because they are of little interest to me but I would assume Apple has not regressed on the ADC capabilities. It's hard these days to spend more than $3 on a signal chip and *not* get high-quality ADC. I note that most of the other players based on a similar PortalPlayer/Wolfson platform (eg Samsung, Philips, iRiver) offer high-fidelity recording.
So you see you are wrong. The iPod's lack of high-fidelity sound recording is not the fault of "third party dongles", it is not a limitation of iPod hardware, it is simply that Apple has chosen to intentionally limit the available quality of the recording function. As to why Apple would choose to cripple the iPod this way, many people probably have different opinions on that. personally, I feel that it's Apple's way of making nice with the RIAA.
Seeing that iPods cost so much it's a shame Apple has seen fit to limit their recording ability so they sound like scratchy tin-cans on the best of days. I've heard them and it's not pretty. I recommend a non-limited recorder with a *real* pre-amped mic.
I cleared nearly $2500 of rebates last year, and only have one or two outstanding that have yet to be cleared up (probably with a quick letter to the local AG). The key is to be creative, tenacious, and to track everything. A program like Rebate! Rebate! helps a lot, but you can accomplish the same things with a PIM or spreadsheet. It also tells me that I only spent around $200 more than I received in rebates. Finally, FatWallet rules.
Yahoo is where good ideas go to slowly die and become perverted into evil, sad caricatures of their original intent.
Yahoo Is Evil. Remember this? Yahoo routinely borgs any and all content on its servers, denying even legal heirs access to the datacloud of their deceased.
Why not come up with some software that will let me yank files from my Tivo, dump them into Final Cut / iMovie, and burn my own DVDs after I've edited out the commercials?
It is neither underhand nor unfair, as it promises that the people who dont rent many movies get the one movie they do want when they want it.
There is no promise, that is the point, except of equality of treatment. An implicit promise that is undercut by the perferential queueing and arbitrary CSR actions.
No matter how much you want to grumble, paying the cost of one dvd a month to rent maybe, what?...6? MINIMUM? and particularly if you're ripping them all to your own private collection, that is a steal...
I think you are putting words in my mouth. I am not offering an opinion in this forum concerning the rights and wrongs of the supply management strategy. I am offering an opinion on the practice of arbitrary execution and deployment of unpublished discriminatory categorisations for different customers, and the idiosyncratic way these regulations are enforced by Netflix CSRs. This turns an underhanded practice into an unfair practice.
I was a member of Netflix since 1999 but stopped a few years ago because, frankly, I no longer have time to watch so many movies. Your accusation that I am involved in patently illegal copyright violations is an unusually bold move for someone who doesn't really know where I am coming from. Have you considered putting a delay factor between the keyboard and your brain?
I don't think the other poster is arguing that your DVDs should be delayed so that he can cycle three DVDs every two days. He is arguing that he should be able to cycle his 1.5 discs per day while you still get yours perfectly on time.
I think you are putting words in my mouth. I am not offering an opinion in this forum concerning the rights and wrongs of the supply management strategy. I am offering an opinion on the practice of arbitrary execution and deployment of unpublished discriminatory categorisations for different customers, and the idiosyncratic way these regulations are enforced by Netflix CSRs. This turns an underhanded practice into an unfair practice.
My choice of words was fundamentally deliberate, thanks very much. If you advertise a service as "unlimitged" then it should be so. Any caveats or restrictions should be announced clearly and categorically. Netflix's built-in mode of silent discrimination is not not announced and, as such, is therefore discriminatory and practised haphazardly. I know this because, if you whine to the CSRs, they can enter a code, bump you on the list, and your movies arrive post-haste. This kind of arbitrariness is just bad business, and bad ethics.
Is the service still available for people who, for instance, buy old boxes on ebay?
Well, you can buy new boxes if you like. But yes, people do buy the older boxes (RTV5040 models) because they feature the auto commercial skip and show sharing without any hacking required...
No ReplayTV info is complete without mentioning DVArchive, Poopli (like Napster for RTVs), and PlanetReplay.
Not A Chance. ReplayTV Tried All This Years Ago.
on
Can TiVo be Saved?
·
· Score: 1
the anti-cable, letting us download, store, organize, and serve media from both cable and -- this is the important part -- the internet.
ReplayTV tried this a few years ago. Automatic commercial skip, sharing shows without DRM over the internet. *Massive* online database of shows stored on other ReplayTV owners' hard drives - nearest damn thing to VOD I've seen working!
All it got them was sued to death and a 3% marketshare versus the industry cum-sucking yes men at Tivo.
SonicBlue did go bust and sold off its assets. ReplayTV has been part of the company that does Denon and Marantz, among others, for a few years now. The ReplayTV functionality has been rolled into their high-end, $4000+ audiophile media servers. And for them that's the low-end. So yeah, I don't know if ReplayTV the low-end consumer brand will survive or grow, but the technology itself seems to becoming integrated into their home entertainment suite.
ReplayTV has been part of the company that does Denon and Marantz, among others. The ReplayTV functionality has been rolled into their high-end, $4000+ audiophile media servers. And for them that's the low-end. So yeah, I don't know if ReplayTV the low-end consumer brand will survive or grow, but the technology itself seems to becoming integrated into their home entertainment suite.
I don't see any reports about ABC/NBC/CBS busting up those underground videotape-sharing networks.
The only thing worse than silly laws applied systematically is silly laws applied discriminately. Maybe you're too yough to remember the 1980s, but when VCRs were new, there were quite a few legal contretemps regarding their use and purview. If giving your relatives dodgy 128Kbps AAC files transcoded into CDDA or MP3 is fine by you, then why not point them towards Soulseek or BitTorrent where they could get higher-quality rips of the music and enjoy the same legal status.
it's always amazing to me how otherwise independently minded geeks can fall over themselves to love Apple's velvet fist.
part of the DRM is that you can share the file with 3 people - so its not just your personal use. I can buy a song from iTMS and give it to 3 friends, no prob. It works, Apple allows it, They can then Burn it and do with it as they please. It is thiers.
Your faith-based belief in your right of disposal of the license does not reflect the your actual rights specifically and categorically enumerated by Apple in the ToS. You are licensed the track for personal use. You can distribute the playback source across several personal devices. You are allowed to *stream* said source file to other LAN-connected machines as long as no permanent copy is made.
you can, in fact, sell music you have bought from the iTMS, its been done. It was insanely complicated to do (especially considering it was only one song) but it was done via ebay
I'm aware of the exception that was made in this case by Apple, probably to avoid bad publicity for their velvet fist so early. Why don't you go ahead and try to sell a whole bundle of iTMS files. Acdvertise a "loaded" iPod. See how far you get. Think about it rationally: why would Apple *ever* alloow a secondary market in iTMS licenses to develop where it does not get a piece of the action. Apple itself could enable a secondary market (much like Amazon's used property section) on iTMS itself but then the RIAA would go ballistic. Consider that the RIAA has consistently sued large used CD resale chains over the past 20 years because its cut from used sales is insignificant or zero.
No, you can't share it, much as you would wish otherwise. The license for each track is for *personal* use. So unless you live in a jurisdiction with community property laws, and you are married to that person or their are your dependent (and even then you're on shaky ground!), then depositing a copy of that track on a non-personal machione, ie a friend's machine, is a violation of the license and grounds for Apple to cancel your access to the track or all tracks. You buy a single-use, personal license from Apple. Not a license to run a small-scale lending library or group-buying scheme.
From the,a href="http://www.apple.com/support/itunes/legal/te rms.html">iTMS ToS:
You agree not to modify, rent, lease, loan, sell, distribute, or create derivative works based on the Service, in any manner
Apple, at its sole discretion, without notice to you may: (i) terminate this Agreement and/or your Account, and you will remain liable for all amounts due under your Account up to and including the date of termination; and/or (ii) terminate the license to the software
I never questioned the legality of the service operating with Russia but rather the legality of its use by non-residents of Russia.
Specifically, the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) guarantees the right of all citizens of all WTO-member countries. The Russian Federation's WTO status compliance almost complete. That will cement the rights of allofmp3.com to provide their service throughout all WTO member countries. Specifically, "intellectual property laws may not offer any benefits to local citizens which are not available to citizens of other TRIPs signatories". Therefore, local companies may not discriminate against non-nationals by refusing to provide services or implementing discriminatory pricing.
can't you put it on your friend's computer, then take it off of yours, effectively transferring all rights to that song to the friend?
Listen to what you are saying, You are not talking about the disposition of owned property, you are talking about temporarily sub-licensing people from your license.
Are you a Russian citizen or a resident of Russia? No? Then the licensing of the Russian Multimedia and Internet Society does not apply to you as a foreign national.
Really? So you are saying I am not allowed to buy CDs from Europe or Asia? You are saying that if I license a track from a download site in, say, Ireland, and load it onto my iPod, and then transport the iPod to the US, that that constitutes copyright infringement?
does not absolve you of legal responsibility or possible prosecution any more than paying for Kazza would.
Kazaa has not managed to get licensed by any nationally recognised IP cartel. allofmp3.com has. That's the key difference. The WTO guarantees my right to transport goods and services between member countries providing they are legally originated in the source country, not proscribed in the destination country, and that any legal tariffs have been paid or legally established regulated goods quotas have not been exceeded. The US has not yet seen fit to levy tariffs or quanntity limits on mp3 imports to the US, and given the US's current antipathy to similar restrictive IP license schemes within France, that possibility seems remote.
Hopefully, the copyright laws of Russia will change soon causing "services" like this one to shutdown.
I see. So your idea of an IP license scheme is one where sovereign nations are not allowed to run their own affairs, but instead you act as final arbiter of what is legal and not legal for them. There's a word for that, and it's Imperialism.
Slashdot Mirror
there are only so many ways for DNA to create a thumb
Actually, there are probably a near-infinite combination of ways for DNA to code for the form of a function of a thumb. Many thumbs and thumb-bearing taxa evolved through homologous synapomorphies, but some evolved as simple look-alike analogies and may not share any common genes.
test if robots can live harmoniously with humans
Humans don't really seem to be able to live harmoniously with other humans, despite massive, long-term evolutionary refinement. What makes them think a hunk of nuts and bolts will do any better?
Apple never intended for them to be used as audio recorders, and they have no control over the quality of third party dongles.
Your analogy is flawed or, rather, you are too passive. These are not "third party dongles", these are licensed and manufactured in partnership with Apple (that provides the firmware support and allows access to the iPod's innards). You don't get Apple's blessing, you don't get very far. Look at the incredibly slow progress the iPod Linux has made relative to, say, RockBox. This is because Apple actively works to lock out unauthorised development.
The iPod's hardware seems well capable of supporting high-fidelity recording, both analog and digital. The PortalPlayer PP5002B chipset (and derivatives on current models) used in all the big iPods since the early days is capable, according to PortalPlayer itself, of encoding MP3, WAV, AIFF, WMA, and ATRAC3 at up to 320Kbit/s.
A little over a year ago iPods switched to the Wolfson WM8731L ADC/DAC ($5 each in small lots!), which can sample at 44.1kHz, 48kHz or 96kHz. I haven't kept up with current iPod offerings because they are of little interest to me but I would assume Apple has not regressed on the ADC capabilities. It's hard these days to spend more than $3 on a signal chip and *not* get high-quality ADC. I note that most of the other players based on a similar PortalPlayer/Wolfson platform (eg Samsung, Philips, iRiver) offer high-fidelity recording.
So you see you are wrong. The iPod's lack of high-fidelity sound recording is not the fault of "third party dongles", it is not a limitation of iPod hardware, it is simply that Apple has chosen to intentionally limit the available quality of the recording function. As to why Apple would choose to cripple the iPod this way, many people probably have different opinions on that. personally, I feel that it's Apple's way of making nice with the RIAA.
Seeing that iPods cost so much it's a shame Apple has seen fit to limit their recording ability so they sound like scratchy tin-cans on the best of days. I've heard them and it's not pretty. I recommend a non-limited recorder with a *real* pre-amped mic.
Nothing like the mention of "prison" to help a lot of jokers make light of the deployment of State-institutionalized rape as a coercive technology.
I cleared nearly $2500 of rebates last year, and only have one or two outstanding that have yet to be cleared up (probably with a quick letter to the local AG). The key is to be creative, tenacious, and to track everything. A program like Rebate! Rebate! helps a lot, but you can accomplish the same things with a PIM or spreadsheet. It also tells me that I only spent around $200 more than I received in rebates. Finally, FatWallet rules.
Yahoo is where good ideas go to slowly die and become perverted into evil, sad caricatures of their original intent.
Yahoo Is Evil. Remember this? Yahoo routinely borgs any and all content on its servers, denying even legal heirs access to the datacloud of their deceased.
Why not come up with some software that will let me yank files from my Tivo, dump them into Final Cut / iMovie, and burn my own DVDs after I've edited out the commercials?
They already have, it's called ReplayTV and DVArchive.
Oh, I'm sorry, You said *Tivo*. You have my commiserations.
It is neither underhand nor unfair, as it promises that the people who dont rent many movies get the one movie they do want when they want it.
There is no promise, that is the point, except of equality of treatment. An implicit promise that is undercut by the perferential queueing and arbitrary CSR actions.
The other post on this was moderated troll by the netflix loving mods.
Ways to burn Karma:
Write anything not 100% adulatory concerning either Apple, the iPod, or OSX.
Diss Nerdflix, sorry, Netflix.
More later...
No matter how much you want to grumble, paying the cost of one dvd a month to rent maybe, what?...6? MINIMUM? and particularly if you're ripping them all to your own private collection, that is a steal...
I think you are putting words in my mouth. I am not offering an opinion in this forum concerning the rights and wrongs of the supply management strategy. I am offering an opinion on the practice of arbitrary execution and deployment of unpublished discriminatory categorisations for different customers, and the idiosyncratic way these regulations are enforced by Netflix CSRs. This turns an underhanded practice into an unfair practice.
I was a member of Netflix since 1999 but stopped a few years ago because, frankly, I no longer have time to watch so many movies. Your accusation that I am involved in patently illegal copyright violations is an unusually bold move for someone who doesn't really know where I am coming from. Have you considered putting a delay factor between the keyboard and your brain?
I don't think the other poster is arguing that your DVDs should be delayed so that he can cycle three DVDs every two days. He is arguing that he should be able to cycle his 1.5 discs per day while you still get yours perfectly on time.
I think you are putting words in my mouth. I am not offering an opinion in this forum concerning the rights and wrongs of the supply management strategy. I am offering an opinion on the practice of arbitrary execution and deployment of unpublished discriminatory categorisations for different customers, and the idiosyncratic way these regulations are enforced by Netflix CSRs. This turns an underhanded practice into an unfair practice.
your choice of adverb is fundamentally incorrect
My choice of words was fundamentally deliberate, thanks very much. If you advertise a service as "unlimitged" then it should be so. Any caveats or restrictions should be announced clearly and categorically. Netflix's built-in mode of silent discrimination is not not announced and, as such, is therefore discriminatory and practised haphazardly. I know this because, if you whine to the CSRs, they can enter a code, bump you on the list, and your movies arrive post-haste. This kind of arbitrariness is just bad business, and bad ethics.
Is the service still available for people who, for instance, buy old boxes on ebay?
Well, you can buy new boxes if you like. But yes, people do buy the older boxes (RTV5040 models) because they feature the auto commercial skip and show sharing without any hacking required...
No ReplayTV info is complete without mentioning DVArchive, Poopli (like Napster for RTVs), and PlanetReplay.
Of course, no /. discussion of Netflix could be complete without revisiting how Netflix discriminates against regular users by retarding delivery of their discs in favour of immediate availability for new members...
the anti-cable, letting us download, store, organize, and serve media from both cable and -- this is the important part -- the internet.
ReplayTV tried this a few years ago. Automatic commercial skip, sharing shows without DRM over the internet. *Massive* online database of shows stored on other ReplayTV owners' hard drives - nearest damn thing to VOD I've seen working!
All it got them was sued to death and a 3% marketshare versus the industry cum-sucking yes men at Tivo.
I thought Replay was out of business. Am I wrong?
SonicBlue did go bust and sold off its assets. ReplayTV has been part of the company that does Denon and Marantz, among others, for a few years now. The ReplayTV functionality has been rolled into their high-end, $4000+ audiophile media servers. And for them that's the low-end. So yeah, I don't know if ReplayTV the low-end consumer brand will survive or grow, but the technology itself seems to becoming integrated into their home entertainment suite.
ReplayTV is probably not going to survive either
ReplayTV has been part of the company that does Denon and Marantz, among others. The ReplayTV functionality has been rolled into their high-end, $4000+ audiophile media servers. And for them that's the low-end. So yeah, I don't know if ReplayTV the low-end consumer brand will survive or grow, but the technology itself seems to becoming integrated into their home entertainment suite.
So was this a violation?
I see no mention of iTMS files there. Looks like regular mp3s to me. And as for the legality, why not call up the RIAA and ask their opinion:
1.888.BAD.BEAT
I don't see any reports about ABC/NBC/CBS busting up those underground videotape-sharing networks.
The only thing worse than silly laws applied systematically is silly laws applied discriminately. Maybe you're too yough to remember the 1980s, but when VCRs were new, there were quite a few legal contretemps regarding their use and purview. If giving your relatives dodgy 128Kbps AAC files transcoded into CDDA or MP3 is fine by you, then why not point them towards Soulseek or BitTorrent where they could get higher-quality rips of the music and enjoy the same legal status.
it's always amazing to me how otherwise independently minded geeks can fall over themselves to love Apple's velvet fist.
part of the DRM is that you can share the file with 3 people - so its not just your personal use. I can buy a song from iTMS and give it to 3 friends, no prob. It works, Apple allows it, They can then Burn it and do with it as they please. It is thiers.
Your faith-based belief in your right of disposal of the license does not reflect the your actual rights specifically and categorically enumerated by Apple in the ToS. You are licensed the track for personal use. You can distribute the playback source across several personal devices. You are allowed to *stream* said source file to other LAN-connected machines as long as no permanent copy is made.
you can, in fact, sell music you have bought from the iTMS, its been done. It was insanely complicated to do (especially considering it was only one song) but it was done via ebay
I'm aware of the exception that was made in this case by Apple, probably to avoid bad publicity for their velvet fist so early. Why don't you go ahead and try to sell a whole bundle of iTMS files. Acdvertise a "loaded" iPod. See how far you get. Think about it rationally: why would Apple *ever* alloow a secondary market in iTMS licenses to develop where it does not get a piece of the action. Apple itself could enable a secondary market (much like Amazon's used property section) on iTMS itself but then the RIAA would go ballistic. Consider that the RIAA has consistently sued large used CD resale chains over the past 20 years because its cut from used sales is insignificant or zero.
No, you can't share it, much as you would wish otherwise. The license for each track is for *personal* use. So unless you live in a jurisdiction with community property laws, and you are married to that person or their are your dependent (and even then you're on shaky ground!), then depositing a copy of that track on a non-personal machione, ie a friend's machine, is a violation of the license and grounds for Apple to cancel your access to the track or all tracks. You buy a single-use, personal license from Apple. Not a license to run a small-scale lending library or group-buying scheme.
From the
I never questioned the legality of the service operating with Russia but rather the legality of its use by non-residents of Russia.
Specifically, the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) guarantees the right of all citizens of all WTO-member countries. The Russian Federation's WTO status compliance almost complete. That will cement the rights of allofmp3.com to provide their service throughout all WTO member countries. Specifically, "intellectual property laws may not offer any benefits to local citizens which are not available to citizens of other TRIPs signatories". Therefore, local companies may not discriminate against non-nationals by refusing to provide services or implementing discriminatory pricing.
can't you put it on your friend's computer, then take it off of yours, effectively transferring all rights to that song to the friend?
Listen to what you are saying, You are not talking about the disposition of owned property, you are talking about temporarily sub-licensing people from your license.
Are you a Russian citizen or a resident of Russia? No? Then the licensing of the Russian Multimedia and Internet Society does not apply to you as a foreign national.
Really? So you are saying I am not allowed to buy CDs from Europe or Asia? You are saying that if I license a track from a download site in, say, Ireland, and load it onto my iPod, and then transport the iPod to the US, that that constitutes copyright infringement?
does not absolve you of legal responsibility or possible prosecution any more than paying for Kazza would.
Kazaa has not managed to get licensed by any nationally recognised IP cartel. allofmp3.com has. That's the key difference. The WTO guarantees my right to transport goods and services between member countries providing they are legally originated in the source country, not proscribed in the destination country, and that any legal tariffs have been paid or legally established regulated goods quotas have not been exceeded. The US has not yet seen fit to levy tariffs or quanntity limits on mp3 imports to the US, and given the US's current antipathy to similar restrictive IP license schemes within France, that possibility seems remote.
Hopefully, the copyright laws of Russia will change soon causing "services" like this one to shutdown.
I see. So your idea of an IP license scheme is one where sovereign nations are not allowed to run their own affairs, but instead you act as final arbiter of what is legal and not legal for them. There's a word for that, and it's Imperialism.