My point is Meng Wong says we all need to start using whitelists and this solution is simply not practical. To get an email you have to know what address it will be coming from beforehand, and businesses don't tell you this, and they want to use a differnt address for every situation making the whitelist maintainence a hassle.
Yes, the phishers will all start to spoof the One True Address of the business, but if I'm using a whitelist then I'll only recieve those spoof emails on the account the business normally communicates with, assuming the phisher has the same address. I used to get Paypal phishing emails on my Yahoo acct, but I knew they were phishing emails because I don't have my yahoo account registered with Paypal, I have one of my.Mac mail aliases registered with them. With a whitelist set up for each account, I wouldn't even see those emails because Paypal wouldn't be on the Yahoo whitelist, reducing the amount of spam/phishing email I have to paw through.
The problem with the whitelist solution isn't just that banks and businesses use email to communicate, it's that they don't tell their customers what email address they use to send mail, and most use many. Take eBay for example. I get emails from outbidnotice@ebay, member@ebay, status@ebay, ect. and there's no reason to. Why can't all the emails just come from user-alert@ebay or some other such address and let the subject lines tell me what the email is regarding alone. I can still filter just as effectively. And don't get me started on Sony and their multiple mail servers.
If companies/banks had one email address and made it easy to find out, customers could add it to their whitelist for the email account they give the business. This would stop phishing schemes that use a spoofed address if the email goes to the wrong acct. "Did I give BankofAmerica my Yahoo address, or my Hotmail?". But when a company uses a different email address for every concievable type of email they send out, it's harder for a customer to tell if something (even with proper SPF records, ect) from administrator@yourisp.com asking you to verify your account details is real or not.
Microsoft continues push for 'InfoCards'. FrankieBoy writes "Bill Gate kicked off the RSA computer conference in San Jose, CA by unveiling a few more details about their new 'InfoCard' system in the upcoming IE7. With InfoCards people could save personal information on virtual cards on their computers which websites would recognize removing the need for many different internet passwords."
Wow! What a novel idea! It's like I'll have my own personal Passport for the internet letting all companies know who I am by referncing a single server controlled by a third party.
Tell me more about what other "new" ideas Microsoft has come up with recently.
You mean the English literature classes aren't teaching proper usage of the copyright law? You would think that's a given considering that some students will take a book report from the internet and present it as their own.
They don't teach about copyright law itself. They may mention copying someone else's work is a violation of copyright law, but generally the focus of English lit classes is that copying is plagarism and not doing your required work for the class. They aren't fighting kids taking someone's book report that was posted online for human interest and passing it off as their own, they're fighting the kids that go online and buy term papers online from websites selling them with every intention the kid turn it in as their own.
They also don't talk about P2P networks either, obviously. This is nothing more than the MPAA trying to mandate badmouthing filesharing as part of public school ciriccula.
Firefox 1.5 implements a Back-Forward cache that retains the rendered document for the last five session history entries for each tab. This is a lot of data. If you have a lot of tabs, Firefox's memory usage can climb dramatically. It's a trade-off. What you get out of it is faster performance as you navigate the web.
The only problem is there were bugs filed for memory leaks long before Firefox 1.5 and the Back-Forward cache were implemented. Maybe this feature does contribute to Firefox's large memory footprint, but to say that this feature is the only reason and that there are no leaks is simply false.
This should be interesting. Yes, right-wing conservatives, the Chinese say they're JUST LIKE YOU. Now what will you do?
1) Continue to side with your Chinese business interests and turn the other cheek to their remarks (and their human rights violations).
2) Continue to try and abolish pornography on the internet, despite it's leagality when view by people of the right age, while simultaneously saying you're nothing like them, but not claiming they are really doing anything wrong (see previous answer).
3) Say your fight against pornography is nothing like their human rights atrocities and disinformation network (while on your FoxNews interview).
There is no law here, no one is going to be FORCED to buy an Intel.
Except the people who use Skype and need to make a very large conference call. It's not like they need to make the call and AMD just doesn't have the hardware that can handle it, it's an artifical limitation, and doesn't sound entirely legit. An X86 compatable PC is supposed to be an X86 compatable PC. What's next? You cannot make a 10 person call because you're not using all Dell workstations? Your browser only works if you use a laser mouse?
Tell me, how's even DVD Jon supposed to circumvent encryption that's embedded in the hardware?
The same way people got around locked clock multipliers or front side bus speed restrictions: some enterprising company in China will see a market of a product that allows x modification (but not out-of-the-box, some work on the purchaser's part will be required). Sell said part, homebrew comminutity will perform said action and get around restriction.
For example, only certain equipment is allowed to play HDCP content. Manufacturer makes motherboard that has everything needed to support HDCP, except it also includes port to output unencrypted content, and it has no valid licence to play HDCP, this would make it worthless to people who use it right out of the box. But, wait! Identifier chip where HDCP license is usually stored on motherboard is flashable ROM! And, what ho, someone figures out how to clone a license from an OEM board that is properly approved to display content. License is flashed to our Chinese motherboard, HDCP content now believes it is playing on Dell HD-MCE edition and shows in glorious full res, but is output unencrypted. The End.
HDCP license board cannot revoke license of device, otherwise people who bought the Real McCoy will be P.O.ed in a "call the lawyers" sense when they can no longer play HDCP content.
Chinese company says "We're in China, take your DMCA and stuff it." or "We don't allow this functionality in our product, you need to sue American consumer who cloned the license of real HDCP device, they're the one haxx0ring our motherboard!"
If this is true than this generation should prove to be more mentally healthy than previous generations into old age. Video games didn't exist for the Boomer's childhood and didn't hit mainstream till adolecence for Gen X. But Gen Y and later have had the availabilty of this sort of therapy since they were old enough to hold a joystick. This increased time should (in my theory at least) mean greater mental ability into old age than the pervious two generations.
I wonder if the type of game or level of difficulty have any effect either. I find today's games are a lot more complex than when I was young. Yet you still see young people able to master them. Perhaps this will enhance the effect due to the additional hand-eye coordination and problem solving skills needed to navigate in a modern first person shooter (where vertical/rotational perspective has to be tracked independently of actual character movement) vs. the simple side scrollers we started on (like Super Mario Bros).
Like the idea long ago that 65 years was very old age one would be lucky to make it to, perhaps someday the idea of the mentally feeble old man will be tossed as people stay sharp in mind far into their twilight years.
And anyone who requires access to the datacenter to do their job, such as operators and sysadmins, cannot DO their job unless they get the implant. And if they cannot do the job, how are they expected to maintain employment?
Obviously they would offer them a transfer to another department that doesn't require such sensitive access rights, and a pay cut to go with the "lower" position (regardless of the actual change in workload/expertise needed at the new position).
oh, and they also get a big red sad face on their permanent record instead of a gold star.
This should be a cautionary tale about deploying beta products in production environments.
Some things to think about about with this statement...
1) Remember that Microsoft bought someone else's product here. This isn't really a we-just-finished-coding-it beta, it's a we-haven't-worked-all-the-bugs-out-of-all-the-"enh ancements"-we-made and a we-haven't-decided-if-we're-going-to-charge-for-it yet beta.
2) The real problem here is lack of quality control on writing definition updates. There is nothing wrong with MS Antispyware itself. It's just some dingbat wrote an update for what's malware that was a little too broad, or didn't have a exception for a leading AV program. This can happen with any program that attempts to define what "malware" is.
3) Beta products will be used when no other alternative exists that the suits like. The idea software is "beta" doesn't really register to them. They see Microsoft released something, and assumed it's a tool they can and should use because a) It's Microsoft, and they wrote Windows, so they are the recognized experts. and b) If it was dangerous to use on our systems, it wouldn't be available for just anyone to download.
That's interesting, I bought my first DVD player (a Sony) around when the PS2 was released and I spent $250, and it was the most expensive one at the store.
When I had problems with it and had to replace it a few years later, I bought a PS2 but returned it the next day, the fan was too loud for me to enjoy movies with it.
Since the entire screen is the control(s), I don't see how you could possibly use this iPod inside of a protective case.
1) You obviously haven't been looking at the current lineup of 3rd party iPod cases, many cover the clickwheel (which is a touch sensitive material as well) and you can still control the iPod even with this covered, when the 3G iPod's came out with the too-sensitive clickwheel, these cases actually made the iPod more usable as they kept casual brushing with pocket linings and such from activating the clickwheel.
2) A case does not have to allow access to controls to still be a usable case to people. The slipcase that comes with the Nano does not allow you to access the clickwheel without taking it out.
2) If the screen is being covered up by the case, you can't do much video watching can you?;-) So who cares if the controls are disabled.
I think you're taking "fix" a little too literally. One good fix would be to toss out the new stuff in Vista, leave the secure stuff, and stive for good backwardwards compatiblity. (In fact, I hear they're striving for this already). Then GIVE THE OPERATING SYSTEM AWAY to all licensed windows customers. Admit they fucked up their design decisions along the way and do something helpful for their customers.
What you're describing is WinXP SP3, and Microsoft isn't going to do that because they want something they can sell for $200.
I think part of the problem here is backwards compatability means not securing stuff. Part of making things backwards compatable is letting programs use admin access whether they need it or not, having applications install dll files rather than handling all their functionality in their own executables, RPC usage, ect.
I think the solution is for Vista to be rewritten from the ground up with more security in mind, create a separate, sandboxed environment for apps to run in that do not conform to the new policies, maybe even with degraded experience (lower priority for CPU usage, no access no new Vista features, ect). Customers not happy at their apps running this way will pressure the developers to update to the new standards. Eventually (like two or three major Windows releases later, depending on how often they release) you drop the sandbox and it becomes update or die for apps.
Some common arguements to this are:
"People just won't upgrade if it will effect their apps like that"
Yeah they will. If they don't pay for the upgrade for their current machines they will get it when they buy their next PC. If they want to watch HDTV from their cable company or HD-DVD or BluRay DVD's in full resolution they will, if they want to keep getting the newest software for their PC they will becuase developers will eventually stop releasing for for pre-Vista systems.
"This will never work"
Apple just started a transition like this for the third time. Yeah, you lose some users and you lose some developers, but in the end you attract new users and new developers becuase you platform is better than before.
"It only worked for Apple because they own the OS and the hardware business, they could easily mandate that all new machines use the OS"
If Microsoft makes an operating system release worth upgrading to for the average consumer (in other words, stops stripping any feature worth paying for from it) consumers will want the new OS despite slightly lesser performance on some of their apps. The marketplace will decide. Also, it's not like Micorsoft has to continue to sell OEM licenses for XP. Maybe they can use their monopoly for some good for once and force better security on the industry.
We HAD to run all those ads!
on
Vonage IPO
·
· Score: 1
While our revenues have grown rapidly, we have experienced increasing net losses, primarily driven by our increase in marketing expenses.
Don't you love how they phrased that like it's an expendeture they have no control over? I mean, hello? You look at you checkbook balance and realize you're getting towards 0 you STOP SPENDING MONEY.
The nail in the coffin that had him steaming mad was that the iTunes store, being fully aware of the fact that you paid for your music already, wouldn't let you download your songs again without paying again. If you're logged in, why not let you re-download something you already bought? Does Apple really think their software and hardware is so perfect as to never lose data?
No, but the idea your computer (Mac, Wintel, or Linux) may someday lose data is not something new. You client sounds like one of those morons I talk to who's Outlook Express corrupts and they expect me to be able to recover all the email and contacts they lost from some magic backup of the POP server. I imagine one reason Apple doesn't let you redownload the song is it gets counted as a second copy (for DRM purposes) on your machine and there's some clause in the RIAA agreement that says they can't you have open redownloads of songs. Whenever there is a problem with what happens DRM-wise or anything involving the iTMS, people always seem to blame Apple like they are solely responsible for every aspect of the experience and have the power to change anything they wish.
It's still bullshit that he had to pay twice for the same songs, but in an Apple world, that's how things work.
I'll remember that next time I pay for a CD of something I previously bought on tape, or buy a CD to replace one I lost/broke through some stupidity. Yup, having to buy that music over again is entirely Apple's fault...
gives the particles an oxidizing quality stronger than any commercial bleach
So I guess no more walking barefoot in the bathroom anymore, given that prolonged contact with skin is something you're not supposed to do with bleach, and this stuff is worse.
The songs I've bought from iTunes tell me that I can transfer them to a total of x number of other computers. (Is it 5? I don't remember. Lets just say it is 5.) Well, if I get a new computer every 2 years, that means in 12 years from buying a song, I can't use it on my new computer any more. That's kind of bullshit.
You're an idiot.
There's no limit on the number of times you can transfer a song. The rule is you can't have more than 5 computers authorized to play the song at any one time. So unless you plan on keeping all 6 of those computers and expect to be able to play your iTMS purchases on all six ou wont have any problems. You simply deauthorize your old PC when you get your new one. And to answer your next question (since I can tell you haven't really bothered to read the user agreement) you can deauthorize a computer even if you don't have access to it any more (like it got burned up in a fire, the HD failed, ect). So even if you forget to deauthorize your first five PC's when you get the sixth, you can access your account information from iTunes and in one click deauthorize the other machines and get those five slots back (this feature can be used once per year). Or you can send an email to Apple and they will deauthorize them for you.
Every video game maker says this when they bring up a new console. People wonder if their previous generation system is now obsolete and the company says "Oh no! Well keep making games for this system for awhile."
What they usually do then is change their marketting and protray the older system as targetted for younger players (whose parents can't justify the cost of 'teh new hotness' for such a young child). The result is the majority of the new titles that continue to come out are kids games. This leaves older owners with nothing new to play unless they buy the new console.
Slashdot Mirror
and also incorporate Microsoft Office Communicator, a corporate instant messaging service
Scotty! Beam up my TPS Reports!
They are truly defenders of truth, justice, and the Ameri...
Oh, wait. we might have to revise this.
My point is Meng Wong says we all need to start using whitelists and this solution is simply not practical. To get an email you have to know what address it will be coming from beforehand, and businesses don't tell you this, and they want to use a differnt address for every situation making the whitelist maintainence a hassle.
.Mac mail aliases registered with them. With a whitelist set up for each account, I wouldn't even see those emails because Paypal wouldn't be on the Yahoo whitelist, reducing the amount of spam/phishing email I have to paw through.
Yes, the phishers will all start to spoof the One True Address of the business, but if I'm using a whitelist then I'll only recieve those spoof emails on the account the business normally communicates with, assuming the phisher has the same address. I used to get Paypal phishing emails on my Yahoo acct, but I knew they were phishing emails because I don't have my yahoo account registered with Paypal, I have one of my
If I might expand on that thought...
The problem with the whitelist solution isn't just that banks and businesses use email to communicate, it's that they don't tell their customers what email address they use to send mail, and most use many. Take eBay for example. I get emails from outbidnotice@ebay, member@ebay, status@ebay, ect. and there's no reason to. Why can't all the emails just come from user-alert@ebay or some other such address and let the subject lines tell me what the email is regarding alone. I can still filter just as effectively. And don't get me started on Sony and their multiple mail servers.
If companies/banks had one email address and made it easy to find out, customers could add it to their whitelist for the email account they give the business. This would stop phishing schemes that use a spoofed address if the email goes to the wrong acct. "Did I give BankofAmerica my Yahoo address, or my Hotmail?". But when a company uses a different email address for every concievable type of email they send out, it's harder for a customer to tell if something (even with proper SPF records, ect) from administrator@yourisp.com asking you to verify your account details is real or not.
Microsoft continues push for 'InfoCards'. FrankieBoy writes "Bill Gate kicked off the RSA computer conference in San Jose, CA by unveiling a few more details about their new 'InfoCard' system in the upcoming IE7. With InfoCards people could save personal information on virtual cards on their computers which websites would recognize removing the need for many different internet passwords."
Wow! What a novel idea! It's like I'll have my own personal Passport for the internet letting all companies know who I am by referncing a single server controlled by a third party.
Tell me more about what other "new" ideas Microsoft has come up with recently.
You mean the English literature classes aren't teaching proper usage of the copyright law? You would think that's a given considering that some students will take a book report from the internet and present it as their own.
They don't teach about copyright law itself. They may mention copying someone else's work is a violation of copyright law, but generally the focus of English lit classes is that copying is plagarism and not doing your required work for the class. They aren't fighting kids taking someone's book report that was posted online for human interest and passing it off as their own, they're fighting the kids that go online and buy term papers online from websites selling them with every intention the kid turn it in as their own.
They also don't talk about P2P networks either, obviously. This is nothing more than the MPAA trying to mandate badmouthing filesharing as part of public school ciriccula.
Firefox 1.5 implements a Back-Forward cache that retains the rendered document for the last five session history entries for each tab. This is a lot of data. If you have a lot of tabs, Firefox's memory usage can climb dramatically. It's a trade-off. What you get out of it is faster performance as you navigate the web.
The only problem is there were bugs filed for memory leaks long before Firefox 1.5 and the Back-Forward cache were implemented. Maybe this feature does contribute to Firefox's large memory footprint, but to say that this feature is the only reason and that there are no leaks is simply false.
This should be interesting. Yes, right-wing conservatives, the Chinese say they're JUST LIKE YOU. Now what will you do?
1) Continue to side with your Chinese business interests and turn the other cheek to their remarks (and their human rights violations).
2) Continue to try and abolish pornography on the internet, despite it's leagality when view by people of the right age, while simultaneously saying you're nothing like them, but not claiming they are really doing anything wrong (see previous answer).
3) Say your fight against pornography is nothing like their human rights atrocities and disinformation network (while on your FoxNews interview).
The two models now sport 1.83 GHz and 2.0 GHz Core Duos (up from 1.67 GHz and 1.83 GHz). A 2.16 GHz upgrade is also available.
Damn, I was hoping the upgarde was dual-layer Superdrives. I think more people would have appreciated that upgrade than a measly 120Mhz.
As far as the slimness of the Macbook requiring a single layer drive... Huh? The Powerbook was the same thickness and it had a dual layer superdrive.
There is no law here, no one is going to be FORCED to buy an Intel.
Except the people who use Skype and need to make a very large conference call. It's not like they need to make the call and AMD just doesn't have the hardware that can handle it, it's an artifical limitation, and doesn't sound entirely legit. An X86 compatable PC is supposed to be an X86 compatable PC. What's next? You cannot make a 10 person call because you're not using all Dell workstations? Your browser only works if you use a laser mouse?
I for one welcome our new invertebrate overlords, and their psychicly controlled killing robots which will help them enslave the human race.
Tell me, how's even DVD Jon supposed to circumvent encryption that's embedded in the hardware?
The same way people got around locked clock multipliers or front side bus speed restrictions: some enterprising company in China will see a market of a product that allows x modification (but not out-of-the-box, some work on the purchaser's part will be required). Sell said part, homebrew comminutity will perform said action and get around restriction.
For example, only certain equipment is allowed to play HDCP content. Manufacturer makes motherboard that has everything needed to support HDCP, except it also includes port to output unencrypted content, and it has no valid licence to play HDCP, this would make it worthless to people who use it right out of the box. But, wait! Identifier chip where HDCP license is usually stored on motherboard is flashable ROM! And, what ho, someone figures out how to clone a license from an OEM board that is properly approved to display content. License is flashed to our Chinese motherboard, HDCP content now believes it is playing on Dell HD-MCE edition and shows in glorious full res, but is output unencrypted. The End.
HDCP license board cannot revoke license of device, otherwise people who bought the Real McCoy will be P.O.ed in a "call the lawyers" sense when they can no longer play HDCP content.
Chinese company says "We're in China, take your DMCA and stuff it." or "We don't allow this functionality in our product, you need to sue American consumer who cloned the license of real HDCP device, they're the one haxx0ring our motherboard!"
If this is true than this generation should prove to be more mentally healthy than previous generations into old age. Video games didn't exist for the Boomer's childhood and didn't hit mainstream till adolecence for Gen X. But Gen Y and later have had the availabilty of this sort of therapy since they were old enough to hold a joystick. This increased time should (in my theory at least) mean greater mental ability into old age than the pervious two generations.
I wonder if the type of game or level of difficulty have any effect either. I find today's games are a lot more complex than when I was young. Yet you still see young people able to master them. Perhaps this will enhance the effect due to the additional hand-eye coordination and problem solving skills needed to navigate in a modern first person shooter (where vertical/rotational perspective has to be tracked independently of actual character movement) vs. the simple side scrollers we started on (like Super Mario Bros).
Like the idea long ago that 65 years was very old age one would be lucky to make it to, perhaps someday the idea of the mentally feeble old man will be tossed as people stay sharp in mind far into their twilight years.
And anyone who requires access to the datacenter to do their job, such as operators and sysadmins, cannot DO their job unless they get the implant. And if they cannot do the job, how are they expected to maintain employment?
Obviously they would offer them a transfer to another department that doesn't require such sensitive access rights, and a pay cut to go with the "lower" position (regardless of the actual change in workload/expertise needed at the new position).
oh, and they also get a big red sad face on their permanent record instead of a gold star.
This should be a cautionary tale about deploying beta products in production environments.
h ancements"-we-made and a we-haven't-decided-if-we're-going-to-charge-for-it yet beta.
Some things to think about about with this statement...
1) Remember that Microsoft bought someone else's product here. This isn't really a we-just-finished-coding-it beta, it's a we-haven't-worked-all-the-bugs-out-of-all-the-"en
2) The real problem here is lack of quality control on writing definition updates. There is nothing wrong with MS Antispyware itself. It's just some dingbat wrote an update for what's malware that was a little too broad, or didn't have a exception for a leading AV program. This can happen with any program that attempts to define what "malware" is.
3) Beta products will be used when no other alternative exists that the suits like. The idea software is "beta" doesn't really register to them. They see Microsoft released something, and assumed it's a tool they can and should use because a) It's Microsoft, and they wrote Windows, so they are the recognized experts. and b) If it was dangerous to use on our systems, it wouldn't be available for just anyone to download.
4) Why use that logic when we can bash MS again.
Yes why not switch to a fringe system that can't run any of your current software...
Oh, come now. We all know nobody wants to run all those viruses and spyware.
besides, it's less fringe than Linux, and people here are always barking about how folks should switch to Ubuntu. [ducking]
That's interesting, I bought my first DVD player (a Sony) around when the PS2 was released and I spent $250, and it was the most expensive one at the store.
When I had problems with it and had to replace it a few years later, I bought a PS2 but returned it the next day, the fan was too loud for me to enjoy movies with it.
Since the entire screen is the control(s), I don't see how you could possibly use this iPod inside of a protective case.
;-) So who cares if the controls are disabled.
1) You obviously haven't been looking at the current lineup of 3rd party iPod cases, many cover the clickwheel (which is a touch sensitive material as well) and you can still control the iPod even with this covered, when the 3G iPod's came out with the too-sensitive clickwheel, these cases actually made the iPod more usable as they kept casual brushing with pocket linings and such from activating the clickwheel.
2) A case does not have to allow access to controls to still be a usable case to people. The slipcase that comes with the Nano does not allow you to access the clickwheel without taking it out.
2) If the screen is being covered up by the case, you can't do much video watching can you?
I think you're taking "fix" a little too literally. One good fix would be to toss out the new stuff in Vista, leave the secure stuff, and stive for good backwardwards compatiblity. (In fact, I hear they're striving for this already). Then GIVE THE OPERATING SYSTEM AWAY to all licensed windows customers. Admit they fucked up their design decisions along the way and do something helpful for their customers.
What you're describing is WinXP SP3, and Microsoft isn't going to do that because they want something they can sell for $200.
I think part of the problem here is backwards compatability means not securing stuff. Part of making things backwards compatable is letting programs use admin access whether they need it or not, having applications install dll files rather than handling all their functionality in their own executables, RPC usage, ect.
I think the solution is for Vista to be rewritten from the ground up with more security in mind, create a separate, sandboxed environment for apps to run in that do not conform to the new policies, maybe even with degraded experience (lower priority for CPU usage, no access no new Vista features, ect). Customers not happy at their apps running this way will pressure the developers to update to the new standards. Eventually (like two or three major Windows releases later, depending on how often they release) you drop the sandbox and it becomes update or die for apps.
Some common arguements to this are:
"People just won't upgrade if it will effect their apps like that"
Yeah they will. If they don't pay for the upgrade for their current machines they will get it when they buy their next PC. If they want to watch HDTV from their cable company or HD-DVD or BluRay DVD's in full resolution they will, if they want to keep getting the newest software for their PC they will becuase developers will eventually stop releasing for for pre-Vista systems.
"This will never work"
Apple just started a transition like this for the third time. Yeah, you lose some users and you lose some developers, but in the end you attract new users and new developers becuase you platform is better than before.
"It only worked for Apple because they own the OS and the hardware business, they could easily mandate that all new machines use the OS"
If Microsoft makes an operating system release worth upgrading to for the average consumer (in other words, stops stripping any feature worth paying for from it) consumers will want the new OS despite slightly lesser performance on some of their apps. The marketplace will decide. Also, it's not like Micorsoft has to continue to sell OEM licenses for XP. Maybe they can use their monopoly for some good for once and force better security on the industry.
While our revenues have grown rapidly, we have experienced increasing net losses, primarily driven by our increase in marketing expenses.
Don't you love how they phrased that like it's an expendeture they have no control over? I mean, hello? You look at you checkbook balance and realize you're getting towards 0 you STOP SPENDING MONEY.
The nail in the coffin that had him steaming mad was that the iTunes store, being fully aware of the fact that you paid for your music already, wouldn't let you download your songs again without paying again. If you're logged in, why not let you re-download something you already bought? Does Apple really think their software and hardware is so perfect as to never lose data?
No, but the idea your computer (Mac, Wintel, or Linux) may someday lose data is not something new. You client sounds like one of those morons I talk to who's Outlook Express corrupts and they expect me to be able to recover all the email and contacts they lost from some magic backup of the POP server. I imagine one reason Apple doesn't let you redownload the song is it gets counted as a second copy (for DRM purposes) on your machine and there's some clause in the RIAA agreement that says they can't you have open redownloads of songs. Whenever there is a problem with what happens DRM-wise or anything involving the iTMS, people always seem to blame Apple like they are solely responsible for every aspect of the experience and have the power to change anything they wish.
It's still bullshit that he had to pay twice for the same songs, but in an Apple world, that's how things work.
I'll remember that next time I pay for a CD of something I previously bought on tape, or buy a CD to replace one I lost/broke through some stupidity. Yup, having to buy that music over again is entirely Apple's fault...
gives the particles an oxidizing quality stronger than any commercial bleach
So I guess no more walking barefoot in the bathroom anymore, given that prolonged contact with skin is something you're not supposed to do with bleach, and this stuff is worse.
So I guess you could say they're shedding some light on dark matter?
The songs I've bought from iTunes tell me that I can transfer them to a total of x number of other computers. (Is it 5? I don't remember. Lets just say it is 5.) Well, if I get a new computer every 2 years, that means in 12 years from buying a song, I can't use it on my new computer any more. That's kind of bullshit.
You're an idiot.
There's no limit on the number of times you can transfer a song. The rule is you can't have more than 5 computers authorized to play the song at any one time. So unless you plan on keeping all 6 of those computers and expect to be able to play your iTMS purchases on all six ou wont have any problems. You simply deauthorize your old PC when you get your new one. And to answer your next question (since I can tell you haven't really bothered to read the user agreement) you can deauthorize a computer even if you don't have access to it any more (like it got burned up in a fire, the HD failed, ect). So even if you forget to deauthorize your first five PC's when you get the sixth, you can access your account information from iTunes and in one click deauthorize the other machines and get those five slots back (this feature can be used once per year). Or you can send an email to Apple and they will deauthorize them for you.
Every video game maker says this when they bring up a new console. People wonder if their previous generation system is now obsolete and the company says "Oh no! Well keep making games for this system for awhile."
What they usually do then is change their marketting and protray the older system as targetted for younger players (whose parents can't justify the cost of 'teh new hotness' for such a young child). The result is the majority of the new titles that continue to come out are kids games. This leaves older owners with nothing new to play unless they buy the new console.