Why potentially cripple all of the television appliances just to allow a minority of people to watch movies a few days earlier? Once such a remote disable ability exists, it will be used and abused.
.
The bottom line is that Apple doesn't support FLAC. Apple is using iTunes and the digital media infrastructure of OS-X, iPod, AppleTv, etc., to LOCK IN users to Apple formats.
If Apple were interested in supporting formats that are used by third parties (e.g. FLAC being used by musicians for downloads of their music), Apple would fully support FLAC in their digital audio infrastructure. Apple does not support FLAC, indeed, Apple only marginally supports high-resolution audio (iPods cannot play 96/24 audio).
The Apple digital media infrastructure is looking more and more like a means to LOCK IN users to the iTunes store, and less and less like a means for users to enjoy music from non-Apple sources.
How do you get "locked into" a lossless format without DRM?
.
By the trouble it takes to do the conversion of tens of thousands of files to another format. Why not just find a more open format in the first place? I was waiting for Snow Leopard and the new iTunes to see if Apple was more interested in an open format such as FLAC. They are not. Instead they are using their own proprietary file format. So I'll be moving on.
.
I doubt if I will be waiting. I refuse to get locked into Apple's lossless format that is very poorly supported anywhere that does not include "Apple" in the name.
Ahhh... but Microsoft has always whined about competitors using the courts, instead of the marketplace, to compete. So now, when the competition is getting tough, Microsoft goes crying to Washington D.C. for legislative help. It is sad, really.
It is a shame that Microsoft feels it is unable to compete in the marketplace, and now must walk the shadowy halls and back rooms of Washington DC in order to stay relevant.
pester Microsoft for an upgrade of the license data or at least for a credible, detailed reasoning of its policy for licensing your use of your computer's memory.
.
Why should I have to beg Microsoft to be allowed to use my own computer hardware?
.
Comcast needs to be broken up into three separate companies:
cable infrastructure
content provider
ISP service
All the cable companies need to be broken up into those three separate and independent companies. Otherwise this type of garbage will continue to happen to the detriment of the cable subscribers.
As engineers, we want people to upgrade to the latest version. We make it as easy as possible for them to upgrade.
.
Quite to the contrary. Microsoft makes it very difficult for users to upgrade to the latest version. FireFox and Opera both still support the current versions of their browsers on Windows 2000. Yet Microsoft had dropped Windows 2000 from their list of OS's supported by their newer browsers long ago, even when Windows 2000 was supported by Microsoft.
Have you ever wondered why all the other browser developers can support Windows 2000 while Microsoft is completely unable to? I mean, if the Microsoft engineers say they want to make it easy for people to upgrade, then I'm sure there must be some fundamental technical issue with IE that stymies the engineers, and prevents them from doing what they say they want to do. What is the problem that prevents Microsoft from bringing newer versions of IE to Windows 2000?
Slashdot Mirror
I use Privoxy. I was thinking more about the poor souls who are still subject to ads.
If google really wants to speed up the browsing experience, they would work on speeding up the slow ad servers.....
Yes. The only people who have a different opinion tend to be the employers who are exploiting the people on call, making them work unpaid overtime.
.
Why does Microsoft think the rest of the software world will remain stationary while Microsoft lumbers forwards at its own bloated pace.
The ISP will love the excess bandwidth usage charges.....
Why potentially cripple all of the television appliances just to allow a minority of people to watch movies a few days earlier? Once such a remote disable ability exists, it will be used and abused.
What did you expect Microsoft to say? Did you really expect them to officially acknowledge that Windows 7 is an OS-X rip-off?
.
Oh well, so goes it with parts of the Linux culture.
... I am surprised that Ars Technica fell for being Microsoft's tool.
.
The bottom line is that Apple doesn't support FLAC. Apple is using iTunes and the digital media infrastructure of OS-X, iPod, AppleTv, etc., to LOCK IN users to Apple formats.
If Apple were interested in supporting formats that are used by third parties (e.g. FLAC being used by musicians for downloads of their music), Apple would fully support FLAC in their digital audio infrastructure. Apple does not support FLAC, indeed, Apple only marginally supports high-resolution audio (iPods cannot play 96/24 audio).
The Apple digital media infrastructure is looking more and more like a means to LOCK IN users to the iTunes store, and less and less like a means for users to enjoy music from non-Apple sources.
.
By the trouble it takes to do the conversion of tens of thousands of files to another format. Why not just find a more open format in the first place? I was waiting for Snow Leopard and the new iTunes to see if Apple was more interested in an open format such as FLAC. They are not. Instead they are using their own proprietary file format. So I'll be moving on.
.
I doubt if I will be waiting. I refuse to get locked into Apple's lossless format that is very poorly supported anywhere that does not include "Apple" in the name.
Has Apple finally put FLAC capability into the iTunes infrastructure?
Ahhh... but Microsoft has always whined about competitors using the courts, instead of the marketplace, to compete. So now, when the competition is getting tough, Microsoft goes crying to Washington D.C. for legislative help. It is sad, really.
Microsoft, not the OEMs, should bear the cost of the re-imaging.
It is a shame that Microsoft feels it is unable to compete in the marketplace, and now must walk the shadowy halls and back rooms of Washington DC in order to stay relevant.
Suggestions are welcome.
.
Why should I have to beg Microsoft to be allowed to use my own computer hardware?
.
Has Wikipedia's success killed it? We report, you decide......
.
Comcast needs to be broken up into three separate companies:
All the cable companies need to be broken up into those three separate and independent companies. Otherwise this type of garbage will continue to happen to the detriment of the cable subscribers.
... do the data centers need to be located in Silicon Valley? I thought this thing called The Internet negated the need for geographical co-location.
.
Quite to the contrary. Microsoft makes it very difficult for users to upgrade to the latest version. FireFox and Opera both still support the current versions of their browsers on Windows 2000. Yet Microsoft had dropped Windows 2000 from their list of OS's supported by their newer browsers long ago, even when Windows 2000 was supported by Microsoft.
Have you ever wondered why all the other browser developers can support Windows 2000 while Microsoft is completely unable to? I mean, if the Microsoft engineers say they want to make it easy for people to upgrade, then I'm sure there must be some fundamental technical issue with IE that stymies the engineers, and prevents them from doing what they say they want to do. What is the problem that prevents Microsoft from bringing newer versions of IE to Windows 2000?
Facebook applications are one big, festering security breach.
What exactly does this mean? A rate is usually a comparison of two values. What two values were compared to get 0.3?
As usual, Microsoft provides a grass-rooted explanation that makes Microsoft look completely innocent.