Forgive the newbiness, but how does one login on a Mac using an Active Directory account? Does this require 3rd party software? I looked into it a few months ago and gave up after a day or two.
Make sure your Mac is plugged into the network, then go to/Applications/Utilities/Directory Access.app. In the services tab, make sure "Active Directory" is checked/enabled. Then click on "Active Directory" so it's highlighted, and press "Configure". It will ask you for your domain settings. In addition, go down to the Advanced Options section. In most instances, you want "Create Mobile Account at Login" checkmarked/enabled, "Require confirmation..." disabled, "Force local home directory on startup disk" enabled, "Use UNC path from Active Directory..." disabled. If you find you need to add or disable one of these features in the future, you can modify them later. After this, press the "Bind" button, enter in your AD username and password for adding computer accounts into AD, and, your ready for AD login usage on your Mac.
Keep in mind I'm giving you instructions for Tiger/10.4.x, the settings are slightly different in Panther 10.3.x, and don't exist at all in earlier versions of Mac OS X.
In most cases a "golden triangle" is used where the Mac is bound to both Active Directory and Open Directory. The login credentials for users are managed in Active Directory, where as the managed preferences for the workstations are managed in Open Directory. It's a pretty common setup.
If you really need to blend in with your Active Directory environment, you can bypass workgroup manager altogether and go with ADmit Mac by Thursby Software. Though on the pricey side, it allows you to do much more from with AD than the standard features of OS X. The last time I checked, it even allowed you to apply certain types of group policies onto the managed Macs... very cool stuff.
Reading the analysis in the ZDNet Asia article, it's sounding more and more like Microsoft's OOXML was created for only two reasons. First, to quell the upsurge at the state government level the need for an "open document" format. Second, to force users into newer versions of Office that are compatible with the new "open standard". The standard Microsoft file formats (.doc,.xls,.ppt, etc) haven't major revisions in almost a decade. This allows users to continue using older versions of Office, rather then upgrade. Many of them have been reverse engineered for compatibility in non-Microsoft products. Remember, Microsoft has never profited with compatibility.
If what the article is actually true, then, Microsoft might have a tough road ahead in the international community. Microsoft wants to control the format so they can lock-in the user. You can bet that even if this version of OOXML is certified, that, some revision or change down the road in another version of Office will break compatibility. Add in a lack of complete documentation (despite the 6000 pages already completed), and you have a recipe for continued vendor lock-in.
I hope everyone sees through the Microsoft fog, and continues to develop the ODF format. If China decides to merge its format with ODF, its a step in the right direction.
Microsoft has realized that protecting consumers and selling high quality products are not ways they can make money any longer. Getting in bed with corporations and ad agencies and selling out the customer is looking to become much more profitable for them.
What really scares me is that for this to be successful, without some type of backlash from the user community, it would have to be forced on us. As in, forced so you could no longer install another operating system on your computer. Perhaps this is there for when they sue Linux out of oblivion, or at least try to. Otherwise, who would ever use another Microsoft product.
Then again, the data collected from such an endeavor would be so valuable, Microsoft could market computers for free with this software installed. Perhaps that the only other way this is successful.
So, somebody's business model is flawed... Been there, seen that. Yawn.
Why am I supposed to care, again?
If you don't care, why did you post a comment? Anyway, I'll bite on the troll fishing line here...
It's important because those who enjoy music are getting less and less of a choice. Whether its DRM, radio industry consolidation, or music industry consolidation, it seems that if we just want to listen to music and other content using the technologies that have been invented and developed, there is something or someone getting in the way.
It's not just a flawed business model. A lot of people do it as a hobby. A lot of webstreams are "microcasts" of programming that we can't get over the airwaves because there isn't a market for it, or because the commercial broadcasters don't care about it (or isn't profitable enough). It's also about the uncompetitive edge that over-the-air broadcasters have in not having to pay SoundExchange royalties for their broadcasts, yet webcasters having to pay them because the RIAA believes listening to web streams encourages piracy (because everyone rips streams off their computer and doesn't buy a CD instead).
Most of all, its because this was all pretty much free to do until a few years ago. Personally, I was grandfathered in on Live365, and had a free, unlimited streaming account because I beta tested for them when they first started up their streaming services. All "hobby" accounts were free for several years. It wasn't until the RIAA thought that they should be paid royalties for these songs did it become a problem, for both the hobbiest and for the for-profit broadcaster.
So that's why you should care. If you don't, well, don't antagonize the rest of us with your elitist bullshit attitude. Just move on to the next article.
Good point. I didn't realize it had been there for so long. But maybe third party manufacturers didn't feel confident until Apple's purchase of CUPS. With your information, maybe it won't make much of a difference. But here's to hoping it will...
By the way, here was what was sent out to NPR/CPB funded stations:
Dear Colleagues,
As you know, the music that public radio stations use on air and over the Internet typically requires licenses from the different copyright owners and payments of copyright fees.
Record labels are represented by the RIAA (The Recording Industry Association of America). RIAA in turn uses the non-profit SoundExchange to negotiate streaming rights with webcasters (including public radio stations). If parties are unable to reach an agreement through negotiation, an independent administrative tribunal called the Copyright Royalty Board ("CRB") has the power to mandate a rate that covers Internet streaming. As we advised you last year, the agreement that we had to cover public radio's web streaming expired at the end of 2004.
Since then, CPB and NPR have been in negotiations with SoundExchange for a license to stream. When we were unable to reach an agreement, the issue of our license fee was referred to the CRB. The CRB issued a decision that set a rate structure that we believe was very unfavorable to public radio and failed to account for the noncommercial, public service nature of our music streaming. We have appealed the CRB decision to the U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The appellate review will take a considerable amount of time, probably a year and half, perhaps more.
The CRB decision included a requirement that back fees be paid by July 15, 2007. We made a motion for a stay in the royalties fees but yesterday the U.S. Court of Appeals denied that motion. While we were disappointed in that decision, we were not surprised. There was a slim chance the stay would be approved but it was worth venturing.
Meanwhile, NPR and CPB continue to negotiate with SoundExchange in the hope of achieving a system-wide settlement that recognizes the special noncommercial, public service nature of public broadcasting. Thus far we have been unable to reach an agreement. Our next discussion is scheduled for this Friday.
Because of conflicting provisions in various statutes and regulations, there is some confusion about what payment is actually due on July 15th. CPB and NPR believe that only base fees for 2007 are required to be paid on July 15th. We believe that fees for 2005 and 2006 are not payable while our appeal is pending. To comply with this requirement, CPB will offer the Sound Exchange a payment tomorrow that we believe covers the base fees of public radio that are due for 2007. You should seek your own outside counsel if you have concerns about what fees are due on July 15th.
We believe that our payment to satisfy the July 15th obligation will signal to the SoundExchange our good faith and encourage them to consider compromises on the issues that separate us. However, it is possible that Sound Exchange disagrees with our view of what is owed on July 15th and seek payment for fees from 2006 and 2007. In addition, SoundExchange may also pursue additional fees from the few stations that we believe exceed the usage cap included in the base fee. As we have indicated previously, these fees are station obligations that CPB covered through the end of our previous agreement. CPB cannot yet guarantee payment of additional fees given that the size of these fees is yet unknown. If you have concerns about any of this, you should consult outside counsel or, if you are an NPR member, NPR for assistance. Please note that CPB cannot provide legal advice to other parties, including stations.
Thank you for your patience as we work through this complex and difficult situation. We will keep you informed to the extent that confidential negotiations permit. In the meantime, realizing that each station must reach its own conclusions, we believe that it is critical that the public radio system stand together at this time. NPR recommends that stations not enter into individual agreements with SoundExchange
This makes me believe that Congress is serious about (and the RIAA is reacting to) ratifying the Internet Radio Equality Act. Otherwise, there is no way SoundExchange would consider this change of heart. Perhaps they underestimated the amount of lobbying from actual constituents regarding the issue.
NPR and the CPB, though considered non-commercial broadcasters, were still required to pay the same fees as commercial webcasters. They decided co-operatively to only pay part of the fees due, until the whole matter was straightened out. In regards to this, a poster to the College Broadcaster's mailing list stated "...so cpb is paying for all of its stations base fees? a government funded corporation is paying the fee set by another government board and enforced by a government recognized distributor of said fees? I think the framers of the US had a different idea of the future in mind."... I couldn't have said it any better myself. I think everyone (even out-of-tech-loop representatives and senators) is figuring out the royalty scheme makes no sense, and needs to be fixed.
I don't think Apple will close this at all. What Apple is really after is allowing people to write closed-source printer drivers for MacOS X.
Mod parent up! As soon as I read the extra Apple provisions in the CUPS license, this is the first thing I thought of. I think many third party printer manufacturers have been reluctant to fully develop drivers on Mac OS X using the CUPS printing system due to its open-source nature. This would have been thwarted even further if CUPS went GPL version 3.
Although you don't see it as much with network printer drivers, the local printer drivers for things such as inkjet printers are horrid, and lack full functionality. Perhaps this will encourage printer manufacturers to develop more, full featured, drivers that are more on par with their Windows counterparts in the future on the Mac OS X platform.
The point is that if Apple had designed the phone properly with an easily replaceable battery...
How is not having a replaceable battery improper design? If Apple's goal it to have a sleek, thin, phone, and this means not having a removable battery, then I'm all for it. Besides, I like the fact that there are no removable doors or slots on the phone. At least there isn't a chance you break the battery compartment door, say, if you drop it, rendering the phone unusable (which has happened to me on mobile phone's in the past).
This isn't some type of Apple conspiracy here. Apple doesn't even have exclusive ownership of the iPod battery replacement market. Several third party vendors service and replace iPod batteries, so who is to say they won't work on the iPhone in a year or two, at a discount compared to Apple's pricing.
"Rechargeable batteries have a limited number of charge cycles and may eventually need to be replaced. See www.apple.com/batteries for more information."
"iPhone Owners. Your one-year warranty includes replacement coverage for a defective battery. You can extend your coverage to two years from the date of your iPhone purchase with the AppleCare Protection Plan for iPhone, which is expected to be available in summer 2007. During the plan's coverage period, Apple will replace the battery if it drops below 50% of its original capacity. If it is out of warranty, Apple offers a battery replacement for $79, plus $6.95 shipping, subject to local tax. Apple disposes of your battery in an environmentally friendly manner."
Do I agree with the policy? No, as I wish I could replace the battery myself. But, it is stated there on the website, even if its buried. If you google "Apple Battery Replacement", the official Apple iPhone battery page comes up ranked seventh.
Did anyone expect otherwise? Honestly, if battery replacement is important in regards to your purchase, you should research it online or ask at the store. But I don't think most people care. If you get AppleCare on the phone (2 Year Warranty), if your battery dies you get a free replacement if it goes below 50% charge. Every other Apple iPod based product has the same policy, and, the iPhone is much more iPod than it is MacBook Pro.
That being said, I understand if someone new to Apple products was upset, since, the majority of mobile phones allow the battery to be replace by the owner. However, with the large amount of iPod users out there, I doubt most will be shocked to find that the battery can't be replaced.
I think I was just obvious with the fact the article is stating the obvious.
Hmm, my fix didn't take effect despite doing a preview. That line should read "I was just pointing out the article is stating the obvious." Sorry for the typo.
You are coming to a sad realization that Vista has no value. Cancel or Allow?
Ha ha, true. I'll admit my preferred OS is Mac OS X. But I have Vista installed, and still do lots of Windows work for clients. It's not bad. I like to downgrade most of the features and effects to the Windows 2000 interface, because that's what I prefer. I did the same thing with XP, and a lot of clients prefer it as well, as it keeps the UI cohesive from one version to the next. Most small businesses don't have time for re-training employees. Several people I worked with did not like the new start menu that was introduced with XP, among other things... just a personal preference I guess.
I think I was just obvious with the fact the article is stating the obvious. The reasons used in the article for not upgrading to Vista are pretty much the same reasons to not upgrade from version of an operating system to a newer version! I read the article, but perhaps I missed the main point.
This looks to be more of a "CYA" statement than anything else, probably a direct result of some of the negative articles that have been written about Vista and Microsoft.
What I really don't understand is why he made the statement in the first place. Dell really isn't over-promoting Vista to its Enterprise/Corporate customers. I recently had to quote out several Dell OptiPlex workstations, and Windows XP Professional is still the default OS licensing option for OptiPlex workstations, which are what most enterprise/corporate customers purchase.
The whole "2 GB" image thing is a bunch of nonsense as well. With every version of Windows that comes out, the default footprint size of Windows on the hard disk has increased as well. I remember installing Windows 95 on 200MB hard disks, with plenty of space left for Office 95 and other applications. Any IT manager in charge of making Windows images knows that a new version of Vista is going to be larger than its XP counterpart. Not only is this true of Windows, but of most software application packages as well.
Overall, Vista does have a lot of new changes. However, there is not too much there holding a customer back from upgrading. Many of the new features in Vista can be turned off and disabled if they can't be tested or get in the way, leaving you with a very XP-like user experience. Vista supports almost all of the group policies that XP does when it comes to being managed through AD. There are several new ways of deploying Vista images as well, with free Microsoft tools, but, there is nothing stopping you from using your existing tools either (Ghost, etc).
This statement looks like Dell spreading is FUD to cover their tracks for another upcoming quarter where they will have poor financial results. They can then blame "slow adaptation of Vista" as a reason for slow hardware sales.
Since I host it, I get to connect to it however I damn well please. I can run the best webmail client on the server that I like, I can get at it with IMAP, POP, or any other method I see fit, and customize my spam blockers the way I like. It's truly miles above any of the free services out there, though Gmail probably has the best web client.
Ironically, you can have Google do this for you. So you can have the "best" web client. If you so choose, you could also have it hosted here and have the worst.:-)
I'm not here to defend AT&T, however, I wouldn't say they have the worst customer service. Let's face it, most of the major US cell phone carriers have crappy customer service. I've had Bell Atlantic Mobile, Verizon, T-Mobile, AT&T Wireless (old), Cingular, and now AT&T (new), and, I have found none of them better or worse than the other. I think I've had my worst experiences with Verizon, when they tried to charge me a termination fee after my contract had expired, and then continued to bill me for three months of service AFTER I had cancelled my service. I've never had a problem with Cingular/AT&T other than long hold times.
If you like the Apple iPhone, I don't believe signing up with AT&T should hinder your purchase. I stick with AT&T and T-Mobile because I like GSM based phones that don't lock me out doing things with the phone, such as creating and installing a ring tone that I've made from music I already own. That's just my personal preference. I'm not planning on purchasing an iPhone just yet, though, I'd love to have one if I could afford it.
You're argument is similar to the hard drive debate. How many times have we heard "I had three drives die with xxx brand, so they are the worst, and all I buy is yyy brand...", only to see a responding post with information with the exact opposite opinion.
So, with AT&T, just like any service/subscription/purchase from a large corporation in the U.S., your mileage may vary.
Well, I guess there is hope then, because AT&T no longer exists (except in name), and Xerox is not nearly the juggernaut it used to be.
You shouldn't have to be a monopoly to spend money on research. Many corporations fund their research as a third party with grants and donations to universities and other institutions. Besides, there has also been a lot of innovation done outside of monopolistic corporations such as AT&T.
Also, the last two versions of Office for Mac were for OS X and thus at least somewhat Unixy.
On the contrary, Office for Mac is one of the least "Unixy" applications there is on Mac OS X. Office for Mac is a heavily hacked and modified version of Office 2001 for Mac, which, I'm pretty sure was the first version of Mac Office to be carbonized. In fact, it is one of the few Mac OS X applications not to bundle the executable binary in an ".app" package. (I may have used the wrong terminology with that last statement, but I hope you get the meaning of it)
I'm pretty sure this will all be changed in the upcoming Microsoft Office 2008, since they are now forced to code and compile with Apple's XCode. For now, however, Office for Mac is as far from "Unixy" as it gets on Mac OS X without moving into "Classic".
What would you do if your boss asked you to burn a cd full of mp3's he downloaded via peer to peer?
I see where you are trying to go with this analogy. However, it is not an illegal act to burn a disk full of mp3's that your boss downloaded via peer-to-peer, simply because, its not illegal to download files of any type over a peer-to-peer network. What is illegal however, is to knowingly share copyrighted files out over the Internet, and/or, to knowingly download copyrighted files that you do not own. In this situation, burning the CD of the files for the boss is not an example of either scenario.
The other points you make are correct though. The main difference is that the OP is being told to do something that is knowingly illegal. As the IT person in the company, he/she knows how many licenses the business legally owns. Now that person is being explicity told to install additional seats of said software, without purchasing additional licenses to cover those seats. In your example, however, how is the IT person to know what music the boss may or may not already own? Only if all file sharing over p2p networks were illegal would your example be valid.
I'm surprised the diskutility's fix perms didn't catch that though.
Disk Utility can only repair permissions on applications that include a list of permissions when installed via a.pkg (Installer) file. Applications that do not use a.pkg installer (such as drag-and-drop installs such as Firefox, or VISE based installers that Microsoft uses) do not create the needed permissions list for disk utility to use, so, they are skipped during a "repair permissions" check.
It's not that I'm assuming that there are alternatives. What I am assuming is that there will be alternatives in the future. I might be a little too idealistic or optimistic, but I figure at some point, when the time and technology is right, that artists will begin to circumvent the current system and the groups controlling these systems. You're just starting to see this, with some artists negotiating directly with online retailers for music downloads, with both the retailer and the artist taking a bigger cut of the proceeds. Perhaps it means a "rival" organization is formed, that competes with the RIAA for artists and royalties. Who knows what the alternative will be? You have to figure that people will get fed up at some point, or, that the RIAA's growing power will impede on someone else's territory, and piss them off, causing some other industry or trade group to lobby against them.
It's only a matter of time until artists realize that all the "preaching" about piracy over the last few years was just a big sham to control more of their content, without them receiving the full financial benefit of this control. They got everyone to listen and enact legislation. Now their taking the reigns and showing who's the boss... to everybody.
All you can say is wow. This is the power play that everyone was expecting. For several years, SoundExchange was all about "collecting for the artists", so that they get their "fair share". Now that new regulations have been set, the true colors are coming out. As usual, they are in it for themselves- it just took a few years of trickery and disguise. Most of us could see through it, but heck, they tricked enough people to get the current set of legistlation and royalty rates approved.
The RIAA is alienating listeners, and now alienating artists. These policies will only cause artists and music lovers to seek alternatives- even more so than before. Eventually, SoundExchange will be collecting nothing, because they'll alienate themselves out of business.
It's not about the artists. It's not about the music. It's all about control. That's all it will ever be to the RIAA/SoundExchange.
Slashdot Mirror
Make sure your Mac is plugged into the network, then go to
Keep in mind I'm giving you instructions for Tiger/10.4.x, the settings are slightly different in Panther 10.3.x, and don't exist at all in earlier versions of Mac OS X.
In most cases a "golden triangle" is used where the Mac is bound to both Active Directory and Open Directory. The login credentials for users are managed in Active Directory, where as the managed preferences for the workstations are managed in Open Directory. It's a pretty common setup.
If you really need to blend in with your Active Directory environment, you can bypass workgroup manager altogether and go with ADmit Mac by Thursby Software. Though on the pricey side, it allows you to do much more from with AD than the standard features of OS X. The last time I checked, it even allowed you to apply certain types of group policies onto the managed Macs... very cool stuff.
Reading the analysis in the ZDNet Asia article, it's sounding more and more like Microsoft's OOXML was created for only two reasons. First, to quell the upsurge at the state government level the need for an "open document" format. Second, to force users into newer versions of Office that are compatible with the new "open standard". The standard Microsoft file formats (.doc, .xls, .ppt, etc) haven't major revisions in almost a decade. This allows users to continue using older versions of Office, rather then upgrade. Many of them have been reverse engineered for compatibility in non-Microsoft products. Remember, Microsoft has never profited with compatibility.
If what the article is actually true, then, Microsoft might have a tough road ahead in the international community. Microsoft wants to control the format so they can lock-in the user. You can bet that even if this version of OOXML is certified, that, some revision or change down the road in another version of Office will break compatibility. Add in a lack of complete documentation (despite the 6000 pages already completed), and you have a recipe for continued vendor lock-in.
I hope everyone sees through the Microsoft fog, and continues to develop the ODF format. If China decides to merge its format with ODF, its a step in the right direction.
Yes, it does seem they make "Patent Lawsuit Cases"
Microsoft has realized that protecting consumers and selling high quality products are not ways they can make money any longer. Getting in bed with corporations and ad agencies and selling out the customer is looking to become much more profitable for them.
What really scares me is that for this to be successful, without some type of backlash from the user community, it would have to be forced on us. As in, forced so you could no longer install another operating system on your computer. Perhaps this is there for when they sue Linux out of oblivion, or at least try to. Otherwise, who would ever use another Microsoft product.
Then again, the data collected from such an endeavor would be so valuable, Microsoft could market computers for free with this software installed. Perhaps that the only other way this is successful.
If you don't care, why did you post a comment? Anyway, I'll bite on the troll fishing line here...
It's important because those who enjoy music are getting less and less of a choice. Whether its DRM, radio industry consolidation, or music industry consolidation, it seems that if we just want to listen to music and other content using the technologies that have been invented and developed, there is something or someone getting in the way.
It's not just a flawed business model. A lot of people do it as a hobby. A lot of webstreams are "microcasts" of programming that we can't get over the airwaves because there isn't a market for it, or because the commercial broadcasters don't care about it (or isn't profitable enough). It's also about the uncompetitive edge that over-the-air broadcasters have in not having to pay SoundExchange royalties for their broadcasts, yet webcasters having to pay them because the RIAA believes listening to web streams encourages piracy (because everyone rips streams off their computer and doesn't buy a CD instead).
Most of all, its because this was all pretty much free to do until a few years ago. Personally, I was grandfathered in on Live365, and had a free, unlimited streaming account because I beta tested for them when they first started up their streaming services. All "hobby" accounts were free for several years. It wasn't until the RIAA thought that they should be paid royalties for these songs did it become a problem, for both the hobbiest and for the for-profit broadcaster.
So that's why you should care. If you don't, well, don't antagonize the rest of us with your elitist bullshit attitude. Just move on to the next article.
End rant...
Good point. I didn't realize it had been there for so long. But maybe third party manufacturers didn't feel confident until Apple's purchase of CUPS. With your information, maybe it won't make much of a difference. But here's to hoping it will...
Dear Colleagues,
As you know, the music that public radio stations use on air and over the Internet typically requires licenses from the different copyright owners and payments of copyright fees.
Record labels are represented by the RIAA (The Recording Industry Association of America). RIAA in turn uses the non-profit SoundExchange to negotiate streaming rights with webcasters (including public radio stations). If parties are unable to reach an agreement through negotiation, an independent administrative tribunal called the Copyright Royalty Board ("CRB") has the power to mandate a rate that covers Internet streaming. As we advised you last year, the agreement that we had to cover public radio's web streaming expired at the end of 2004.
Since then, CPB and NPR have been in negotiations with SoundExchange for a license to stream. When we were unable to reach an agreement, the issue of our license fee was referred to the CRB. The CRB issued a decision that set a rate structure that we believe was very unfavorable to public radio and failed to account for the noncommercial, public service nature of our music streaming. We have appealed the CRB decision to the U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The appellate review will take a considerable amount of time, probably a year and half, perhaps more.
The CRB decision included a requirement that back fees be paid by July 15, 2007. We made a motion for a stay in the royalties fees but yesterday the U.S. Court of Appeals denied that motion. While we were disappointed in that decision, we were not surprised. There was a slim chance the stay would be approved but it was worth venturing.
Meanwhile, NPR and CPB continue to negotiate with SoundExchange in the hope of achieving a system-wide settlement that recognizes the special noncommercial, public service nature of public broadcasting. Thus far we have been unable to reach an agreement. Our next discussion is scheduled for this Friday.
Because of conflicting provisions in various statutes and regulations, there is some confusion about what payment is actually due on July 15th. CPB and NPR believe that only base fees for 2007 are required to be paid on July 15th. We believe that fees for 2005 and 2006 are not payable while our appeal is pending. To comply with this requirement, CPB will offer the Sound Exchange a payment tomorrow that we believe covers the base fees of public radio that are due for 2007. You should seek your own outside counsel if you have concerns about what fees are due on July 15th.
We believe that our payment to satisfy the July 15th obligation will signal to the SoundExchange our good faith and encourage them to consider compromises on the issues that separate us. However, it is possible that Sound Exchange disagrees with our view of what is owed on July 15th and seek payment for fees from 2006 and 2007. In addition, SoundExchange may also pursue additional fees from the few stations that we believe exceed the usage cap included in the base fee. As we have indicated previously, these fees are station obligations that CPB covered through the end of our previous agreement. CPB cannot yet guarantee payment of additional fees given that the size of these fees is yet unknown. If you have concerns about any of this, you should consult outside counsel or, if you are an NPR member, NPR for assistance. Please note that CPB cannot provide legal advice to other parties, including stations.
Thank you for your patience as we work through this complex and difficult situation. We will keep you informed to the extent that confidential negotiations permit. In the meantime, realizing that each station must reach its own conclusions, we believe that it is critical that the public radio system stand together at this time. NPR recommends that stations not enter into individual agreements with SoundExchange
This makes me believe that Congress is serious about (and the RIAA is reacting to) ratifying the Internet Radio Equality Act. Otherwise, there is no way SoundExchange would consider this change of heart. Perhaps they underestimated the amount of lobbying from actual constituents regarding the issue.
NPR and the CPB, though considered non-commercial broadcasters, were still required to pay the same fees as commercial webcasters. They decided co-operatively to only pay part of the fees due, until the whole matter was straightened out. In regards to this, a poster to the College Broadcaster's mailing list stated "...so cpb is paying for all of its stations base fees? a government funded corporation is paying the fee set by another government board and enforced by a government recognized distributor of said fees? I think the framers of the US had a different idea of the future in mind."... I couldn't have said it any better myself. I think everyone (even out-of-tech-loop representatives and senators) is figuring out the royalty scheme makes no sense, and needs to be fixed.
Mod parent up! As soon as I read the extra Apple provisions in the CUPS license, this is the first thing I thought of. I think many third party printer manufacturers have been reluctant to fully develop drivers on Mac OS X using the CUPS printing system due to its open-source nature. This would have been thwarted even further if CUPS went GPL version 3.
Although you don't see it as much with network printer drivers, the local printer drivers for things such as inkjet printers are horrid, and lack full functionality. Perhaps this will encourage printer manufacturers to develop more, full featured, drivers that are more on par with their Windows counterparts in the future on the Mac OS X platform.
You mean like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War
How is not having a replaceable battery improper design? If Apple's goal it to have a sleek, thin, phone, and this means not having a removable battery, then I'm all for it. Besides, I like the fact that there are no removable doors or slots on the phone. At least there isn't a chance you break the battery compartment door, say, if you drop it, rendering the phone unusable (which has happened to me on mobile phone's in the past).
This isn't some type of Apple conspiracy here. Apple doesn't even have exclusive ownership of the iPod battery replacement market. Several third party vendors service and replace iPod batteries, so who is to say they won't work on the iPhone in a year or two, at a discount compared to Apple's pricing.
From http://www.apple.com/iphone/specs.html, on the bottom of the page:
h tml
"Rechargeable batteries have a limited number of charge cycles and may eventually need to be replaced. See www.apple.com/batteries for more information."
You can then get to this link from the batteries page:http://www.apple.com/batteries/replacements.
"iPhone Owners. Your one-year warranty includes replacement coverage for a defective battery. You can extend your coverage to two years from the date of your iPhone purchase with the AppleCare Protection Plan for iPhone, which is expected to be available in summer 2007. During the plan's coverage period, Apple will replace the battery if it drops below 50% of its original capacity. If it is out of warranty, Apple offers a battery replacement for $79, plus $6.95 shipping, subject to local tax. Apple disposes of your battery in an environmentally friendly manner."
Do I agree with the policy? No, as I wish I could replace the battery myself. But, it is stated there on the website, even if its buried. If you google "Apple Battery Replacement", the official Apple iPhone battery page comes up ranked seventh.
Did anyone expect otherwise? Honestly, if battery replacement is important in regards to your purchase, you should research it online or ask at the store. But I don't think most people care. If you get AppleCare on the phone (2 Year Warranty), if your battery dies you get a free replacement if it goes below 50% charge. Every other Apple iPod based product has the same policy, and, the iPhone is much more iPod than it is MacBook Pro.
That being said, I understand if someone new to Apple products was upset, since, the majority of mobile phones allow the battery to be replace by the owner. However, with the large amount of iPod users out there, I doubt most will be shocked to find that the battery can't be replaced.
Hmm, my fix didn't take effect despite doing a preview. That line should read "I was just pointing out the article is stating the obvious." Sorry for the typo.
Ha ha, true. I'll admit my preferred OS is Mac OS X. But I have Vista installed, and still do lots of Windows work for clients. It's not bad. I like to downgrade most of the features and effects to the Windows 2000 interface, because that's what I prefer. I did the same thing with XP, and a lot of clients prefer it as well, as it keeps the UI cohesive from one version to the next. Most small businesses don't have time for re-training employees. Several people I worked with did not like the new start menu that was introduced with XP, among other things... just a personal preference I guess.
I think I was just obvious with the fact the article is stating the obvious. The reasons used in the article for not upgrading to Vista are pretty much the same reasons to not upgrade from version of an operating system to a newer version! I read the article, but perhaps I missed the main point.
This looks to be more of a "CYA" statement than anything else, probably a direct result of some of the negative articles that have been written about Vista and Microsoft.
What I really don't understand is why he made the statement in the first place. Dell really isn't over-promoting Vista to its Enterprise/Corporate customers. I recently had to quote out several Dell OptiPlex workstations, and Windows XP Professional is still the default OS licensing option for OptiPlex workstations, which are what most enterprise/corporate customers purchase.
The whole "2 GB" image thing is a bunch of nonsense as well. With every version of Windows that comes out, the default footprint size of Windows on the hard disk has increased as well. I remember installing Windows 95 on 200MB hard disks, with plenty of space left for Office 95 and other applications. Any IT manager in charge of making Windows images knows that a new version of Vista is going to be larger than its XP counterpart. Not only is this true of Windows, but of most software application packages as well.
Overall, Vista does have a lot of new changes. However, there is not too much there holding a customer back from upgrading. Many of the new features in Vista can be turned off and disabled if they can't be tested or get in the way, leaving you with a very XP-like user experience. Vista supports almost all of the group policies that XP does when it comes to being managed through AD. There are several new ways of deploying Vista images as well, with free Microsoft tools, but, there is nothing stopping you from using your existing tools either (Ghost, etc).
This statement looks like Dell spreading is FUD to cover their tracks for another upcoming quarter where they will have poor financial results. They can then blame "slow adaptation of Vista" as a reason for slow hardware sales.
Ironically, you can have Google do this for you. So you can have the "best" web client. If you so choose, you could also have it hosted here and have the worst.
I'm not here to defend AT&T, however, I wouldn't say they have the worst customer service. Let's face it, most of the major US cell phone carriers have crappy customer service. I've had Bell Atlantic Mobile, Verizon, T-Mobile, AT&T Wireless (old), Cingular, and now AT&T (new), and, I have found none of them better or worse than the other. I think I've had my worst experiences with Verizon, when they tried to charge me a termination fee after my contract had expired, and then continued to bill me for three months of service AFTER I had cancelled my service. I've never had a problem with Cingular/AT&T other than long hold times.
If you like the Apple iPhone, I don't believe signing up with AT&T should hinder your purchase. I stick with AT&T and T-Mobile because I like GSM based phones that don't lock me out doing things with the phone, such as creating and installing a ring tone that I've made from music I already own. That's just my personal preference. I'm not planning on purchasing an iPhone just yet, though, I'd love to have one if I could afford it.
You're argument is similar to the hard drive debate. How many times have we heard "I had three drives die with xxx brand, so they are the worst, and all I buy is yyy brand...", only to see a responding post with information with the exact opposite opinion.
So, with AT&T, just like any service/subscription/purchase from a large corporation in the U.S., your mileage may vary.
Well, I guess there is hope then, because AT&T no longer exists (except in name), and Xerox is not nearly the juggernaut it used to be.
You shouldn't have to be a monopoly to spend money on research. Many corporations fund their research as a third party with grants and donations to universities and other institutions. Besides, there has also been a lot of innovation done outside of monopolistic corporations such as AT&T.
On the contrary, Office for Mac is one of the least "Unixy" applications there is on Mac OS X. Office for Mac is a heavily hacked and modified version of Office 2001 for Mac, which, I'm pretty sure was the first version of Mac Office to be carbonized. In fact, it is one of the few Mac OS X applications not to bundle the executable binary in an ".app" package. (I may have used the wrong terminology with that last statement, but I hope you get the meaning of it)
I'm pretty sure this will all be changed in the upcoming Microsoft Office 2008, since they are now forced to code and compile with Apple's XCode. For now, however, Office for Mac is as far from "Unixy" as it gets on Mac OS X without moving into "Classic".
I see where you are trying to go with this analogy. However, it is not an illegal act to burn a disk full of mp3's that your boss downloaded via peer-to-peer, simply because, its not illegal to download files of any type over a peer-to-peer network. What is illegal however, is to knowingly share copyrighted files out over the Internet, and/or, to knowingly download copyrighted files that you do not own. In this situation, burning the CD of the files for the boss is not an example of either scenario.
The other points you make are correct though. The main difference is that the OP is being told to do something that is knowingly illegal. As the IT person in the company, he/she knows how many licenses the business legally owns. Now that person is being explicity told to install additional seats of said software, without purchasing additional licenses to cover those seats. In your example, however, how is the IT person to know what music the boss may or may not already own? Only if all file sharing over p2p networks were illegal would your example be valid.
Disk Utility can only repair permissions on applications that include a list of permissions when installed via a
It's not that I'm assuming that there are alternatives. What I am assuming is that there will be alternatives in the future. I might be a little too idealistic or optimistic, but I figure at some point, when the time and technology is right, that artists will begin to circumvent the current system and the groups controlling these systems. You're just starting to see this, with some artists negotiating directly with online retailers for music downloads, with both the retailer and the artist taking a bigger cut of the proceeds. Perhaps it means a "rival" organization is formed, that competes with the RIAA for artists and royalties. Who knows what the alternative will be? You have to figure that people will get fed up at some point, or, that the RIAA's growing power will impede on someone else's territory, and piss them off, causing some other industry or trade group to lobby against them.
It's only a matter of time until artists realize that all the "preaching" about piracy over the last few years was just a big sham to control more of their content, without them receiving the full financial benefit of this control. They got everyone to listen and enact legislation. Now their taking the reigns and showing who's the boss... to everybody.
All you can say is wow. This is the power play that everyone was expecting. For several years, SoundExchange was all about "collecting for the artists", so that they get their "fair share". Now that new regulations have been set, the true colors are coming out. As usual, they are in it for themselves- it just took a few years of trickery and disguise. Most of us could see through it, but heck, they tricked enough people to get the current set of legistlation and royalty rates approved.
The RIAA is alienating listeners, and now alienating artists. These policies will only cause artists and music lovers to seek alternatives- even more so than before. Eventually, SoundExchange will be collecting nothing, because they'll alienate themselves out of business.
It's not about the artists. It's not about the music. It's all about control. That's all it will ever be to the RIAA/SoundExchange.
That article is almost four years old. Many improvements were made with Mac OS X 10.4
Open Directory is based on OpenLDAP. It's mentioned at least five times on that page.