If you want to buy a song for $0.99, they either have it or not. If they have it and you buy it, the DRM restrictions are exactly the same as the one's Apple has.
The confusion is only when you sign up for the unlimited service. And how did Apple get around this problem? That's right, they don't have one.
It's hard to compare, because iTunes doesn't even have a streaming option. So while Napster might have an album as "buy only", iTunes has everything as "buy only".
OTOH, there are some tracks you can't buy at all on Napster, but can stream, that you can buy on iTunes. But if I am a streaming subscriber, I don't care about that.
Any SDMI-compliant WMA player should play the bought Napster tunes.
I have tried it personally on a 2-3 year old Nike PSA Play 60 (which is really a Rio 600) and it worked perfectly. I did have to use Windows Media Player to do the transfer, but I have to use that to transfer MP3's anyway, since the Nike software sucks.
That is my biggest complaint. I decided to sign up for their premium service for a few months, since I was quitting eMusic anyway so the net cost was negligible. Once you join, many songs' icons change from "Buy song" to "Buy only", which means you can't stream or download them without paying $1. OTOH, there is a bunch of stuff that is streaming only. (For example, the Pet Sounds Sessions by the Beach Boys.) I don't think this is made sufficiently clear before you sign up, although I'm sure they would argue it's in the fine print somewhere.
Also, just some more info on the tracks you can download on the $9.99 unlimited plan. If you view the file info in Windows Media Player, they are tagged in the DRM as "no transfer to portable", "no burn to CD", and with 6 week play expirations. Presumably that is renewed automatically if you keep up the subscription.
They make the SliMP3 player, which is run by an open source perl program (and some open source firmware). If a developer contributes a significant amount, they can get a free player, which is worth about $200-$250.
"In a room full of ugly, ruggedized Panasonic Toughbooks running Windows 2000," he said, "the glowing white Apple against the titanium skin of the G4's lid draws looks from everywhere, and acts as a magnet for the closet Mac addicts serving with the Third Infantry Division."
Don't like the img removal. The example given uses a fallback from mpg to jpg to text, which makes sense. But most jpg use is not in this sense but just as plain pictures, and the alt tag provides a sufficient fallback mechanism for that. Having to specify the mime type of every picture you use seems like extra work for no gain as well. What happens if you leave that off? Is there some other reason for this?
The nested sections makes a lot of sense. You can probably rig this up in XSL right now if you really like it.
The href attribute to almost anything is the best part. Not having to wrap pictures in <a href=> tags will save quite a bit tags and convey the actual intent much better.
Of course there are ways to do this on Windows. But it's hard to believe that no one has yet implemented it the unix way. There should be a utility where you type "picsplit *.jpg", and you get a directory of split files, sequentially numbered.
Programmers are always looking for projects, this sounds like a relatively easy one.
From the creators of Junkyard Wars, and with Cathy Rogers (and Henry Rollins) as presenters, it's like BattleBots but with full size cars. Coming to TLC in October.
"Libranet's aim is to build a good system for people to use."
It's typical documentation, it makes sense if you know what it's talking about. If you don't know it's a distro (or rather a "system"), that page doesn't really help you at all. And the front page post was worthless too, as was the site's front page.
Sec (b)(1)(B) It shall be unlawful for any person within the United States to initiate any telephone call to any residential telephone line using an artificial or prerecorded voice to deliver a message without the prior express consent of the called party, unless the call is initiated for emergency purposes or is exempted by rule or order by the Commission under paragraph (2)(B).
Slashdot Mirror
I think it's silly to spend $200 on a vidcard when you can buy a whole gaming system for the same price.
But if you like PC games, what choice do you have?
If you want to buy a song for $0.99, they either have it or not. If they have it and you buy it, the DRM restrictions are exactly the same as the one's Apple has.
The confusion is only when you sign up for the unlimited service. And how did Apple get around this problem? That's right, they don't have one.
It's not really the quality I'm concerned with but rather the insanity of burning to a CD as an intermediate step.
It's hard to compare, because iTunes doesn't even have a streaming option. So while Napster might have an album as "buy only", iTunes has everything as "buy only".
OTOH, there are some tracks you can't buy at all on Napster, but can stream, that you can buy on iTunes. But if I am a streaming subscriber, I don't care about that.
Apple just leaves songs out of albums. Is that better than offering different licensing on them?
Any SDMI-compliant WMA player should play the bought Napster tunes.
I have tried it personally on a 2-3 year old Nike PSA Play 60 (which is really a Rio 600) and it worked perfectly. I did have to use Windows Media Player to do the transfer, but I have to use that to transfer MP3's anyway, since the Nike software sucks.
That is my biggest complaint. I decided to sign up for their premium service for a few months, since I was quitting eMusic anyway so the net cost was negligible. Once you join, many songs' icons change from "Buy song" to "Buy only", which means you can't stream or download them without paying $1. OTOH, there is a bunch of stuff that is streaming only. (For example, the Pet Sounds Sessions by the Beach Boys.) I don't think this is made sufficiently clear before you sign up, although I'm sure they would argue it's in the fine print somewhere.
Also, just some more info on the tracks you can download on the $9.99 unlimited plan. If you view the file info in Windows Media Player, they are tagged in the DRM as "no transfer to portable", "no burn to CD", and with 6 week play expirations. Presumably that is renewed automatically if you keep up the subscription.
That's an "interesting" combination. A 1.1 MPixel picture is around 300k, IIRC. So you can hold 576 pictures at a time. Which seems rather sufficient.
Clearly not what it used to.
That was even in 3-D (albeit flat-shaded), and you could do loop-the-loops.
Barnes and Noble Drops Ebooks
Lockheed Martin Drops NOAA Satellite
Hee.
Can you really hear the difference? Especially since live recordings generally suck anyway, even with good quality (i.e. $$$) mikes.
Surprise!
They make the SliMP3 player, which is run by an open source perl program (and some open source firmware). If a developer contributes a significant amount, they can get a free player, which is worth about $200-$250.
And it works... I got one.
Despite the claims this has no use, my work laptop has a nice fast Pentium 3 in it, and a crap vidcard. I'm sure I'm not alone.
"In a room full of ugly, ruggedized Panasonic Toughbooks running Windows 2000," he said, "the glowing white Apple against the titanium skin of the G4's lid draws looks from everywhere, and acts as a magnet for the closet Mac addicts serving with the Third Infantry Division."
Ha
Given that I don't care and I have that conspicously turned off. Instead they use "TV".
Ranting about a misreading of a sentence and getting modded to +5 is just lame.
Don't like the img removal. The example given uses a fallback from mpg to jpg to text, which makes sense. But most jpg use is not in this sense but just as plain pictures, and the alt tag provides a sufficient fallback mechanism for that. Having to specify the mime type of every picture you use seems like extra work for no gain as well. What happens if you leave that off? Is there some other reason for this?
The nested sections makes a lot of sense. You can probably rig this up in XSL right now if you really like it.
The href attribute to almost anything is the best part. Not having to wrap pictures in <a href=> tags will save quite a bit tags and convey the actual intent much better.
Of course there are ways to do this on Windows. But it's hard to believe that no one has yet implemented it the unix way. There should be a utility where you type "picsplit *.jpg", and you get a directory of split files, sequentially numbered.
Programmers are always looking for projects, this sounds like a relatively easy one.
From the creators of Junkyard Wars, and with Cathy Rogers (and Henry Rollins) as presenters, it's like BattleBots but with full size cars. Coming to TLC in October.
Website
"Libranet's aim is to build a good system for people to use."
It's typical documentation, it makes sense if you know what it's talking about. If you don't know it's a distro (or rather a "system"), that page doesn't really help you at all. And the front page post was worthless too, as was the site's front page.
Sec (b)(1)(B) It shall be unlawful for any person within the United States to initiate any telephone call to any residential telephone line using an artificial or prerecorded voice to deliver a message without the prior express consent of the called party, unless the call is initiated for emergency purposes or is exempted by rule or order by the Commission under paragraph (2)(B).
(2)(B) exempts non-advertisement calls.
Which is cheaper than any optical mouse I've seen.