mac windows gmail pic

On 11-Jul-17 4:47 PM, nospam said about Dustin J. Cook

you're trying to justify piracy. you are a scumbag.

Wow! Somebody else has agreed with me at last! :-)

--
David B.

In article ,
"David B." wrote:

Sadly, Dustin J. Cook (aka Diesel) *I* know that what you do *IS*
illegal and - as I've told you many times - as you will not stop your
illegal activity, you WILL be going to prison to pay for your crimes.

You mean like with Hillary as promised by that beautiful personality,
Donald?

--
dorayme

"David B."
Tue, 11 Jul 2017 08:29:13 GMT
in alt.comp.os.windows-10, wrote:

On 11-Jul-17 2:47 AM, Diesel responded to a comment

of course it does, but that doesn't make it legal.

Who said anything about that? Not me.

you're trying to justify piracy, which you've done in other
posts too.

You feel that copying lossy compressed audio files is piracy,
fine by me. I feel that what the RIAA/MPAA does is actual piracy.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on this.

you have no ethics or morals.

You know nothing about me.

Sadly, Dustin J. Cook (aka Diesel) *I* know that what you do *IS*
illegal and - as I've told you many times - as you will not stop
your illegal activity, you WILL be going to prison to pay for your
crimes.

Wishful thinking on your part. And, there's no point name dropping me
when my name is common knowledge amongst many in the professional
trades, anyhow. You do yourself a disservice when you confirm that
my accusations concerning your need to stalk are all true.

https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php

Alas, that's what I get for answering your first email. And obviously
later, for refusing to help you hack (crack actually) into web sites
you had no permission to be on anymore. You've been ****ed off at me
for years over that, despite the fact I offered to analyze any
suspicious/outright malware you provided. I just needed a url to
examine. You didn't provide a single one, despite my asking you to do
so several times.

You took my refusal to use the skills I have for nefarious purposes
personally and tried (and failed) to dox me as a result. Remember
David, you took the first shot. I just followed up, with much better
aim.



--
https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php

Useless Invention: Downhill stairmaster.

nospam
Tue, 11 Jul 2017
15:47:19 GMT in alt.comp.os.windows-10, wrote:

In article , Diesel
wrote:

Depends on the portable player and what you've connected it's
output to...

which will be headphones (it's a portable music player, after
all) and, usually cheap crappy ones.

I haven't used headphones in a very long time...

then why do you have a portable music player?

I didn't feel like pulling the cdplayer (cd player doesn't work, but
everything else including AUX input still does) from one of the
vehicles I drive. I can't be arsed to add a cdplayer to yet another
one, but, it supports aux input too.

And, on occasion, depending on the jobsite I'm working at, the
portable dewalt stereo I use also has aux ports. Commercial free
tunes, provided via my portable player. No headphones necessary.

At night time, I might also want to drift off and snooze to some
good music. I have external speakers for that too, or, I could fire
up a laptop and tie that in, instead. But, it's quicker just to tie
the player into it.

I've also got cords that seperate into RCA connectors for tieing
into component stereo equipment I have. I use that option sometimes
too.

Well, one of us certainly is. I might want to give a friend a
copy of one or more files on my player. It's a disservice to them
to give them less than an original copy. Which is what I'd be
doing if I did any transcoding to a lesser bitrate prior to
loading it on my player.

in other words, piracy.

Well, that depends on whether or not the material is commercial and
whether or not I have the owners permission. I have a fairly decent
sized collection, and some of it's copyleft indie music. They not
only grant permission to share, they encourage it.

you seem to have trouble understanding what has been written and
then make up **** just to argue.

I haven't made anything up.

managing content directly in the file system is very limiting.

How so?

because the file system is primitive and rigid and was not
designed to manage content.

ROFL. I disagree, but, YMMV.

And what makes you so sure that's the only way in which I
manage things? You've never heard of a catalog?

sure have, and it's automatically created and maintained by an
asset manager, itunes being one example.

Umm, no. Actually, in my case, it's not automatically created or
maintained by an asset manager that isn't human. My catalog doesn't
just tell me what I have, it also tells me which backup is the most
recent, AND, when I should be creating another for rotation
purposes. Media does have a life expectancy you see, and, I've got
thousands of encoding hours and years worth of work tied up in that.

So, I'm not about to be irresponsible and place that data at risk of
loss and/or corruption because I'm so lazy that I just rely on a
particular program to keep track of things for me. Or, right/wrongly
assume that if I do suffer loss and/or corruption due to failing
media, that I can just go online and be granted another copy of what
I already paid for. I don't use the cloud, so I'm entirely
responsible for ensuring my data is safe in the event of hardware
failure or media archive failure due to bit rot.


you keep ranting about how horrible itunes is, and now you admit
that it's useful.

I said nothing of the sort. I've stated numerous times that I don't
use Itunes and why. It might work perfectly most of the time when
used on Apple devices, but Windows is a different story. And,
last time I checked (it's been awhile, granted) it wasn't native
*nix (BSD or Linux) friendly on the PC (not Apple) hardware platform.

I haven't tried various ways of emulation to check to see if I could
get it running on the PC versions of same. I might? be able to use a
vm that's running a copy of Windows and do it that way, but, that's
still not native to the HOST OS and VM isn't perfect. And still
requires more steps for no real gain (for me) when I could just plug
in my portable player to any machine here and do as I please with
the tracks.


an rss feed *cannot* do what itunes can do.

I didn't say it could.

actually, you did.

MID? I said using an RSS feed I can be updated with the newest
podcast from such and such site, have it delete the older ones (Not
that I'd do that, I archive everything), and/or sync the podcast to
my player. Sync in my case is it'll do it next time it sees my
player connected to the device I'm using as long as I allow the app
to remain running, either via service and/or just leaving it open
when I connect the player to the computer it's running on.

My player isn't internet/network aware on it's own, unlike your
Apple products. It's actually another reason I purchased the one I
did. I didn't *want* to use those features as I have no real use for
them. I'm not so lazy that I can't do what itunes offers aside from
music playback/downloading myself. OTH, I'm not saying that those of
you who use the wifi/sync features are lazy in and of itself.



that also has nothing to do with itunes. itunes will play good
ol' mp3 without issue.

I prefer Winamp.

winamp doesn't do half the stuff itunes can do.

I really don't care about the extra fluff itunes offers to do. It's
not necessary for me. Winamp has a kickass equalizer and supports
3rd party code for most of the features it has, you can do more than
'skin' it if you can write code capable of calling APIs. Most HLL
languages will do that, and, win32 asm certainly will.

Like I wrote previously, Itunes tries to be everything including the
kitchen sink, and I don't need that and don't like programs that are
written like that, generally speaking. I prefer programs that do a
few things and do them well, without interfering with other programs
and/or installing a pile of modules that i'll never use. A complete
itunes install on Windows makes tons of registry entries and tosses
files all over the place. It's hardly what you'd call a portable
app.

I'm old school. Back when I learned to code, everything was a
'portable' app. You didn't make messes and/or create dependency hell
issues for yourself or the system administrator. Your program could
easily be transferred to another machine simply by copying your
directory (folder these days) contents over, if you actually
required your own directory/folder. For many of my console apps,
they all reside in a central location that's in the path environment
variable. If they do have any .cfg files associated, they know to
look in the directory their being executed from first, unless one
was specified on the command line.

Windows turned things around and suggested (in fact encouraged)
programmers to use installers and toss dlls specific to their
software into the Windows folders, potentially overwriting an
'older' common dll that other programs might infact rely on. Most
uncool.

I'm glad to see portable apps making a comeback and I still think
that MS shouldn't have tried to snub them out with what I consider
to be, poor programming practices. You avoid dll dependency hell by
keeping your stuff with you, even if it might on occasion result in
multiple (but different) copies of the same 'common' dlls.

You previously claimed to have been (still are?) a programmer, you
should completely understand where I'm coming from with that
comment.

It doesn't offend me.

apparently it does because you keep trolling with anti-apple
garbage.

I'm not trolling with anything. I'm not an Apple hater nor a fanboy.
My dislike for them dates back to the original Apple computers with
the green screen. I didn't much care for them then, nor do I really
care much for them now. The imagewriter (remember those?) wasn't
impressive to me when it came on the market either. Imo, I had a
better printer on my coco at home. Which was at the time, comparable
to the Apple machine connected to the Imagewriter.

Yes, and? The device has copies of music already available on the
network; which is backed up. So...

but not the play counts, song ratings and other metadata.

The important metadata is stored inside the files themselves. ID
tag. Standard, format. My own personal song ratings wouldn't apply
to anyone aside from my self. Others who also have access may not
rate tracks as I would. I have a variety of taste in music that
isn't shared by all who have access. Play counts are also
meaningless in this context. Many devices have access (read only) to
the shares. Each device may/may not keep track of play counts
depending on the player being used, but, I personally do not. And, I
don't care if another device on the network does. It's meaningless
to me.

Externally, my albums also include .nfo (very descriptive and
detailed information is stored in these files; concerning the album
itself, release date, rip date, record company responsible, track
list with length of time per track and total length of time per
album, greets, etc)

And .sfv files to check against modification; accidental or
otherwise. So, when I send a copy of an album to someone else, they
can verify the files are as they should be. IE: the same things I
have. For integrity. Which is important to me and others into the
same things as myself concerning the digital music scene.

They also contain an .m3u file (which is essentially standard these
days) that contains a local playlist consisting of the tracks in
that album in the order they were listed on the cd. So you can click
the m3u and listen to the entire album, track by track just as you
would if it was still on CD.

While Winamp doesn't keep a favorites/rating system, times tracks
been played, how often, when it was last played, other software
players do. Amarok is one such player. It even goes so far as to try
and bring up the song lyrics, if you want to read them as it plays
the track.

I don't know if Itunes does much for lyrics, I haven't installed it
intentionally in years. And, the last time I did was to help a
friend who bought a used ipod that wasn't independent of PC. It
required itunes to initialize it and load tracks to play. I didn't
appreciate having to wait several minutes for itunes to create a
library with the collection of music available in one share, let
alone this entire network and/or the 'remote' shares that actually
point to other LANs run by friends and associates. Drag and drop
and/or copy and paste would have been faster in that case. I could
have already started loading his ipod in the time Itunes was still
'creating' a database for me.

as for options, there are far *more* options for managing content
with itunes because that's what it was designed to do, so if
options is your goal, you chose the wrong solution.

itunes isn't very good for managing rips by a ripping group. Backup
history, etc. Rotation of archive, etc.

Itunes tries to be everything, including the kitchen sink, rolled up
into one massive ball. On an apple, that might work quite nicely for
some. For Windows/*nix (that isn't running on Apple native hardware
and doesn't have the closed source Apple tweaks applied) , not so
well in some cases. Although Apple's OS is based on BSD, Apples
version itself is closed source and proprietary, despite being based
on a well known MONSTER of an Operating system. Much like Apples own
hardware.

Apple makes 'great' code for use on their own hardware, but, they
seem to take a different view for QC checks when the software is
ported for use on Windows. It's almost as if they'd prefer you use
their stuff on their own, overpriced (imo) closed proprietary
hardware instead of the PC platform which is not, and, has never
really been, closed source. PC is an open architecture environment.
It's always been friendly in that respect. Unlike Apple. Even the
Apple II wasn't 'geek' friendly if you wanted to have a peek under
the hood and/or make changes to it's hardware without Apples
blessing.


it doesn't matter if it's lossy compressed or not, nor is it about
what i feel.

the law is the law and that's piracy. period.

The law is a bit more specific than that. A certain percentage of
material must be present for it to even technically be a 'copy' of
anothers work. That's something that hasn't been brought up in a
courtroom (afaik) when an individual is being sued. I'd like to see
it brought up myself. By technical people on both sides of the fence
as well as a judge who's uptodate on technology and all three
parties understand the law as it relates and exactly how the
compression codec used works. IE: what isn't present in the so
called copy vs what is still present. It could be an interesting
result.


I feel that what the RIAA/MPAA does is actual piracy.

it doesn't matter what you feel and it's beyond ludicrous for
anyone to even think that the riaa/mpaa would be engaging in
piracy.

Sorry, but, the RIAA has been caught with payola scams and keeping
the artists copyrights. Various RIAA supported recording companies
and RIAA supported artists have been caught, outright, sampling
anothers copyrighted work in their own. Some have been sued and lost
as a result of this, but, others have managed to get away with it.

The RIAA also uses fuzzy math when it comes to paying the artist
royalty payments. I could continue with the actual piracy activities
of the RIAA, but, I doubt you have any interest in knowing what they
actually do as it relates to piracy and how involved in it they
actually are. Real piracy mind you, not some kids or young adults
trading a few mp3s around.

Which btw, has never been shown to actually have a negative effect
on record sales, contrary to the bull**** stories the RIAA likes to
peddle. Someone who had no intentions of buying such and such album
doesn't really count as a 'lost sale' as you wouldn't have made the
sale even if they couldn't have downloaded it for free. The RIAA
tends to prefer to ignore that simple fact, though. Lost sale as
it's used in their terminology simply doesn't exist. Further, many
people have been known to go out and purchase the actual album after
listening to a couple of tracks they downloaded via p2p; The RIAA
doesn't like to bring that up either.

And, the RIAA doesn't want to admit that the days of one/two good
songs on an album with the rest being filler aren't going to fly
with the general public anymore. Many people know how to sample said
album and make the decision on whether or not they want to support
the artist by buying the cd (which doesn't really help the artist as
much as you might think it does) and/or attend a concert and
purchase the over priced merchandise at the concert; those acts do
put money in the artists bank account. The RIAA doesn't until that
advance (read: loan) is paid off, first, and even then, they might
still not pay. Do you know how many cds consist of a single unit?
Neither do I. The RIAA won't tell anyone. Even the artists
themselves that have RIAA based record labels. They use these
magical unit sales to determine how well/badly an artist is doing
and how much they owe the artist in royalty payments based on sales.

Now, if you'd actually like to discuss the RIAA and how they're
****ing the artist (and you with lobbying) using an RIAA label
without any lube, I'd be more than happy to debate/discuss it with
you. I'd recommend a fresh thread for the purpose.

Incidently, when Sony released their copy protected multi session
audio cds a few years back, it wasn't fun times for Apple users. In
many cases, once the machine had the disc inserted in, it wasn't
coming out aside from a teardown (if you were technically able to do
this yourself) and or a visit to an Apple clinic/other repair
company); by the same token, if the disc got 'stuck' in a PC, a
paperclip could be used to remedy the situation. It wouldn't help
you with the now hijacked optical drive drivers present on your
machine, or the newly installed stealth software you had no idea was
loaded on your machine once you put that disc in, but it gave you
the physical disk back without a trip to a shop. If you weren't tech
savvy and didn't know your machine well (Apple prefers you not worry
about hardware specifics or how apps actually interact with the OS,
they just want you to use the machine without having to know how it
actually works) you would be taking a trip to a shop, but, they
wouldn't have to eject a stuck disc for you; if you knew the
paperclip trick.

It still boggles my mind that Apple in all it's genius (sarcasm)
forgoed a valid and useful option that's been present on PC optical
drives for years. A phsyically manual way of opening the tray
without having to teardown the drive and/or computer the drive is
installed in.

and even if they did, that doesn't justify you also breaking the
law.

Alas, millions of people tend to disagree with you for the reasons
I've already stated and others I haven't mentioned. In some
countries, the copyright laws you're so concerned with don't even
exist as you know them. The USA/UK understanding of it isn't
universal. And, unlike the USA/UK, they don't modify copyright laws
to suit the lobbyists. Cluebyfour: Disney and mickey mouse.

Another article you'll probably avoid reading (despite it being on topic concerning your piracy accusation)

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM...A6AC07C37.html

We'll just
have to agree to disagree on this.

translated: you know you're wrong.

No translation is required. Your opinion differs from mine, and, unlike
you, I can back my position up without confusing the terminologies
or claiming something is happening when it isn't. IE: copyright
infringement isn't the same thing as stealing. Stealing deprives you
of the material I stole from you. You don't have it anymore. The
terms are different and have different meanings for a very specific
reason. If I copy a cd, but, you still have the original, I can't
very well have stolen it from you. You STILL HAVE IT.

you have no ethics or morals.

You know nothing about me.

i'm going by what you said about piracy.

You're making broad assumptions concerning what is you think I have
and it's licensing terms. And confusing terminologies, trying to
imply one means something it doesn't and never has. Copyright
infringement is not stealing. Although many people like to use the
wrong words to describe possible copyright infringement, they do so
out of ignorance. Willful or otherwise.

you're trying to justify stealing content from others.

You seem to be confused concerning the definition of stealing vs
copyright infringement (if and when that actually does take place; I
have a lot of indie music that I have permission to share/copy). I'd
suggest you consult with a dictionary so that you may learn the
difference between the two. One denies the owner of the property
access to said property as they no longer have it in their
possession, it's been stolen. OTH, Copyright infringement does not
deny the owner of the property or access to it, as they are still
very much in possession of said property you erroneously claimed was
stolen.

someone with ethics and morals does not steal nor do they try to
justify it.

I don't steal and I've made no efforts to justify stealing from
anyone. You're using the wrong terminology to describe what I might
do from time to time.

apple has always been anti-drm. apple does not want drm at all.
even mac os isn't drm'ed (unlike windows).

No, they haven't.

yes they absolutely have.

That's just not true, and, even though you seem to love Apple and
worship the ground their people walk on, it makes no difference.

Only certain editions of Windows suffer from MS
version of drm, in a manner of speaking.

'in a manner of speaking' ??

Yep. Win2k and down have no DRM. Windows XP has a vlk edition which
negates product activation, outright. So no DRM on vlk edition
either. You don't seem to know much about Windows...

Perhaps you're confused on what DRM actually is?

you obviously pirate windows and no doubt pirated the apps you use
as well.

No, and, no. It's hard to pirate freeware. It's also very difficult
to pirate a vlk key you paid MS for and are still within the
licensing terms to make use of.

the music industry *forced* apple to use drm for music that was
sold on the itunes music store because the music industry was
terrified of rampant piracy.

Which is why I have my own private collection of music.

most, if not all of which, is pirated.

Nope. It's all from original RETAIL cds that were bought and paid
for. My originals are opened and read a single time. Then, I put
them up for safe keeping. I've done that since I was a kid with ALL
media I purchased and I see no reason to use originals and risk
damaging them when that's what backups are for. Run off the backups,
never the originals.

And, Copyright law does infact give me the right to make a legal
backup of said disc. The only exception is that I cannot legally get
around DRM protections present on a disc to acquire that LEGALLY
allowed copy. (Which wasn't always the case), that's due to another
change in copyright law. Not intended to benefit John Q Public, but
entirely designed to benefit the mega corporations (such as Disney),
instead. Which was never the original point of Copyright laws in the
first place.

For a very detailed background concerning Copyright law and public
domain, I invite you or anyone else interested in viewing another
great video from the tv show, Adam ruins everything.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiEXgpp37No

As I vote with my wallet and research before I buy, I
don't run into that problem for material I BOUGHT. Every now and
then, when dealing with a disc that's been borrowed, I do. But,
that's neither here or there.

back then, drm was everywhere. nobody sold drm-free music, and
out of all of the drm schemes that existed at the time, apple's
was the *least* restrictive.

Ehh, some did/still do infact sell drm free tunes long before
Apple. And, Apples was hardly the least restrictive.

apple's was definitely the least restrictive.

That's a personal opinion. Once again, I disagree.

music from the itunes store could be played on an *unlimited*
number of ipods and/or burned to cds, which could then be played
in *any* cd player. for honest people, it was completely invisible
and not noticeable at all.

That wasn't always the case, in so far as played on an unlimited
number of ipods. For an Apple person, i'm surprised you don't
remember Apples name for their DRM. Fairplay.

Apple changed things later, but, initially, your music was only
authorized to play on upto five computers/devices. You had to
deauthorize one or more of them to play the music on another device
that could then be authorized to play the music. It was DRM
lockdown, although, to Apples credit, five computers/devices was
'nice' of them.

As for my stuff, it'll play on an unlimited amount of computers and
devices, no authorization/deauthorization hoops to deal with, ever.
Granted, Apple doesn't do this **** anymore with it's 'fairplay'
technology, but, they did infact do it previously.

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM...610E66A46.html

Sort of. Apple wasn't the first to do this, and, they didn't do
it out of the kindness of their own hearts, either. They charged
you extra, initially, for drm free tunes.

nope. the price went up because the quality of the recording went
up (256k aac). also, some songs went *down* in price.

While it's true that they did increase the quality of the tracks,
that's not the only reason the price went up. You paid for the
privilege of a DRM free track without restrictions on the technical
side.

http://www.macworld.com/article/1138...s/drm-faq.html

The article is old, but, our discussion is concerning something they
don't do anymore, so it's appropriate.

For the tracks you bought that still had DRM protections, you could
'upgrade' for a small fee to ones that didn't. At the articles time
of publication, it was an additional (since you already bought it
once) .30 cents a track. I didn't think that was fair to do to a
consumer who's already paid you once for the track. It's not like
it's putting Apple out to remove the drm and give people a closer
file as to the cd quality. Especially for the cost you already paid
for the track.

In some cases, Buying tracks with the intention of having the
complete album from Apple could cost more than the original cd
would, in a retail store outlet. IE: you buy a cd in the store that
has seventeen tracks on it for say, 12.99 (or less), those 17 tracks
if purchased from Apple at .99 cents a track is several dollars more
than the physical medium which contains superior audio quality than
that *ever* offered by Apples Itunes store. It doesn't take a rocket
scientist to see how you're getting ****ed over there.

Oh sure, Apple did the work for you and it's instant gratification, but
you're still paying more for an inferior sounding file.

I wouldn't give you a nickel
for an Apple track, myself.

of course not, because you'd rather steal it.

Again, you use the wrong terminology.

however, the movie industry continues to require drm, and it's
not just apple either. buy/rent a movie on the google play
store and it's drm'ed.

I wouldn't buy or rent a movie from Apple OR google. Not when I
can hit up a redbox for a few dollars and have a physical copy to
do with as I please in the comfort of my own home. Just so long
as I return the disc I 'borrowed' within a reasonable amount of
time.

in other words, you make an unauthorized copy of the movie rental
to avoid buying the movie.

I rented it because I wasn't willing to invest much in something I
might not enjoy. If I find it interesting enough to rip it, I
certainly will purchase an original copy for my collection. But, the
original copy will be placed in a safe place and I'll run with the
backup of it, instead. As the backup can be replaced should
something happen to it. The original could as well, but, at
additional cost. I already paid for it once, I won't pay for the
same thing twice.

In other cases, because the movie sucked so badly, I wouldn't bother
going thru the process, wasting not only drive space, but, processor
time and electrical consumption. The MPAA would consider that to be
a lost sale, but as I wrote previously in this post, you can't
really claim a sale was 'lost' when I had no intentions of
purchasing it in the first place. That's fuzzy math the RIAA/MPAA
are well known for.

disgusting.

Your ignorance concerning this is a bit disgusting. How easily you
confuse stolen, stealing, etc, for that of potential Copyright
infringement is astounding to me. Further, you quickly forget that
copyright law does allow for a copy to be made for archival
purposes, unless I have to crack DRM to do that. DRM is an end run
way around that clause in the copyright laws. Cute trick some might
say. Dirty as all hell, I say.

Sure it does. You made the claim that file sharing to another
computer would require a suitable media player. I don't know why
you'd write such a thing if you know how LANs work.

again, it has nothing to do with how lans work.

i'm not talking about simply copying files from one computer to
another. that's old school thinking and primitive.

i'm talking about *playing* content hosted on a media server,
which absolutely does require a suitable player, one which can
connect to said server and access all of the content, playlists,
etc.

Playing content requires a suitable media player, regardless. This
would be a straw man argument.

itunes offers that option. launch it, enable sharing and it's
done.

Which isn't necessary if you have a LAN with file shares. itunes is
duplicating essentially at this point.

there are of course other options for media servers (most of which
aren't anywhere near as good or as flexible) and none of which
sync with ipods/ios devices.

It would be illegal to reverse engineer any Apple product in order
to make your media server hardware/software Apple product friendly.
The ONLY way around this is to get Apples blessing, and, that's just
not a realistic option. Apple doesn't want you having something that
itunes does without having to be an Itunes user.


--
https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php

It is easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.

Lewis
Tue, 11 Jul 2017 20:19:43 GMT
in alt.comp.os.windows-10, wrote:

I usually try to copy the music I'm pretty sure I want to listen
to over to it, instead of just copying junk over to 'rate' later.

Right, you spend a lot of time manually sorting and selecting. I
do not spend ANY TIME doing that. When I get near my computer, my
iTunes library updates. I get new songs, as if by magic. They are
always songs that I like, but songs I've not heard recently.

I don't, actually. I tend to copy entire albums over to my player;
not individual tracks. Unless, I'm in a particular mood and only
want specific tracks on the player, but, that's a bit of a waste to
me; as the player can hold thousands. In the event I do want that,
I've likely already done it before and have already written
automated tasks to restore those pre selected tracks to the player,
usually by entering a single command from console once the device is
physically connected to the computer.

Being a coder does have it's advantages. Teach the computer to do it
for me, saves time in the long run.

So, something you CANNOT do is something that just happens,
transparently, with iTunes.

Read above.

They rely on many things. I can, for example, create a playlist of
all the songs in my library that are 140-150 bpm. Or I can have a
playlist of all the songs that I listened to in December, but
exclude all the christmas music.

I'm capable of doing that (those examples specifically atleast)
without the need for itunes.

Since I have an intelligent database with a simple boolean query I
can get pretty much any level of precision I want.

I think calling the database intelligent is going a little bit too
far. Granted, it's an advanced database in the sense it stores a
pile of information some given by you, others by the tracks
themselves, but, intelligent? That's a stretch.

None of which you can do.

Completely untrue.

RSS feeds do none of the things you said they did. They do not
auto-sync, nor do they replace listened to podcasts with new
ones.

RSS feed tells program I use what's new, program I use goes from
there. It will 'sync' and or/replace at my descretion. RSS feeds
for me are another source of potentially useful information.

That's nice. RSS feeds still do not do anything you claimed they
did.

Well, specifically, I didn't claim that RSS feeds alone are a
replacement for Itunes or do anything that Itunes itself does on
their own. If you assumed that's what I meant, that's on you.

The vast majority of podcasts are in MP3, something you appeared
to be unaware of since you claimed a superiority of RSS was that
you got the podcasts in "trusty go ol mp3".

You're making assumptions. I'm well aware of various format
options podcasts are available in, which is why I made my
comment.

I am not making assumptions about waht you said. you said it.

I know exactly what I wrote and when I wrote it. So, yes, you are making an assumption
with what you thought I knew.

"The podcasts I've seen are also available in trusty, good ol mp3, too."
Is exactly what I wrote.

MID: XnsA7ACA1F176C20HT1@mGMP8I76574W65a2464O966G0g3DH G27s8g.Z5somj4.sHi717KPF1E4jV6iSIb

My client does a good job of keeping local copies of every post I
write.

"also available" seems self explanatory to me. Which clearly means I
do know that mp3s are typically (but sadly, not always) available
for podcasts as well as several other formats, none of which I find
useful for my purposes. Obviously mp3 doesn't really compare to OGG,
ACC, and/or a FLAC recording, but it serves my needs well. Yes, I've
seen a couple! of podcast sites that actually offered FLAC downloads.
Mind blogging to waste such space and bandwidth, but, wasn't my
site, wasn't my rules.

Yeah, everyone gets their podcats in mp3, doofus.

If that were the case, there'd be no point in wasting storage
space to host other formats. Yet, some do. I prefer mp3, myself.

Care to guess what the percentages are for MP3 versus everything
else?

Fact remains, other formats are used as well as mp3. And, I have a
personal preference for MP3 over ACC, OGG, etc.

I have several friends who run podcast networks, so this is
something I know quite a bit about.

My friends and myself ran what you call podcasts several years prior
to the new term describing a 'taped' show. Gotta love buzzwords. We
also did a bit of radio dj via SAM, too. What is your specific point
here?


--
https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php

Then there was the Eskimo girl who spent the night with her
boyfriend and next morning found she was six months pregnant.

nospam
Tue, 11 Jul 2017
15:47:16 GMT in alt.comp.os.windows-10, wrote:


Actually, I don't. And, neither do you. Not only can I not read
anothers mind, I have no access to their hardware/software to
confirm/deny your assumption. Which as I wrote previously, is
what you're doing.

it's very obvious what he is doing.

So you're a mind reader? I'm not.

there's no point in using an ipod to share data files when a
usb stick would be easier, or just connect directly.

Who said anything about them being data files? They could be
copyleft files for all you or I knows. IE: he has permission to
share them and/or make all the copies he wants.

copyleft files are data files.

Technically speaking, everything is a 'data' file as it relates to a
PC. Some also contain executable code mind you, but, why confuse
things further for you.

you're arguing just to argue.

That's what you've been doing for awhile now. You're free to stop
whenever you like.

the reality is that he does *not* have permission to share what's
on the various ipods.

Without knowing what's on those ipods, it's hard to say whether he
has permission or not. For all either of us knows, they're public
domain recordings.

he has also admitted he goes to the library to steal music, and
using *their* computers too.

You're using the wrong terminology, again. Stealing isn't the same
thing as Copyright infringement. If that's what he's actually doing
when he goes to the library.

you're trying to justify piracy. you are a scumbag.

I'm doing nothing of the sort. And, your personal attacks have no
value to me. By having to resort to them, it indicates you've already
lost the 'debate'; not that one was under way.

Cite MID where I actually wrote that. I suspect you won't be able
to do so. I wrote that my mp3 player was non audio file friendly,
but, I said nothing of the ipod concerning that.

yes you did. stop lying.

Provide MID of my stating that and I'll eat my words. You do know how
to find MIDs right?


--
https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php

Some days, the only good things on TV are the vase and the clock.

"David B." news:Oob9B.221700$k87.127969
@fx04.fr7 Tue, 11 Jul 2017 21:27:10 GMT in alt.comp.os.windows-10,
wrote:

On 11-Jul-17 4:47 PM, nospam said about Dustin J. Cook

you're trying to justify piracy. you are a scumbag.

Wow! Somebody else has agreed with me at last! :-)

LOL! David, you had no issues with my 'piracy' until HHI doxed you
for attempting to dox me first. I was candid with you concerning my
activities via email when you were semi-civil towards me. In fact,
you ignored it at the time. The only time it became a crusade for you
is when HHI dox'd you, like I said. And, you were given ample warning
that was coming when I asked you years ago if you knew what an .nfo
file was.

I think waiting two years for you to make things right for what you
tried doing to me first was ample time for you to avoid the problem
you found yourself having. Being the drunkard you are though, you
thought (incorrectly) that you were untouchable and I couldn't do
anything in response to your doxing efforts. You learned differently,
the hard way. But, you chose to go that route.

Like an ankle biter though, you'll latch onto any negative comment
written about me. And, that's only because of the lesson you were
taught by me, several years ago. One you obviously won't forget
anytime soon. :-)




--
https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php

'Bother,' said Pooh as he disposed of Piglet's body.

Lewis
Tue, 11 Jul 2017 20:23:15 GMT
in alt.comp.os.windows-10, wrote:

In message Diesel
wrote:
Lewis
Mon, 10 Jul 2017 14:38:37
GMT in alt.comp.os.windows-10, wrote:

In message
Diesel wrote:
Jolly Roger
Sat, 08 Jul 2017 20:21:39
GMT in alt.comp.os.windows-10, wrote:

On 2017-07-08, Diesel wrote:
Jolly Roger
Sat, 17 Jun 2017
20:38:55 GMT in alt.comp.os.windows-10, wrote:

Only to the ignorant. Meanwhile those of us who have
actually used it have no problem with it because it works
great. Go figure.

In a home based LAN setup, maybe. If you need more control,
doesn't seem like a good choice.

Most people don't "need more control".

Oh? How do you know what most people need?

Because most people are not linux apologist troglodytes living
with their parents?

ROFL. I'm not a linux apologist

Yes you are. Your claim that desktop linux is a viable OS for
everyone automatically makes you an apologist.

I find it to be a very useful desktop OS, for my needs. I didn't state
it would be great for everyone. Anymore so than I think Apple is great
for everyone (it's certainly not for me) or Windows is great for
everyone. People have different tastes and the IT landscape clearly
reflects that.

As for your personal claims, I don't care and I don't believe you.

I could care less whether or not you believe me. My name is well known,
my former handles are well known. A simple google search will confirm
the claims I've stated concerning myself.

Even one of my detractors (David B) can confirm that what I've written
about myself is true. I have been written about in Rolling Stone
magazine (the one with David spade naked aside from a leaf covering his
private region) for some of the code I once wrote that wasn't friendly.
It wasn't the lame trojans you see today, or the bs ransomware crap
people are having to deal with these days. My programs weren't
interested in your data and I wasn't interested in your money. They
were interested in self replication, and, they did that job quite
nicely. I routinely scored wildlist status with my work. We aren't
talking about scripts and/or word macro viruses, here, either. I'm
talking about actual exe/com based file infection. To the point where
self checking executables couldn't tell they'd become carriers of my
bugs. Stealth technology, crypto, etc was present on nearly ALL of
them, except for my very first one, a prototype.

It's due to my self replicating program authorship that he contacted me
via email in the first place some years ago. He wanted me to hack
(crack actually) into several websites he had no permission to access
anymore. I offered to examine any malware executable and/or url
pointing to one (scripts included!) He was never able to provide
anything, despite my asking several times for him to do so if he wanted
me to examine something specific that he felt was amiss with the sites
he tried to hire me to break into. I declined his offers, and, that
****ed him off.

I did infact work for a company known as Malwarebytes Corporation;
David B was kind enough to take a screenshot of my name listed in About
button tab region; prior to our individual names being removed and
replaced (for professional reasons) Malwarebytes Corporation. My gig
was that of a paid expert malware researcher. I was paid to sit in my
pjs at the house and reverse engineer malicious 0day malware.
Executables, scripts, etc. And, teach our antimalware program what to
look for and how to remove it, without doing further harm to the host
in the process.

Malwarebytes recruited me to come and work for them via email, btw. I
didn't apply for any job with them, I wasn't even looking for one. They
recruited me for the name I'd established for myself as one of the good
guys, years after being one of the bad guys. I did this by writing my
own antimalware utility known as BugHunter and supporting it, entirely
on my own for three years. At the height of it, it could scan for
and remove 13,042 malicious executables, etc. Including some commercial
spyware. Not bad for a single person, if I do say so myself. I not only
wrote and supported the engine (from scratch mind you), but I also
analyzed every single malicious code it could detect to create each
signature for them. BugHunter's engine, database, etc, was entirely
made from scratch. Initially to assist us with the growing malware
issues at a company I worked for. This was long before you many useful
dedicated antimalware detection/removal tools. Long before various
antivirus companies started taking browser hijackers, spyware,
ransomware, etc, seriously.

Oh, and incidently, it won all five 'doves' on completelyfreesoftware
when they reviewed it. Calling it a "Must have for PC users!"

This is a partial list of malware known to the program:
http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk/partlist.txt

This is the main site for it:
http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk/

And this where you can read the documentation for it, if you so desire.
http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk/BUGHUNT.TXT

Do keep in mind, the software has been officially discontinued for
years now; I couldn't keep working on it and doing Malwarebytes work
fulltime. The engines weren't compatable, not even close. It was
essentially double the work load on my part. And, Malwarebytes was a
paying gig where as BugHunter wasn't. So...

Incidently, BugHunter was used by techies all over the world and it did
it's intended functions well enough to be included on Hirens utility
cd. Are you familiar with it? The geeksquad was even using it back in
the day. I know this because a friend who worked for them provided me a
copy of their 'toolkit' cdrom. It was loaded with freeware, mine
included. But, as you can see by reading bughunt.txt I did give
permission for business and non business users alike to use it without
paying me a dime for doing so. BugHunter as I wrote above was intended
initially to assist me at work; I'm a certified PC technician, you see.
And, any time I could save working on a machine was that much more time
I could dedicate to another one in for servicing.


So you see, I really don't care if you believe me or not. Facts speak
well enough for themselves, your personal opinion of me, aside.

I will continue to consider you as a drop-out living in the
basement because that is exactly how you act.

I don't much care what you consider me to be. You already lost any
respect I may have had for you when you jumped to conclusions and
accused me of being a linux apologist. I'm not here to defend Linux,
Windows, Apple, etc. They all have their own strengths and weaknesses.

I'm not a fan of Apple products, but, I have no issues with people who
are. More power to them. Personally, I wish the development of OS/2
warp was taken more seriously, it was a great OS for running multiline
BBSes; it beat the pants off Windows 3.x for time slicing. Which was
important when you were running multiple nodes.


--
https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php

The idea that God is His own grandmother may be unsupported by
Scripture, but who wants to offend God's grandmother?

nospam
Tue, 11 Jul 2017
15:47:15 GMT in alt.comp.os.windows-10, wrote:

In article , Diesel
wrote:

If you want a Unix with a usable GUI the only option is macOS
(neé OS X) because only Apple had the resources to make a
really usable UI over the top of a Unix foundation. Course,
it's not Linux, it's BSD, but BSD is better than Linux anyway
since it has less GPL3 pollution.

I don't agree with you concerning Apples idea of a GUI.

you haven't used a mac, so you're not in a position to comment

Actually I've not only used various macs, I've performed service work
on several too. I didn't see much point in them using non
philips/flat screws to open the case on several Macbooks. Philips
would have been fine. I didn't enjoy having to dig out another
toolbox just to open the machine to replace an optical drive, which,
turned out being okay once I removed the penny a small child placed
into it. The machine internals were pleasant to look at it, too,
btw. Well designed mainboard, nice layout. But, I still wouldn't
spend the money to own one. Apple just isn't my thing.

I had my choice as a kiddo to go with Apple or go with PC when my
coco finally died, I went with x86 based PC due to it's open
architecture and never looked back. My first one was a blazing 10mhz
80286 Intel powered Tandy 3000NL. It didn't include a hard disk,
initially. I acquired one on an ISA (8bit) controller card awhile
later. But, I was able to run a BBS package called Spitfire that
resided on the same floppy (3.5 isn't really floppy) that booted the
machine. It had an active message board, a very small file area and a
couple of working door games. That was when tight/effient code meant
something though.

I don't much
care about your preference for BSD over Linux, either. I run both
here as well as Windows. I see benefits in all of them and
drawbacks too. None of them are perfect. Again, YMMV.

except for apple, for which you see no benefit at all and refuse
to learn what the benefits might actually be.

Partially correct. I have no Apple computers and no iOS based devices
here. However, That doesn't mean I see no possible benefit for others
to use those devices if they want to do so. I personally don't, but,
that's my decision.

What usefulness you see in Itunes is not shared by myself. I don't
need the additional features it offers. I'm pleased with my panasonic
portable mp3 player as it does what I want. It has an easy to change
power source, plays whatever mp3s I put on it, and, any computer here
can easily talk to it since they treat it as an external hard disk.
That works for me. May not work for you and some others, but, that's
why we have choices. right?


--
https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php

No quarter asked -- no change given.

On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 05:13:50 -0000 (UTC), Diesel wrote:

While Winamp doesn't keep a favorites/rating system, times tracks
been played, how often, when it was last played, other software
players do. Amarok is one such player. It even goes so far as to try
and bring up the song lyrics, if you want to read them as it plays
the track.

Winamp also has a lyrics plugin that brings up lyrics when a song plays.
That's one of its features I like best.

In article
IpP01lgp.8r6YbE23yhg1T
Ln05, Diesel wrote:

Actually, I don't. And, neither do you. Not only can I not read
anothers mind, I have no access to their hardware/software to
confirm/deny your assumption. Which as I wrote previously, is
what you're doing.

it's very obvious what he is doing.

So you're a mind reader? I'm not.

what you're not is observant.

there's no point in using an ipod to share data files when a
usb stick would be easier, or just connect directly.

Who said anything about them being data files? They could be
copyleft files for all you or I knows. IE: he has permission to
share them and/or make all the copies he wants.

copyleft files are data files.

Technically speaking, everything is a 'data' file as it relates to a
PC. Some also contain executable code mind you, but, why confuse
things further for you.

i'm not confused at all and knock off the attitude.

claiming that a song or app is a data file doesn't get you off the hook
for pirating it.

you're sounding like that lunatic in another newsgroup who claims
everything is a number and numbers can't be copyrighted.

you're arguing just to argue.

That's what you've been doing for awhile now. You're free to stop
whenever you like.

nope. what i've been doing is correcting your nonsensical babble.

the reality is that he does *not* have permission to share what's
on the various ipods.

Without knowing what's on those ipods, it's hard to say whether he
has permission or not. For all either of us knows, they're public
domain recordings.

if they're public domain, then there's no need to share it from an
ipod. just download it directly.

he has also admitted he goes to the library to steal music, and
using *their* computers too.

You're using the wrong terminology, again. Stealing isn't the same
thing as Copyright infringement. If that's what he's actually doing
when he goes to the library.

i'm *well* aware of the difference.

usenet is not a courtroom and the precise legal definition does not
matter nor does it change anything.

what he does is illegal. end of story.

you're trying to justify piracy. you are a scumbag.

I'm doing nothing of the sort. And, your personal attacks have no
value to me. By having to resort to them, it indicates you've already
lost the 'debate'; not that one was under way.

that's not a personal attack. it's a statement of fact.

someone who does not respect other's ip, particularly one who plays
word games to make excuses for doing, it is a scumbag.

meanwhile, your posts are overflowing with attacks, such as:
why confuse things further for you.
You do know how to find MIDs right?

which means *you* lost the debate.

Cite MID where I actually wrote that. I suspect you won't be able
to do so. I wrote that my mp3 player was non audio file friendly,
but, I said nothing of the ipod concerning that.

yes you did. stop lying.

Provide MID of my stating that and I'll eat my words. You do know how
to find MIDs right?

knock off the attitude.

In article
IpP01lgp.8r6YbE23yhg1T
Ln05, Diesel wrote:

Depends on the portable player and what you've connected it's
output to...

which will be headphones (it's a portable music player, after
all) and, usually cheap crappy ones.

I haven't used headphones in a very long time...

then why do you have a portable music player?

I didn't feel like pulling the cdplayer (cd player doesn't work, but
everything else including AUX input still does) from one of the
vehicles I drive. I can't be arsed to add a cdplayer to yet another
one, but, it supports aux input too.

ok, but a car is one of the worst places to listen to music, so high
quality audio files are not needed.

And, on occasion, depending on the jobsite I'm working at, the
portable dewalt stereo I use also has aux ports. Commercial free
tunes, provided via my portable player. No headphones necessary.

no need for high quality audio there either.

At night time, I might also want to drift off and snooze to some
good music. I have external speakers for that too, or, I could fire
up a laptop and tie that in, instead. But, it's quicker just to tie
the player into it.

no need for high quality audio there either.

I've also got cords that seperate into RCA connectors for tieing
into component stereo equipment I have. I use that option sometimes
too.

no need for a portable player if it's plugged into component stereo
system which itself is not portable.


managing content directly in the file system is very limiting.

How so?

because the file system is primitive and rigid and was not
designed to manage content.

ROFL. I disagree, but, YMMV.

you obviously aren't familiar with the other options that exist and
aren't interested in learning. you're stuck in your primitive ways.

asset managers go well beyond the limits of the file system, and that's
not an apple thing either.

google, microsoft, adobe and many others are all moving beyond the
limits of the file system. it's long overdue. direct file system access
is primitive, restrictive and is eventually going away. it's no longer
needed because much better options exist, except in very specific
cases, such as those who are developing the operating system itself.

And what makes you so sure that's the only way in which I
manage things? You've never heard of a catalog?

sure have, and it's automatically created and maintained by an
asset manager, itunes being one example.

Umm, no. Actually, in my case, it's not automatically created or
maintained by an asset manager that isn't human. My catalog doesn't
just tell me what I have, it also tells me which backup is the most
recent, AND, when I should be creating another for rotation
purposes. Media does have a life expectancy you see, and, I've got
thousands of encoding hours and years worth of work tied up in that.

asset managers and backup strategies are two separate things.

either you've very confused or it's just another one of your diversions
to make it look like you know more than you actually do.

So, I'm not about to be irresponsible and place that data at risk of
loss and/or corruption because I'm so lazy that I just rely on a
particular program to keep track of things for me. Or, right/wrongly
assume that if I do suffer loss and/or corruption due to failing
media, that I can just go online and be granted another copy of what
I already paid for. I don't use the cloud, so I'm entirely
responsible for ensuring my data is safe in the event of hardware
failure or media archive failure due to bit rot.

that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with using an asset
manager and your ignorance of the cloud is further demonstrated.


you keep ranting about how horrible itunes is, and now you admit
that it's useful.

I said nothing of the sort. I've stated numerous times that I don't
use Itunes and why. It might work perfectly most of the time when
used on Apple devices, but Windows is a different story.

nonsense.

itunes works perfectly fine on windows.

And,
last time I checked (it's been awhile, granted) it wasn't native
*nix (BSD or Linux) friendly on the PC (not Apple) hardware platform.

of course not.

the market for linux apps is far too small for most developers to
bother adding and supporting a third platform. there's the occasional
exception, but very, very few.

state of the art apps are mac/windows and now ios/android.





My player isn't internet/network aware on it's own, unlike your
Apple products. It's actually another reason I purchased the one I
did. I didn't *want* to use those features as I have no real use for
them. I'm not so lazy that I can't do what itunes offers aside from
music playback/downloading myself. OTH, I'm not saying that those of
you who use the wifi/sync features are lazy in and of itself.

you continue to demonstrate your ignorance of all things apple.

ipods are *not* internet aware and *cannot* connect to the internet.
period.

the lone exception is the ipod touch, which is an ipod only by name.

it runs a completely different os on entirely different hardware than
the other ipods. it's basically an iphone without the phone part.

that also has nothing to do with itunes. itunes will play good
ol' mp3 without issue.

I prefer Winamp.

winamp doesn't do half the stuff itunes can do.

I really don't care about the extra fluff itunes offers to do. It's
not necessary for me.

that's fine, but the vast majority wants more than winamp.

Winamp has a kickass equalizer and supports
3rd party code for most of the features it has, you can do more than
'skin' it if you can write code capable of calling APIs. Most HLL
languages will do that, and, win32 asm certainly will.

big deal. itunes supports plugins and there are a whole slew of them
available.

most people *listen* to their music, not fuss with their player.

Like I wrote previously, Itunes tries to be everything including the
kitchen sink, and I don't need that and don't like programs that are
written like that, generally speaking. I prefer programs that do a
few things and do them well, without interfering with other programs
and/or installing a pile of modules that i'll never use. A complete
itunes install on Windows makes tons of registry entries and tosses
files all over the place. It's hardly what you'd call a portable
app.

big deal. although the registry is a stupid idea, there's nothing
inherently wrong with registry entries when done properly.

what matters is what the app can *do* for the user.

I'm old school. Back when I learned to code, everything was a
'portable' app. You didn't make messes and/or create dependency hell
issues for yourself or the system administrator. Your program could
easily be transferred to another machine simply by copying your
directory (folder these days) contents over, if you actually
required your own directory/folder. For many of my console apps,
they all reside in a central location that's in the path environment
variable. If they do have any .cfg files associated, they know to
look in the directory their being executed from first, unless one
was specified on the command line.

portable apps have their place but they're also very limiting.

Windows turned things around and suggested (in fact encouraged)
programmers to use installers and toss dlls specific to their
software into the Windows folders, potentially overwriting an
'older' common dll that other programs might infact rely on. Most
uncool.

windows is not an example of how to write an os and what windows does
is not something to use as an example, other than what *not* to do.

there is no registry on mac os, there is no 'dll-hell' on a mac, most
mac apps can be drag-installed and drag-uninstalled and in almost every
case, they can be run from wherever the user wants to put them.

I'm glad to see portable apps making a comeback and I still think
that MS shouldn't have tried to snub them out with what I consider
to be, poor programming practices. You avoid dll dependency hell by
keeping your stuff with you, even if it might on occasion result in
multiple (but different) copies of the same 'common' dlls.

You previously claimed to have been (still are?) a programmer, you
should completely understand where I'm coming from with that
comment.

i do, but what you're missing is that portable apps are not the
solution to everything.

It doesn't offend me.

apparently it does because you keep trolling with anti-apple
garbage.

I'm not trolling with anything. I'm not an Apple hater nor a fanboy.
My dislike for them dates back to the original Apple computers with
the green screen. I didn't much care for them then, nor do I really
care much for them now. The imagewriter (remember those?) wasn't
impressive to me when it came on the market either. Imo, I had a
better printer on my coco at home. Which was at the time, comparable
to the Apple machine connected to the Imagewriter.

nonsense. if you think a coco computer with some mystery unnamed
printer was somehow comparable, then you're a lost cause.

you won't even identify which 'apple machine' it is because you know
the claim is complete bull****.

i had an imagewriter and it was quite good for its day, especially when
driven by a mac. the laserwriter a couple of years later was a game
changer.

you probably were using text mode.

Yes, and? The device has copies of music already available on the
network; which is backed up. So...

but not the play counts, song ratings and other metadata.

The important metadata is stored inside the files themselves. ID
tag. Standard, format. My own personal song ratings wouldn't apply
to anyone aside from my self. Others who also have access may not
rate tracks as I would. I have a variety of taste in music that
isn't shared by all who have access. Play counts are also
meaningless in this context. Many devices have access (read only) to
the shares. Each device may/may not keep track of play counts
depending on the player being used, but, I personally do not. And, I
don't care if another device on the network does. It's meaningless
to me.

Externally, my albums also include .nfo (very descriptive and
detailed information is stored in these files; concerning the album
itself, release date, rip date, record company responsible, track
list with length of time per track and total length of time per
album, greets, etc)

And .sfv files to check against modification; accidental or
otherwise. So, when I send a copy of an album to someone else, they
can verify the files are as they should be. IE: the same things I
have. For integrity. Which is important to me and others into the
same things as myself concerning the digital music scene.

They also contain an .m3u file (which is essentially standard these
days) that contains a local playlist consisting of the tracks in
that album in the order they were listed on the cd. So you can click
the m3u and listen to the entire album, track by track just as you
would if it was still on CD.

that's incredibly primitive, not flexible and a lot of work to maintain.

While Winamp doesn't keep a favorites/rating system, times tracks
been played, how often, when it was last played, other software
players do. Amarok is one such player. It even goes so far as to try
and bring up the song lyrics, if you want to read them as it plays
the track.

in other words, to get basic functionality you have to have multiple
players and then keep everything in sync. even worse.

you're making more work for yourself, for no reason.

I don't know if Itunes does much for lyrics, I haven't installed it
intentionally in years. And, the last time I did was to help a
friend who bought a used ipod that wasn't independent of PC. It
required itunes to initialize it and load tracks to play. I didn't
appreciate having to wait several minutes for itunes to create a
library with the collection of music available in one share, let
alone this entire network and/or the 'remote' shares that actually
point to other LANs run by friends and associates. Drag and drop
and/or copy and paste would have been faster in that case. I could
have already started loading his ipod in the time Itunes was still
'creating' a database for me.

user error.

as for options, there are far *more* options for managing content
with itunes because that's what it was designed to do, so if
options is your goal, you chose the wrong solution.

itunes isn't very good for managing rips by a ripping group. Backup
history, etc. Rotation of archive, etc.

itunes is not a backup app. nobody said it was a backup app.

why would anyone expect an asset manager to be a backup app???

that's another one of your idiotic diversions.

Itunes tries to be everything, including the kitchen sink, rolled up
into one massive ball.

not in the way you think, and you just complained that it can't do
backups, so obviously it's not doing enough.

you can't have it both ways.

if you don't like it doing everything, then not including backup is a
*good* thing.

On an apple, that might work quite nicely for
some. For Windows/*nix (that isn't running on Apple native hardware
and doesn't have the closed source Apple tweaks applied) , not so
well in some cases.

absolutely wrong. there are no 'apple tweaks applied'

do you just make this **** up as you go along or what?

Although Apple's OS is based on BSD, Apples
version itself is closed source and proprietary, despite being based
on a well known MONSTER of an Operating system. Much like Apples own
hardware.

users don't give a **** whether it's open source or not. they're not
going to be modifying anything.

users want to *use* apps to get work done or listen to music or
whatever.

Apple makes 'great' code for use on their own hardware, but, they
seem to take a different view for QC checks when the software is
ported for use on Windows. It's almost as if they'd prefer you use
their stuff on their own, overpriced (imo) closed proprietary
hardware instead of the PC platform which is not, and, has never
really been, closed source. PC is an open architecture environment.
It's always been friendly in that respect. Unlike Apple. Even the
Apple II wasn't 'geek' friendly if you wanted to have a peek under
the hood and/or make changes to it's hardware without Apples
blessing.

complete utter nonsense.

you really do make this **** up as you go along.

apple published the schematics for the apple ii (and apple i before
it). ****loads of people peeked under the hood of their apple ii, both
software and hardware.

for the mac, the entire os was fully documented along with quite a bit
of the hardware (and exceptionally well too). classic mac os was very
easy to patch and modify the os to do all sorts of things, *without*
needing the source code.

when the mac ii with nubus slots came out (an industry standard not
created by apple), there was extensive documentation on designing cards
and drivers.

it doesn't matter if it's lossy compressed or not, nor is it about
what i feel.

the law is the law and that's piracy. period.

The law is a bit more specific than that. A certain percentage of
material must be present for it to even technically be a 'copy' of
anothers work.

absolutely false.

that's a common belief, but it's completely wrong.

there is *no* minimum percentage or amount for something to be
infringing.

ask any ip lawyer.

That's something that hasn't been brought up in a
courtroom (afaik) when an individual is being sued. I'd like to see
it brought up myself.

there's no need to bring it up in a courtroom since the law is clear.

By technical people on both sides of the fence
as well as a judge who's uptodate on technology and all three
parties understand the law as it relates and exactly how the
compression codec used works. IE: what isn't present in the so
called copy vs what is still present. It could be an interesting
result.

complete nonsense.

claiming that a compressed copy of a song is different enough from an
original such that it's not a true copy and therefore non-infringing is
utterly ludicrous.

no lawyer would even consider it, let alone get to court.





It still boggles my mind that Apple in all it's genius (sarcasm)
forgoed a valid and useful option that's been present on PC optical
drives for years. A phsyically manual way of opening the tray
without having to teardown the drive and/or computer the drive is
installed in.

once again, you demonstrate how utterly ignorant you are about all
things apple.

apple switched to slot drives long ago so there's no tray, but
regardless, it's trivial to eject a stuck disc. there is no need to
disassemble the computer to do so.


and even if they did, that doesn't justify you also breaking the
law.

Alas, millions of people tend to disagree with you for the reasons
I've already stated and others I haven't mentioned. In some
countries, the copyright laws you're so concerned with don't even
exist as you know them. The USA/UK understanding of it isn't
universal. And, unlike the USA/UK, they don't modify copyright laws
to suit the lobbyists. Cluebyfour: Disney and mickey mouse.

i'm only concerned with usa law, which is where i live and where you
live and where most people reading this thread live (but not all).

Another article you'll probably avoid reading (despite it being on topic
concerning your piracy accusation)

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM...C7-AF95-3E1A6A
C07C37.html

i've read it before and ded is not a lawyer.


We'll just
have to agree to disagree on this.

translated: you know you're wrong.

No translation is required. Your opinion differs from mine,

it's not an opinion. it's well established law, which means your
opinion is factually wrong.

and, unlike
you, I can back my position up without confusing the terminologies
or claiming something is happening when it isn't.

it's not possible to back up what is factually false.

IE: copyright
infringement isn't the same thing as stealing. Stealing deprives you
of the material I stole from you. You don't have it anymore. The
terms are different and have different meanings for a very specific
reason. If I copy a cd, but, you still have the original, I can't
very well have stolen it from you. You STILL HAVE IT.

i'm *well* aware of the difference.

it does not matter nor does it change anything. it's just another one
of your silly little diversions to justify your illicit activities.

calling it stealing is commonly done, even by lawyers. this isn't a
courtroom so a precise legal definition is not required.



someone with ethics and morals does not steal nor do they try to
justify it.

I don't steal and I've made no efforts to justify stealing from
anyone. You're using the wrong terminology to describe what I might
do from time to time.

again, this isn't a courtroom. it's commonly called stealing even if
it's technically not, including by lawyers.

both are illegal and you just admitted you break the law, exactly as i
thought.

apple has always been anti-drm. apple does not want drm at all.
even mac os isn't drm'ed (unlike windows).

No, they haven't.

yes they absolutely have.

That's just not true,

yes it absolutely is true.

apple *never* wanted drm'ed music or anything else. steve jobs even
authored a letter describing apple's anti-drm stance.

the record companies, who own the rights to the content, *required* drm
as a condition to license the music to be sold on the itunes store.
without drm, apple could not have had an itunes music store.

after a couple of years, the record companies realized that apple was
correct about not needing drm, so they relaxed their stance and allowed
apple (and others) to sell drm-free music.

had there never been an itunes store, they'd still be thinking drm was
required.

and, even though you seem to love Apple and
worship the ground their people walk on, it makes no difference.

i don't worship anything.

you, on the other hand, hate apple so much that you make up **** just
to bash.

Only certain editions of Windows suffer from MS
version of drm, in a manner of speaking.

'in a manner of speaking' ??

Yep. Win2k and down have no DRM. Windows XP has a vlk edition which
negates product activation, outright. So no DRM on vlk edition
either. You don't seem to know much about Windows...
Perhaps you're confused on what DRM actually is?

i'm not confused at all and knock off the attitude.

win2k and certainly xp are useless in 2017 and actually are very risky
to use at all.

you obviously pirate windows and no doubt pirated the apps you use
as well.

No, and, no. It's hard to pirate freeware.

that depends on the end user agreement.

clearly you don't give a **** about that either.

It's also very difficult
to pirate a vlk key you paid MS for and are still within the
licensing terms to make use of.

it's unlikely that you're still within the terms while not at whatever
company who paid for it, but the bigger question is why anyone would be
using win2k in 2017. it's not secure and no recent apps will run in it.

the music industry *forced* apple to use drm for music that was
sold on the itunes music store because the music industry was
terrified of rampant piracy.

Which is why I have my own private collection of music.

most, if not all of which, is pirated.

Nope. It's all from original RETAIL cds that were bought and paid
for. My originals are opened and read a single time. Then, I put
them up for safe keeping. I've done that since I was a kid with ALL
media I purchased and I see no reason to use originals and risk
damaging them when that's what backups are for. Run off the backups,
never the originals.

And, Copyright law does infact give me the right to make a legal
backup of said disc.

only audio, and for personal use.

The only exception is that I cannot legally get
around DRM protections present on a disc to acquire that LEGALLY
allowed copy. (Which wasn't always the case), that's due to another
change in copyright law. Not intended to benefit John Q Public, but
entirely designed to benefit the mega corporations (such as Disney),
instead. Which was never the original point of Copyright laws in the
first place.

it doesn't matter what the original point was. the law is what it is.

work to change it if you disagree, but don't expect to get very far,
especially with your absurd reasoning.

For a very detailed background concerning Copyright law and public
domain, I invite you or anyone else interested in viewing another
great video from the tv show, Adam ruins everything.

a 3 minute video is in no way a detailed background on anything,
certainly not copyright law, which is *incredibly* complex and can't be
explained in 3 minutes even by a lawyer who understands it.

the person making the video is not a lawyer so he's not in a position
to offer anything relevant.

for a very detailed background on copyright law, talk to an actual
lawyer, not watch videos on youtube.



back then, drm was everywhere. nobody sold drm-free music, and
out of all of the drm schemes that existed at the time, apple's
was the *least* restrictive.

Ehh, some did/still do infact sell drm free tunes long before
Apple. And, Apples was hardly the least restrictive.

apple's was definitely the least restrictive.

That's a personal opinion. Once again, I disagree.

it's not an opinion.

apple's drm was the least restrictive of what existed at the time,
something which is an indisputable fact.

music from the itunes store could be played on an *unlimited*
number of ipods and/or burned to cds, which could then be played
in *any* cd player. for honest people, it was completely invisible
and not noticeable at all.

That wasn't always the case, in so far as played on an unlimited
number of ipods.

it has *always* been the case for unlimited ipods.

it's also been the case for burning unlimited audio cds, which could be
played in any cd player. those cds could even be distributed, which is
certainly illegal, but it wasn't blocked.

that was *far* more permissive than anything that existed at that time.

For an Apple person, i'm surprised you don't
remember Apples name for their DRM. Fairplay.

knock off the attitude.

i know quite well what it's called, its history and most importantly,
how it actually works.

you do not.

Apple changed things later,

no they didn't.

again, it has *always* been an unlimited number of ipods and an
unlimited number of audio cds.

you are *wrong*.

but, initially, your music was only
authorized to play on upto five computers/devices.

nope.

only *computers* had a limit.

ipods and burning cds did *not* have a limit. that's what 'unlimited'
means.

apple's drm was *very* permissive for honest people while remaining an
obstacle for dishonest people.

You had to
deauthorize one or more of them to play the music on another device
that could then be authorized to play the music. It was DRM
lockdown, although, to Apples credit, five computers/devices was
'nice' of them.

you obviously don't understand the difference between a computer and a
device.

five computers is actually very generous.

most people don't have five computers let alone more than that, so that
limit was rarely, if ever, actually an issue.



Oh sure, Apple did the work for you and it's instant gratification, but
you're still paying more for an inferior sounding file.

nonsense.

the itunes store offers 256k aac audio which is indistinguishable from
the original.



there are of course other options for media servers (most of which
aren't anywhere near as good or as flexible) and none of which
sync with ipods/ios devices.

It would be illegal to reverse engineer any Apple product in order
to make your media server hardware/software Apple product friendly.
The ONLY way around this is to get Apples blessing, and, that's just
not a realistic option. Apple doesn't want you having something that
itunes does without having to be an Itunes user.

absolutely false.

several companies have itunes server equivalents and/or apps that can
connect to an itunes server, and apple hasn't blessed anything nor put
a stop to it.

On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 12:38:10 -0400, nospam
wrote:

ok, but a car is one of the worst places to listen to music, so high
quality audio files are not needed.

That says more about your car than about cars in general.

In article , Char Jackson
wrote:


ok, but a car is one of the worst places to listen to music, so high
quality audio files are not needed.

That says more about your car than about cars in general.

absolutely wrong.

car interiors, no matter what make, are an oddly shaped mix of
reflective glass and absorbent fabric, with speakers typically pointing
at the driver's feet or chest, the driver sitting off-center, and along
with engine noise (for ice), road noise and traffic noise, makes for a
very bad listening environment.

high quality audio content is wasted.

nospam wrote:
In article , Char Jackson
wrote:


ok, but a car is one of the worst places to listen to music, so high
quality audio files are not needed.

That says more about your car than about cars in general.

absolutely wrong.

car interiors, no matter what make, are an oddly shaped mix of
reflective glass and absorbent fabric, with speakers typically pointing
at the driver's feet or chest, the driver sitting off-center, and along
with engine noise (for ice), road noise and traffic noise, makes for a
very bad listening environment.

high quality audio content is wasted.


Hmmm I find it amazing that *you* can be the arbiter of *his*
aesthetics. Are you next going to tell him what music he must like, what
color should be his favorite, etc.?

So typical for Apple fanboys of a company that originally tried to buck
conformity, (think 1984 campaign), now compels conformity...

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com