This is nonsense. iTunes stores all of your music directly in the filesystem in a hierarchical directory of files. On Mac OS X it goes ~/Music/iTunes/iTunes Media/Music/[Artist]/[Album]/[Tracks]

Windows is the same except the root of the hierarchy is your "My Music" (or whatever it's called now) folder in you User folder.

Moving YOUR OWN PURCHASED MUSIC that is DRM free is as simple as copying it from that location in the file system hierarchy to whatever "non-Apple device" you'd like. Provided that device can play AAC files (which it should be able to do), you're done. Not sure why that would be "time consuming and unfriendly." If it doesn't support AAC, you can directly convert to MP3 with a umber of freely available programs, including iTunes itself. Complaints against the use of AAC aside, iTunes does nothing to hinder your use of purchased music any longer. As a bonus, any track that you purchased from iTunes in the past that contained DRM and is still available on the iTunes Store can be redownloaded free of charge. Just delete the track from you computer and you'll be eligible to redownload it from "iTunes in the Cloud" in 256 kbps non-DRM'ed AAC. (Note that I didn't say iTunes Match which does cost money but has the added advantage of letting you download any song in your music library that also exists in the iTunes store in 256 kbps non-DRM'ed AAC no matter where you originally got it from.)

There are no limits on the number of devices that DRM free tracks (read: all tracks since Apple moved away from DRM years ago) can be synced to as there's no DRM to track it any longer. You can even find iTunes AAC tracks on file sharing websites and place them on your iPod/iPhone/whatever other device you want without any extra effort.

Apple's by no means perfect. Their refusal to allow the drone strike tracking app into the App Store in particular is a recent example of a decision that they have made that I'm incredibly unhappy with and that makes me question their ability to deny apps based on nothing more than their own opinion, but they're not nearly as bad (or "draconian") as so many on Slashdot make them out to be. Perhaps if people would do a bit of research or *gasp* actually try things out (especially free things like iTunes) before making blanket incorrect statements, a lot of the unnecessary (and none of the necessary) Apple bashing could stop.

I'm confused. First, when they say half of the employees will be invited back as consultants, compensated in options, you say that those will be worthless and imply that options are therefore shitty compensation. Then, when discussing the CEO you say that if he has received options that will be sweeping his compensation under the rug, implying the options will be worth something and the CEO will get rich off of them. Sounds really, really contradictory to me, and yet somehow is modded Insightful. What am I missing?

That being said, there are most definitely some shady dealings going on here.

I think their practically non-existent smartphone market share and negative profit share makes them pretty irrelevant at the moment. As you pointed out, however, they're part of Google now so all of that may change in the future. They're gonna have to figure out what to do about Samsung, seemingly the only truly relevant Android OEM at the moment, first though.

And there are some senators in Kentucky who would argue that evolution isn't real. Just because you can argue something doesn't make it true. Facts and evidence make something true. The facts clearly show at this time that the Mac App Store is a success.

It may come as a surprise to you but developers like to make money. Apple's ecosystem (so far) allows for more developers to make more money than any other ecosystem out there. People (that is real, actual, normal people who do not spend their time reading and commenting on Slashdot) also seem to love it, and are happy to be able to find everything they want in one place.

Perhaps a critical mass will come, but we're definitely not there yet. Argue all you want.

Funny that historically that absolutely did not happen, and in fact the US was at its most prosperous during those times. Greed will always exist, and some people will indeed move because of it. I say good riddance, go be a douchebag somewhere else.

Undoing all of the modding I've done on this thread just to respond to you.

You've got to be kidding me right? While there may be a sizable chunk of people on Slashdot wishing for the death of all things Apple, "many many people" would most certainly miss Apple if they were gone, or did you forget about that whole Steve Jobs is dead and everyone is freaking out thing?

Maybe I'm being naive, but doesn't pretty much every consumer OS now allow apps basically universal access to a user's contacts database? Windows does, OS X does, iOS does (for now), and Windows Phone does. Android prompts for this access, and iOS will as well starting with iOS 6, but the reality is that this app is advertised as a communication app, so anyone downloading it would almost certainly grant the app this privilege. So is this malware? Sure. Is this big, surprising news? I'm having a hard time understanding why it would be, especially to readers of Slashdot. Unless you just want to point fingers at Apple of course.

Here's a source from only 4 months ago. Wasn't really that hard to find. Iran has often allowed inspection teams into the country, but not into specific labs, plants, etc. that are suspected of being used to enrich uranium to weapons-grade levels. Now that doesn't necessarily mean that they are being used for this, but Iran has definitely not allowed inspectors in to look at them.

The question of whether they should is a bit different.

Also, it's foolish to think that Iran is not pursuing a nuclear weapon. They feel targeted and trapped, much like North Korea. Did you argue that they weren't really doing anything too?

And disagreeing with Iran does not mean that one "hates" Iran, though your crassness more than communicates your dislike for the USA.

While I wholeheartedly agree that there is a serious problem with the patent system, I don't understand why everyone seems to think this is a new thing. Inventors, or should I say "smart" inventors, have always patented their creations in an effort to lock others out so that they can make as much profit as possible. In fact, that's why the patent system exists.

Right now the focus of patent complaints seems to be largely on software patents, which I agree are largely bunk, but that's not the point. In the past there have been numerous patent wars over a bunch of things that are widespread and largely taken for granted today.

It's well-known that Edison fought hard to keep others from making motion pictures using patents he was granted, for instance.

The story of the "inventor" of FM radio is full of patent disputes and mistakes by the USPO.

There was also significant conflict, with court cases going all the way to the US Supreme Court, regarding telephone patents back in the day.

The point of all of this being that the patent system has always been great for "inventors" and horrible for everyone else. That's kind of the point.

So in summary, are software patents bogus? In my opinion most (and maybe even all) of them most certainly are. But is the use of the patent system to "shake-down money from everybody else" anything new? Not at all. So can we please stop pretending that it is?

I'm not sure if you didn't RTFA or are just a really, really angry person. As far as I can tell this actually IS about parents wanting to "take responsibility for [their] own" by turning on a filter to limit what their kids can see. You seem, based on this and your other comment on this story, to be upset that the filter is on Wikipedia's end instead of the person's PC, but why in the world that matters is beyond me. Or maybe you didn't take the time to notice that it would be opt-in and not turned on by default, therefore having absolutely zero effect on you.

It's interesting that you quote Twain's definition of censorship in another one of your posts:
"Censorship is telling a man he can't have steak, because a baby can't chew it."

That's not what's happening here. You get to choose whether to turn ON the filter. Using Twain's analogy: The steak is all yours, but if you don't want your baby who can't chew it to choke to death, now you can let us know and request that we not serve steak to your child.

Sees reasonable to me.

While that might be true, most MPAA-rated movies are made for profit and therefore need to reach as wide an audience as possible. And, wouldn't you know it, most theaters wont play films mot rated by the MPAA. Wikipedia doesn't have that problem.

Also, are you unaware of these things called "pornographic films?" I hear they're rather popular.

If this proposed filter was opt-out or mandatory I'd agree with the sentiment you seem to be trying to defend, but it's not. It's a tool adults can use at their discretion to help keep kids from seeing sexually explicit material. Nothing more, nothing less.

It's great how when something good actually happens in the US the comments on Slashdot are still mostly negative.

The existence of these letters and their public nature will make it basically impossible for any police department in the country to win a case in which they are accused of illegally destroying a recording. The legal arguments are handed to us here, by the DoJ no less. This creates a huge financial incentive for states and cities to make sure that their officers are not destroying recordings, and as they say, money talks. This seems like a good move which saves the administration from having to arrest police officers while accomplishing basically the same goal.

That's not actually the case. Per Netflix 30 hours of full HD uses 67 GB (says "about 70" in the article body, but further down clarifies that it's actually 67). That works out to 2.23 GB/hour. Times 4 hours gives us just under 9 GB/day which works out to closer to 4 weeks before you hit the cap. Also, it's unlikely (but surely not impossible) that all the shows being watched are encoded in Netflix's highest HD quality, though these calculations preclude using the internet for anything else, which is clearly unreasonable. I hate to be pedantic, but if you're going to make a point your facts should be accurate.

That being said, a 250 GB cap does become an issue when multiple people are sharing a connection, and something is definitely going to have to give at some point.

As someone in the field let me assure you that there is well-controlled research out there that has found clinically significant improvement in client functioning due to talk therapy.

Also, the best predictor of positive outcomes from treatment/therapy is the quality of the relationship between the client and the therapist. This has been studied and confirmed ad nauseum.

A quick PsycINFo search, by anyone with access, for "therapeutic alliance" or "therapeutic relationship" will confirm that for you.

I think you mean know your kid well enough to be able to tell whether they're right. Parents always assuming their kid is right, and then throwing a fit because their kid is being punished for "nothing," is what causes about half of the problems in schools as it is.

Some kids are jerks, and proper, attentive, involved parenting is the best way to correct this. You can't be a good or proper parent if you blindly believe everything your child says, which is exactly what the parents of many of these bullies do.