arent m4as supported like everything now since assholes insist on making use of apple shit and spreading it like a fucking disease

i use winamp, and it runs m4a's

@chris, itunes is a huge memory hog

I also use Winamp. I would never have iTunes on my computer if it wasn't for my iPod.

In other news, I saw Trapped Under Ice twice tonight. Not a bad night.

do y'all have macs?

[QUOTE=CrookedHead;18331733]I used my xmas money to order HTCE and 15 counts of Arson. So stoked! I hate waiting for the mail though =/[/QUOTE]

fucking nice.


also yeah .m4a is all kinds of common.

Brian, that sounds awesome. How did that happen?

EDIT: chris i have a macbook. it rules. though it's a couple years old and starting to slow down.

same mine's 4 years old. its a little slow, the hard drives crashed once, but i love it

apples treatment of 3rd party devs is so unpunx shame on you guys

yeah mine's two and a half, but i keep it pretty clean of shit, so i haven't had too many problems, but there is a notable slow down from when i first got it.

[QUOTE=whiteminority;18331839]
Brian, that sounds awesome. How did that happen?
[/QUOTE]
They played Every Time I Die's annual Christmas show, and then played a house show after. There were probably 100+ kids at the house show, even though it didn't start until 11:00. Wild.

Same deal for Bracewar tomorrow. They are opening for ETID early, and then playing the same house late. Should be fun.

i wanted to go to those shows so bad. one of my friends went though, and apparently he went a few years ago and puked on jordan or something and he loved it

everybody just needs to stop using proprietary software and closed containers. that said, every sane and modern OS should support m4a relatively easily...

[QUOTE=cbmartinez;18331808]arent m4as like itunes files, do you seriously not use itunes[/QUOTE]

i do not use itunes.

iTunes is awesome.

iTunes is really bad in every way fathomable to mankind. I have yet to come to know a single positive aspect of iTunes, technical or other.

that being said, pretty much any audio framework that is from post 1800s has libraries for playing anything in the MPEG-4 container format, as well as the ridiculous m4a extension. I have xine-lib compiled with aac-support. that's all I need, and I don't think it's any harder to get it working on other operating systems.

i like it. fuck you.

itunes is the shit. everything else is a step (or few) behind it.

if it's so good then why are all of you unable to produce a single advantage it holds over any sane non-proprietary audio player?

proprietary software seriously needs to stop. especially really *bad* proprietary software.

i don't need to come with a pros/cons list.

i've used various programs in the past, but i like iTunes the most. can't say why, just feels right.

[QUOTE=whiteminority;18332296]i don't need to come with a pros/cons list.

i've used various programs in the past, but i like iTunes the most. can't say why, just feels right.[/QUOTE]

me too. and plus....its purdy

as I thought. you are speaking purely from an irrational view, and cannot for the life of you support your devotion for this proprietary - and in that sense evil - software.

i was being sarcastic. anyways, ive said this before i am sure....but miles away is so fucking good.

what's wrong with something that's proprietary?

proprietary software does not provide source code. this means that you are unable to alter it, or hire someone to alter it. thus proprietary software is revoking the main advantage of software. proprietary software is in effect user-subjugating software.

proprietary software is also hostile to the notion of sharing (which is caring), thus halting the free flow of information and culture. all for a buck.

most of all mainstream proprietary software includes malicious code that is closed for a very good reason - the vendor does not want you to know what it does. a bunch of proprietary software *spies* on the user.

it is to me completely obvious that for software to be of any use, the user must be able to use, copy and modify it freely. the user should own the software, not the other way around.

in short: proprietary software is just another tactic the man uses to stay atop of you. I am not generally in favour of implying that anyone holds an ethical responsibility to do anything ever, but proprietary software is definitely unethical.

imagine proprietary plumbing. you might be able to use it (under certain restrictions), but you can't modify it. this means two things: 1. if your plumbs break - you can't fix them, nor hire anyone to fix them. you're going to have to wait for the vendor to drop on by. furthermore, if you want to install a plumbing-dependent appliance somewhere - you can't.

or how about proprietary houses. wanna set up a wall over there? wanna expand your living room? you can't. because even though you have purchased the house (and thus the house should be your - in capitalist terms - property), you can't do anything with it. it is not yours to modify in any way.

one thing you can't apply to physical objects though is the copy part, which is one of great importance. if you could clone food without any expenses (economic or otherwise), wouldn't you want to supply the entire world with food? the proprietary business model is telling you that you shouldn't.

one final point I want to raise is that proprietary software is anti-community, and collaboration- and cooperation-hostile. it's one thing that you can't personally alter the code, nor hire anyone to do so. but with free software there are no restrictions, meaning that absolutely anyone can contribute at any time. this is why projects like the Linux kernel or Mozilla's Firefox are so greatly successful. instead of one company writing a bunch of code, and having the entire responsibility of keeping it up to date and free of bugs rest on their shoulders, *anyone* could file a bug report, or even write a bug fix or update to the application.

this furthermore means that proprietary software will *always* be less secure and up to date than free software. have you ever read one of those surveys about how Mozilla's Firefox has way many more bugs than Microsoft's Internet Explorer? want to guess why? if you haven't gotten it yet, the reason is because all of Mozilla Firefox's bugs are *public*. (and as a consequence of this, fixed far faster and more easily than proprietary software's bugs.) Internet Explorer bugs aren't, unless Microsoft so chooses. so the most dangerous bugs are *not known*. this is pretty scary.

and it's definitely something to think about for people who have things they want to keep secure. hacking a computer running Microsoft Windows is no trouble. why? because the hidden back doors are known to two kinds of people: the ones who have seen the code, and the most clever of hackers. consequently hackers (if they're clever enough) can easily gain access to your stuff. this would be prevented if you/the community knew the bugs, and had taken measurements to fix them.

software which provides source code is always more secure than proprietary software. "security by obscurity" will never work. that's just lazy. if everyone has access to the code, then someone will spot vulnerabilities, and someone will fix it.

I could go on, but I suppose you get the gist of it. which is (in case you missed it): "intellectual property" and proprietary software is a) unintelligent, b) unethical and c) impractical.

holy shit

tl;dr apple forces you to use their vastly inferior shit by refusing to allow anyone to fix it

and then they go out of their way to fuck over anyone who wants to provide alternatives to their shit by making it as hard as possible for other people to program on macs

ITT: people hate on Apple, which is wrong they are an awesome company with great products.

[QUOTE=whiteminority;18332448]ITT: people hate on Apple, which is wrong they are an awesome company with great products.[/QUOTE]

backed. i used to be all about pc....then i bought a mac about 2 weeks ago and love everything about it. its so much better IMO

yeah man macs are so nice when everything you can do on it is decided for you beforehand i mean you dont even have to choose between programs youve got one option that must clearly be the best or something


seriously dont waste your money just download ubuntu if you want ease

just saying. i have had both. i prefer mac.

you've got more than two options

[QUOTE=whiteminority;18332448]ITT: people hate on Apple, which is wrong they are an awesome company with great products.[/QUOTE]

how are they awesome, and what's great about their products?

I think they have done a good job at some of their hardware manufacturings, but the credit is in those cases not all Apple's. in the software department they have produced nothing but pure unmitigated shit, at least to the extent of my knowledge.

as for the company itself, it's just another corporate money-grabbing bully.

[QUOTE=burtreynolds;18332451]backed. i used to be all about pc....then i bought a mac about 2 weeks ago and love everything about it. its so much better IMO[/QUOTE]

this post doesn't even make sense. a mac? do you mean a Macintosh? if so - that *is* a PC.

[QUOTE=burtreynolds;18332491]just saying. i have had both. i prefer mac.[/QUOTE]

both what?

[QUOTE=christsimpson;18332516]
this post doesn't even make sense. a mac? do you mean a Macintosh? if so - that *is* a PC.[/QUOTE]

are you making the definition of personal computer a point
or are you trying to point out the hardware differences arent that big

who are "they"? what hardware? what difference? compared to the past? I don't know what any part of your post actually entails.

i edited

[QUOTE=Anglachel;18332529]are you making the definition of personal computer a point
or are you trying to point out the hardware differences arent that big[/QUOTE]

I am merely stating that the Macintosh computer in all its forms is a personal computer, and that the post did not make any sense. saying that a Macintosh is better than a PC, is like saying that a cow is better than a mammal.

as for hardware differences not being different... well... a Macintosh *is* a PC, so discussing hardware differences are logically impossible.

now if you'll excuse me imma watch some Star Trek.

most people dont think of macs as PCs (regardless of whats correct) and generally refer to them as systems running OSX and windows respectively

just trying to help because your point is kind of moot knowing that reynolds and ben are referring to them in this vernacular sense

saying "theyre the same thing" might not mean much...

This christsimpson guy is an idiot, has he not heard of tl;dr.

[QUOTE=christsimpson;18332543]I am merely stating that the Macintosh computer in all its forms is a personal computer, and that the post did not make any sense. saying that a Macintosh is better than a PC, is like saying that a cow is better than a mammal.

as for hardware differences not being different... well... a Macintosh *is* a PC, so discussing hardware differences are logically impossible.[/QUOTE]

based off of common terminology and the media....including windows and apple commercials.....pcs are everything other than mac's....thats what im going off of. common terminology.

This is like "United States of America" and "America." Sure, "America" doesn't technically mean just USA, but that's what most people think of when they hear the term. When most people hear the term "PC," they think of a Windows-based machine. Stop nitpicking.