Actually the second example shows an IP address of 192.168.1.46:139 for the friend's OBSD server in the diagram, but the affiliated command line (the second line) uses 192.168.0.10:139 for it.
Re:They chose AAC because it's already in QuickTim
on
AAC vs. OGG vs. MP3
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Two points: 1) Apple does not explicitly mention how their Music Store songs are encoded (neither what the source is nor what encoder they are using)---they very well could be using a higher quality AAC encoder than what ships with QuickTime, which has reviewed poorly. There exist, it should be noted, other professional level encoders that have reviewed much better.
2) That being said, Apple released QuickTime 6.2 at the same time as iTunes 4 yesterday, and one of the headlining new features is an enhanced AAC encoder. It is entirely possible that Apple has addressed problems with their encoder, and perhaps the new version would stack up better in blind listening tests.
Of course, it would have been nice if Apple could step out of the Reality Distortion Field for ten seconds, and do the "Right Thing". They had to have known that AAC--because of current, community-reviewed blind listening tests--would be a controversial choice. Why they didn't undertake/commission prior subjective testing and why they haven't bravely taken their encoder to the "street" and up against OGG and MP3Pro, I don't know...if they had, we wouldn't be arguing about how crappy their encoder was, we'd be arguing subjective listening differences. Now, this potentially great new service will suffer from a 3 to 6 month "shake out" in the more discriminating audiophile community (the people who recognize that CD is better than cassette, and can hear that 128 CBR MP3 is NOT CD quality) because of the technical merits of the quality of the encoder. No new service needs such hesitancy to overcome, much less one from Apple. I predict that the stigma of the quality demon is going to be a major adoption speed bump for this service among the group most important to its widespread adoption--the audiophiles.
Once again Apple (read Steve Jobs) makes the mistaken assumption that just because they SAY their stuff is better, everybody should just accept that--it is a clear misread of their (new) market demographic, which is proving to be growing more and more into a Slashdot crowd. If they keep ignoring the fact that their fastest growing fanbase is a fairly technical, information hungry group, they will certainly lose them as fast as they gained them...if there is one thing I have learned in my years of being a Slashdotter is that we are a fiercely loyal, but not easily fooled community, and we certainly don't suffer fools gladly.
This was the exact thing I was going to post....it was amazing to me (besides what was happening I am still a geek;) that seemingly ALL the "major" news sites were HAMMERED that day. You simply couldn't get decent information, and the television coverage--contrary to the horseshit the media is trying to convey today--was terrible. Even NPR was crap. But Slashdot, a loosely-coupled hangout of disparately-located Nerds was able to provde links and information. To me, it made me proud in the middle of something so tragic.
I actually began gauging coverage of other news sources by what I could find from Slashdot, and was busy debunking the "myths" that others emailing me and IM-ing me had heard from TV and radio. To me it was nearly as tragic to see how the American public had clearly allowed themselves to become spoonfed babies at the newsfeeds of the established media. And boy, looking back on that day, there were some WHOPPERS of f'd up coverage. (NPR continued to state that a plane had crashed into Camp David, even after it was quite apparent that no such thing had happened...does anyone in the media still remember how to use a telephone?)
Anyhow, like I said, it was how the "beauty" of the internet, something the bulk of the population STILL doesn't "get"--the decentralization, the power of the input of the individual, the ability to quickly/easily support claims--that will most proudly stand in my memory of Sept 11. And Slashdot was a stellar contribution to that.
Who the fuck is stealing? The makers of the clients? No...the USERS of those clients. And if I go and sign up for an AOL Instant Messenger account (which I HAVE to do to logon), then what does it matter what client I use? I don't remember there being any thing that said I HAD to use their client. This is as much horseshit as that "If you watch TV, you have to watch our commercials" garbage.
Furthermore, what was AOL's goal here? My personal info or being gracious and giving me that POS sotware? My info...they got it, either way.
Just wanted to pass along a funny that relates to the "Nadine" story. It doesn't get much funnier than this...
My grandmother is 75; her birthday was in October. Just prior, she suffered a heart attack, and I decided to resurrect an old Performa 6360 for her so that she could email and ICQ with my mother and aunt. I provided her an email address at a domain I own. The address had never been used prior. My grandmother had never used a computer, and even getting her to be comfortable turning it on was a challenge. I don't believe she EVER successfully sent my mother a message by herself...although I could be wrong. I would bet that she used that computer a grand total of ten times.
A few months had passed, and I had a sneaking feeling that she wasn't using it. I would ask her, and she'd sheepishly admit that she "didn't have time" to sit and work on it. (Yeah, right. She's 75.) So one day in February I decided to peek into her mailbox to see if there was any mail in there that MIGHT be important...I was FLOORED by what I found.
I now have a mail folder sitting in Entourage that consists of 767 (!!!) unread messages. I simply can't bare to get rid of them. The first is from September 20th, 2001, and the last was sent on February 21, 2002, when I killed the account. None of them were "for" her (from people she knows). And some of the products being offered would probably cause her to keel over.
I am currently simply/dev/null-ing any mail incoming for her address...and I'm sure that if I'd remove that filter, the mail would still be flowing. If anyone (say a reporter, member of Congress, or FTC) would like to have a copy of this archive, I'd be happy to pass it along.
John Maynard Keynes was a famous economist; "Keynsian" is an adjective that refers to specific points of his work. And so swiftly you display disdain for my "lack of attention"....
And yes, I am aware that Karl Marx was pro-socialist, I never stated that I believed him to be "pro-capitalist". It is my hope that you are not required to perform research on any subject that may impact my life, as your perception of research is obviously limited...I read Marx PRECISELY because he had outlined an argument AGAINST Capitalism. You see, I believe that even those who have CONFLICTING viewpoints offer valuable insights. And although Marx wasn't "pro-capitalism", many of the challenges he profered are important enough that pro-capitalists would be wise to investigate them. It does lead to better understanding when you research why others are opposed to your methods, as opposed to, say, ignoring them.
As for Keynes, you are correct that he did NOT coin the term "invisible hand". However, he did, in his writings, detail that the Government's spending as the "public sector" should be considered an embodiment of Smith's "invisible hand", and treated accordingly. Keynes spent quite a bit of page, that Smith did not (and probably could not have invisioned when writing "WoN"), elucidating the effects of Government spending and how it could be used more effectively (and also dangerously) to mediate economic growth---something quite important in depression-era economics. Whereas Smith filled a generic conceptual hole with "invisible hand", Keynes outlined a very real case in point.
Considering that the entire paragraph prior dealt with Government spending, I was, in fact, referring to the Keynesian "invisible hand" (Government spending), and was, in doing so, positing a link to the very dangers that Keynes had warned.
This article makes me sick. I used to be rather anti-capitalist. Then I went on a personal crusade, reading Smith, Marx, Keynes, and, most recently, Schumpeter...I realized that much of what I THOUGHT I knew about Capitalism was incorrect. I also realized that most of what OTHERS THOUGHT about Capitalism was wrong. After my readings I came to appreciate Capitalism, but also to loathe it--primarily because one of the most basic tenets is that the consumer MUST make CONSISTENTLY INTELLIGENT purchasing decisions. And I feel that it is far too easy in today's mega-adverstising, high-incentive, low-intellect environment to expect that. In short, big companies (including the government) have found success far simpler to attain by buying off the intelligence of the consumer. And the result is companies like Microsoft.
Let's look at this company for a short second...it certainly didn't have any where NEAR $40B in the bank in 1995, just prior to Win95 being released. Win 3.1 pretty much ruled the roost; and IBM was desperately trying to released the stranglehold that MS had over them due to the (favorable) DOS licensing. Microsoft was very powerful, but at that time Office hadn't yet driven EVERY OTHER competitor out of the market, and the Internet wars hadn't even kicked up yet. But there is one indisputable fact: the trend had been well established in the American (nee World) consumer mind that Intel/Microsoft was a standard and compatibility with that system was absolutely mandatory.
So, 7 years later, Microsoft made Bill Gates the richest guy around, had TONS of cash sitting in banks, runs competitors into the dirt, and basically laughed off US Gov't legal action--several times! This has to be about as clear as it gets that Capitalism as we understand it is an incomplete model. Previously in history, mega-wealth like this was built on the backs of slaves--the railroads, for instance. But not Gates'. There were no slaves...merely consumers. One could argue that this is truly "Capitalism at its best!" for certainly it was Capitalism that provided Gates with such wealth. Only that is a short sighted thought, considering it is Capitalism that ALSO states that in such a market competitors should have been clamoring to compete! And I REFUSE to believe that DOS/Win3.1/Win32 was absolutely the best, most marketable product during that period...okay, it may have been the best, but was it "97% of the market" best? I just don't believe so--I mean look how quickly Linux has stormed the scene. Are we to assume that NO ONE else but Microsoft was so astute at making operating systems until some kid sat down at his PC? Something just DOESN'T make sense here.
So what dynamic about Capitalism are we missing? What overlooked problem could explain a seemingly complete breakdown of basic competition? Or, can it be explained with what we already know? Personally, I look at Microsoft's accounting tactics. But of course they really didn't start until AFTER a pretty good amount of money had been made. I then look at the role of the US Government in making Billy G. a gazillionaire...after all, think of all those government agencies sending YOUR tax dollars to Redmond. Of course the relationship doesn't end there--military contractors would conform their systems to the Gov'ts, and state and local gov'ts would do the same. It is nearly like a viral chain of Microsoft infection. And all the while, we were supporting government research that could have/should have been capable of creating an open source operating system.
So is it the infamous Keynesian "invisible hand" run amok that created this? Does any one have a GOOD idea as to how much money Microsoft has profited (taking into account the top-down, hierarchial spread of influence) off the US Government since 1990?
Given my newfound respect for the dynamism and aggressiveness of true Capitalism, I refuse to call Bill Gates a Capitalistic success story...to do so would be to forever sully the greatness of the fair-market system.
Exactly my point. So now we know, definitively, who to hammer on to get some form of support for Sorenson playback on Linux. As both a Mac guy and a potential content creator, I simply DON'T understand why Apple has (1) steadfastly seemed intent on IGNORING Linux and its intelligent community as a potential marketing advantage in expanding QuickTime content's reach--not necessarily by porting QuickTime, but merely by making Sorenson-compressed QuickTime movies PLAYABLE--and (2) went about LYING about it for all this time. QuickTime needs the boost that the hearts and minds of the Linux community could provide...content creators SHOULD be looking at how many eyeballs CAN view their works, and the more intelligent those eyeballs the better.
As for the lying...well, I'm pretty much resigned to the fact that Apple has NO balls. They'll say whatever they think will sell machines and drive attention away from them. Unfortunately, they lie like women...pretty convincingly for a really long time, but then they ALWAYS fuck up and inadvertantly let slip the truth--but by that time they can say "That's old hat, let it go." Naw, I don't hold grudges...
I am excited about Hurd. When I first "heard" of the project, a bell went off in my head and I thought, "Wow, that just makes sense."
I was really hoping that Apple would try to "change the world" more with OS X; they didn't. And I think that the work on Hurd presents a shift in paradigm (the concept of authentication for instance) that, IMHO, will stand in time like the early UNIX work does now.
The way we currently compute is based on very old ideas, and a lot of "new" ideas just simply aren't. Hurd is working toward implementing some very cool features that I think will change how we view operating systems. I just wish that Apple had the implementation foresight that these guys have had. Obviously the market rush of OS X with the technical infrastructure of Hurd would have been fantastic...I await the release.
So Bob says that Cox is going to grab AT&T's cable TV division, eh? Is that supposed to be TWO predictions in one? Given that Comcast already has inked a deal with AT&T for a $72 billion merger with the Broadband division (which includes cable tv)...is Bob trying to tell us that he believes the deal is going to fall through and Cox will do better?
It is rather expensive...but if you are still in school, you can get an education version. The data acquision cards are also rather pricey, but I have seen refurbed ones, and older models, go for cheap.
You should be able to get good acquisition speeds and LabVIEW is a really cool programming environment. They may even have a demo. The coolest part is that since it is a programming environment, you can collect your data and actually DO stuff with it at the same time.
I did hear an odd rumor about AT&T wireless perhaps moving from TDMA to GSM, but that's probably not reliable.
Not rumor, it's happening. AT&T Wireless has already begun deploying GSM equipment. At first is going to be a premium service for those who want "international" phones/numbers. Then it will be rolled out nationwide. They found that the cost to 3G (or 2.5 for that matter) TDMA was cost-prohibitive, and that going the GSM route would provide a less expensive upgrade path. You'd think some moron at AT&T WS would have dreamt that up a couple of years ago, but I guess they were too busy burning through our money.
Yup...I talked to the Apple Store this morning (well, yesterday morning) right after the new Airport base station was announced. It will support PPPoE and/or a DHCP Client Identifier on the broadband port. Of course, I will wait until I actually configure one to believe it.
The tech at the Apple Store was surprised to learn that that nugget of info had been omitted from the website.
I expect Apple to totally dominate the four-armed nerd market.
Once again, a Slashdotter that Just Doesn't Get It. We Mac nerds use ONE arm to reply to each question...in series, just as they are asked. We also use just ONE button (using our ONE hand attached to that ONE arm) on our mouse to click on things, too.
It amazes me what creative things we Mac users accomplish...
But I guess now you will start complaining (like some other dolt did earlier) that since it only has ONE rotating knob, no one will be able to select songs AND change the volume. Sigh...
Apple is buddies with Palm. Apple has a new OS (that they bought for $300M, instead of choosing Plan Be)...Palm has no need for new OS (they just wanted Plan BeIA). OS X has been criticized for not being more Be-like (for instance, its file system with limited meta-data capacity). BeOS was written in C++, an object oriented language. MacOSX was written in Objective C, an object oriented language, and also now supports C++ (10.1).
Maybe we need to get Apple thinking about asking Palm to open source BeOS. Would the Apple license be acceptable?
The problem is, when you let third parties modify the menu bar, they always do it, whether the user wants them to or not.
I see this as an Installer issue. On Windows, most installers will ASK you the name of the Program item to be placed in the Start menu. The Mac has never had this...in fact, the installers on the Mac, although sometimes nicer than Windows, have never seemed to get a GOOD handle on interactive installs. Apple's own System installer does a decent job, allowing a "custom" install, but many times still puts crap all over the place (and usually overwrites things you didn't want overwritten).
Really what needs to occur is for Apple to make a best-of-breed installer for OSX. Especially since we're playing with UNIX now (think of all the problems when multiple installers start monkeying with your/etc files or NetInfo database!), installation procedures are going to become VERY important. No developer should outwardly say they don't want a user looking over their "install" shoulder...I know in many cases, as an admin, I WANT TO KNOW WHAT IS BEING INSTALLED AND TO BE ABLE TO SAY NO! So back to this best-of-breed installer--Apple has plenty of lead to follow (VISE, Stuffit, their own), and it wouldn't be too hard. Essentially they need to provide ALL the flexiblity a developer would want while providing the user the ability to configure the level of interaction they are comfortable with (none, let me know when things are being put in menu/dock/Apple menu, complete control).
This is something they should do...but they won't.
Okay, maybe this is off base, but there is a programming language that SORTA represents "graphical pipes"...G. It is the programming language behind LabView.
I think if one argues that pipes are used more "in the heat of the moment" on the command line, then there will NEVER be a true graphical version. Going to the File menu and selecting Print (or more aptly Print One Copy) is as close as we'll get, on the fly. On the other hand, if you look at the importance of the pipe in a batch scenario, where you set things up ahead of time and resuse them like components, then G is your man.
Effectively you program modules that are object oriented, and made up of other parts. You then draw "circuits" between the parts. G is a bit headier than needed for novices, but if you could imagine a window in which you could drag and drop things, with a scriptable glue--well viola! Drop Wordprocessor and printer. Open toolbox and grab "On Drag and drop". Wire "On drag and drop" into the Wordprocessor. Double click on wordprocessor, opening its toolbox, and drag out "Find & Replace" (or substiture your own component--maybe one that supports grep) and configure it--it would automatically be wired into Word Processor. Then wire word processor into printer...
It would create an applet to take a file, find all "slashdot is lame" and replace with "slashdot is cool", and then print the document.
A graphical batch tool where the output of something is piped into the next. Of course the environment would need to be conscious as to what INPUTS the components could accept.
Ooooh, that's great. The thing can stay powered up longer, but I doubt I can afford to use it.
I was at the Sprint PCS store the other day looking at the Kyocera and Samsung Palm phones. Pretty cool. I have a Palm VIIx with Palm net, but to have a PIM, a network appliance, AND a phone would just be cool. Anyhow, Palm.net charges not by TIME, but by BIT...and this makes sense, as the data services are low-bandwidth and bursty. Just as it should be for a handheld device. Well, just to prove that they JUST DON'T GET IT Sprint PCS charges by the minute. You check your email and there is none: 16 seconds, 110 bytes, $0.39. I can go a whole month on Palm.net for $12, checking my email several times per day. I figured I'd rack up close to $50 on Sprint--and that's not allowing for actually GETTING any mail. I checked in with AT&T, they charge the same.
Apparently, the Kyocera and Samsung phones actually use a digital modem and connect to an ISP, rather than simply talking to the "network" like Palm.net. So you are physically setting up a PPP session with an ISP and running an IP stack. What a bunch of idiots. Wireless data network my ass.
So does anyone know of any providers that actually have a cool phone/Palm/data network worth needing extra battery life--that don't charge by the minute?
IANAE (That's I Am Not An Economist), and my understanding of economic systems, I think, is incompete (I was the guy in Econ class that "just didn't get it").
But, I have decided to eduate myself on economics so that I can attempt to right a manifesto about what is happening in America. And no I don't plan on living in a little shack in Montana...I just think that if someone can spell this situation out, others may see it for what it is and we can change it.
I understand the basis behind Socialism, Communism, and Marxism, and even Capitalism...however it seems to me that we can no longer claim that we follow the tenets of capitalism anymore in America. (And we have not been for some time.) My understanding of Capitalism is based on the idea that BOTH the supplier and the demander must be aware of their roles. That is, the suppier knows he must be competitive and provide a product that the market will desire. Also, and just as important, the consumer must be intelligent, make good purchasing decisions, and promote competition.
Yet, I know longer see this in America. Companies, such as AOL/TimeWarner/CNN/Netscape, grow ever larger, and seem to defy the basic laws of Capitalism by raising prices for declining quality on a non-restrainted "product". AT&T wireless is another perfect example. Some of these conglomerates truly have decided that it is okay to knife the baby on some of their customers because intelligent consumers are "too expensive". This spells trouble, I think, because it is contrary to the rules of capitalism. Instead of two equal sides giving and taking, we now have one side providing and the other begging. Almost like economic feudalism.
So my question: Has anyone come across any literature that describes this behavior or outlines what happens when Capitalism tilts on an unequal balance--both in favor of the supplier and the consumer? I have read some Smith, Marx, etc, and plan on reading much more. Any help would be appreciated.
[I started reading down lover the posts, but didn't read them all because I had something to say...if this is redundant, sue me.]
I enjoy reading how so many people believe we are a "capitalistic" system here in the US. Sorry, it just isn't so. We are foremost, a republic based upon democracy...meaning that some of the basic tenets of capitalism are voided. Therefore, government regulation can be a "Good Thing". For instance, our current telecommunications infrastructure (as well as our electrical grid) would not be nearly as complete or usable today if they were both NOT regulated. Companies, especially ones that succeed to the level of near monopoly, follow a basic tenet of capitalism--increase profits. The opposite of that is provide your customer with the best service...as that is an expense which affects profit. So by doing the math, you find that captalism says to do as little as possible to make as much money. That is quite adverse to creating a working, complete, and expandable infrastructure.
What so many people who beat the drum of "free market" seem to miss is that most of these companies were handed this infrastructure AND customers. That is hardly free market. And now, we expect these near-monopolistic cash cows to share? You'd have to be on drugs (and really bad ones) to not be able to see the insanity of that!
The reason there exists a telecom "infrastructure" is because the government, in one of the rare moments of "doing things right for the people", forced the hand of Ma Bell--saying that every American should have a telephone. That, again, was a "Good Thing". If you argue against that, then you surely do not belong in this discussion. The reason that long distance rates were so high during the 70s and early 80s was because the government began to step back from regulation, being lobbied like crazy from AT&T, and stopped watching what was happening...mostly because they were AT&T's biggest customer (what a conflict of interest, eh?) Technology for digital packet switching was in the works, but AT&T wanted nothing to do with it, instead sticking to the "old", but highly profitable, way. That was the impetus behind de-regulation..and since the gov't had forced AT&T's hand, and since it was granted a monopoly (meaning it got EVERYONE'S money), that essentially translated into the network belongs to the people, not simply AT&T.
Which brings us to deregulation...and our current situation. Since both the baby bells and cable companies have inherited a system that was primarily built-out on the citizen's dollar (again, they were granted a monopoly--they asked for it!) they cannot now claim that the network does not belong to all comers. The problem is that since deregulation, we have this sticky issue whereby gov't wasn't officially saying these guys were a monopoly, so they now are saying "Hey, we built into that "old" network with all new equipment, so it now belongs to us!" Stupid government. But one thing that we all must keep in mind, is that the baby bells and cable companies, even though de-regulated, are still treated as a monopoly and would, for all purposes, look like ones in the eyes of a court (hey, compare to Microsoft if you disagree). They DO NOT ENJOY a "free market"! The network they have was built with funds gained through an EXCLUSIVE agreement with the citizens. In a capitalistic sense, I agree you could argue that they do in fact own their network, regardless of inheritance...but from a republic standpoint, that infrastructure is valuable to both the citizens and national security and rightfully belongs to the citizens.
So, it is painfully obvious to any saavy technologist that we are back to where we were before the breakup of AT&T...the monopolies are making mad cash off a system that uses reliable and profitable circuit switching, a method that works for voice, but doesn't scale very well. The new guys are showing off packet-switching and new digital services, but are finding it hard to get to the consumer. The baby bells must either reinvest in new equipment (hurting their bottom end), which would also force them to compete at this new level (which they probably wouldn't be able to because their own infrastructure is geared the other way), or they lobby and stall and try to kill the technology until they, as a company, are able to strategically compete in that new market. That is were we are.
The question now becomes, what is best for the people? Do we allow a monopoly, which by all evidence has allowed itself to grow fat on complacency (c'mon, how much do you think caller id and its buddies really cost?), continue and position itself for continued dominance? All the while using the diversion of "free market" and capitalism? Look at the profits of these companies! They are NOT in line with a good capitalistic company attempting to bring costs and services in line! We, as consumers, are not playing with these guys on a fair playing field, and they know it...only we can't seem to figure it out. The alternative? We force them to open their lines, like the Telcom Act was SUPPOSED to do, and let in true competition. If they are as "good" as they say (and their profits indicate) then they will prosper. Either way, the consumer wins.
Make no mistake--this latest telecom insurgence was not true "free market" at work. Covad and the others (including wireless and the like) were forced to play in a dangerous market with some pretty tough fellows who had far too much control of their destinies.
Oh, and I won't even BEGIN to talk about collusion! Anyone notice how rates in DSL never seem to go down? They just seem to go up! How does a baby bell, who already has all the infrastructure in place to handle services (I mean, how different is DSL? It is NOT rocket science), jump into a market and continue to raise prices? [But never too high, always "competitive".]
Look, as consumers we are getting screwed. Our parents and grandparents have put their money into building an infrastructure that is being usurped from us by greedy companies under the veil of capitalism. Government regulation, done correctly, is OUR backlash to retain that infrastructure. Mere capitalistic campaigns (say NOT signing up for DSL with Verizon) may hurt the companies in the short run, but hurt the consumers more in the long run as choices DO NOT EXIST AND WILL NOT EXIST! I do not care to regulate what servcies Verizon decides to offer. I do not care to regulate their pricing structure to end customers. What I do care to regulate is fair access to OUR network...repair and expansion of our network...and exisitence of our network.
Apple isn't off the hook yet, and those gloaters need to stop.
The SecurityFocus report was issued June 10. The patch was NOT issued "3 days later", as mentioned. In fact the patch had been incorporated into OSX server, so it was ready much earlier. However, there are now reports that the patch is incomplete and does not address the issue correctly. Go figure.
But again, the real issue here should be the fact that the "patch": is unavailable via software update...includes no instructions for installation...isn't qualified for OSX (not the Server, mind you, the consumer version)...is not accompanied with so much as a security advisory from Apple.
Clearly for a security threat--and lets be honest, SecurityFocus thinks so, as do others, IT IS A THREAT THAT NEEDS DEALT WITH--Apple has not even bothered with it. Their Security-Announce mailing list archive shows they didn't even send out an announcement about it. We can argue til we're blue about the severity of the threat, but I take the side that regardless of threat, it needs to be addressed, and Apple is going about that the wrong way.
If Apple's Open Source "movement" were healthy, this would not have occurred.
Slashdot Mirror
Two points:
1) Apple does not explicitly mention how their Music Store songs are encoded (neither what the source is nor what encoder they are using)---they very well could be using a higher quality AAC encoder than what ships with QuickTime, which has reviewed poorly. There exist, it should be noted, other professional level encoders that have reviewed much better.
2) That being said, Apple released QuickTime 6.2 at the same time as iTunes 4 yesterday, and one of the headlining new features is an enhanced AAC encoder. It is entirely possible that Apple has addressed problems with their encoder, and perhaps the new version would stack up better in blind listening tests.
Of course, it would have been nice if Apple could step out of the Reality Distortion Field for ten seconds, and do the "Right Thing". They had to have known that AAC--because of current, community-reviewed blind listening tests--would be a controversial choice. Why they didn't undertake/commission prior subjective testing and why they haven't bravely taken their encoder to the "street" and up against OGG and MP3Pro, I don't know...if they had, we wouldn't be arguing about how crappy their encoder was, we'd be arguing subjective listening differences. Now, this potentially great new service will suffer from a 3 to 6 month "shake out" in the more discriminating audiophile community (the people who recognize that CD is better than cassette, and can hear that 128 CBR MP3 is NOT CD quality) because of the technical merits of the quality of the encoder. No new service needs such hesitancy to overcome, much less one from Apple. I predict that the stigma of the quality demon is going to be a major adoption speed bump for this service among the group most important to its widespread adoption--the audiophiles.
Once again Apple (read Steve Jobs) makes the mistaken assumption that just because they SAY their stuff is better, everybody should just accept that--it is a clear misread of their (new) market demographic, which is proving to be growing more and more into a Slashdot crowd. If they keep ignoring the fact that their fastest growing fanbase is a fairly technical, information hungry group, they will certainly lose them as fast as they gained them...if there is one thing I have learned in my years of being a Slashdotter is that we are a fiercely loyal, but not easily fooled community, and we certainly don't suffer fools gladly.
I actually began gauging coverage of other news sources by what I could find from Slashdot, and was busy debunking the "myths" that others emailing me and IM-ing me had heard from TV and radio. To me it was nearly as tragic to see how the American public had clearly allowed themselves to become spoonfed babies at the newsfeeds of the established media. And boy, looking back on that day, there were some WHOPPERS of f'd up coverage. (NPR continued to state that a plane had crashed into Camp David, even after it was quite apparent that no such thing had happened...does anyone in the media still remember how to use a telephone?)
Anyhow, like I said, it was how the "beauty" of the internet, something the bulk of the population STILL doesn't "get"--the decentralization, the power of the input of the individual, the ability to quickly/easily support claims--that will most proudly stand in my memory of Sept 11. And Slashdot was a stellar contribution to that.
Furthermore, what was AOL's goal here? My personal info or being gracious and giving me that POS sotware? My info...they got it, either way.
My grandmother is 75; her birthday was in October. Just prior, she suffered a heart attack, and I decided to resurrect an old Performa 6360 for her so that she could email and ICQ with my mother and aunt. I provided her an email address at a domain I own. The address had never been used prior. My grandmother had never used a computer, and even getting her to be comfortable turning it on was a challenge. I don't believe she EVER successfully sent my mother a message by herself...although I could be wrong. I would bet that she used that computer a grand total of ten times.
A few months had passed, and I had a sneaking feeling that she wasn't using it. I would ask her, and she'd sheepishly admit that she "didn't have time" to sit and work on it. (Yeah, right. She's 75.) So one day in February I decided to peek into her mailbox to see if there was any mail in there that MIGHT be important...I was FLOORED by what I found.
I now have a mail folder sitting in Entourage that consists of 767 (!!!) unread messages. I simply can't bare to get rid of them. The first is from September 20th, 2001, and the last was sent on February 21, 2002, when I killed the account. None of them were "for" her (from people she knows). And some of the products being offered would probably cause her to keel over.
I am currently simply /dev/null-ing any mail incoming for her address...and I'm sure that if I'd remove that filter, the mail would still be flowing. If anyone (say a reporter, member of Congress, or FTC) would like to have a copy of this archive, I'd be happy to pass it along.
767...I love the internet!
And yes, I am aware that Karl Marx was pro-socialist, I never stated that I believed him to be "pro-capitalist". It is my hope that you are not required to perform research on any subject that may impact my life, as your perception of research is obviously limited...I read Marx PRECISELY because he had outlined an argument AGAINST Capitalism. You see, I believe that even those who have CONFLICTING viewpoints offer valuable insights. And although Marx wasn't "pro-capitalism", many of the challenges he profered are important enough that pro-capitalists would be wise to investigate them. It does lead to better understanding when you research why others are opposed to your methods, as opposed to, say, ignoring them.
As for Keynes, you are correct that he did NOT coin the term "invisible hand". However, he did, in his writings, detail that the Government's spending as the "public sector" should be considered an embodiment of Smith's "invisible hand", and treated accordingly. Keynes spent quite a bit of page, that Smith did not (and probably could not have invisioned when writing "WoN"), elucidating the effects of Government spending and how it could be used more effectively (and also dangerously) to mediate economic growth---something quite important in depression-era economics. Whereas Smith filled a generic conceptual hole with "invisible hand", Keynes outlined a very real case in point.
Considering that the entire paragraph prior dealt with Government spending, I was, in fact, referring to the Keynesian "invisible hand" (Government spending), and was, in doing so, positing a link to the very dangers that Keynes had warned.
Let's look at this company for a short second...it certainly didn't have any where NEAR $40B in the bank in 1995, just prior to Win95 being released. Win 3.1 pretty much ruled the roost; and IBM was desperately trying to released the stranglehold that MS had over them due to the (favorable) DOS licensing. Microsoft was very powerful, but at that time Office hadn't yet driven EVERY OTHER competitor out of the market, and the Internet wars hadn't even kicked up yet. But there is one indisputable fact: the trend had been well established in the American (nee World) consumer mind that Intel/Microsoft was a standard and compatibility with that system was absolutely mandatory.
So, 7 years later, Microsoft made Bill Gates the richest guy around, had TONS of cash sitting in banks, runs competitors into the dirt, and basically laughed off US Gov't legal action--several times! This has to be about as clear as it gets that Capitalism as we understand it is an incomplete model. Previously in history, mega-wealth like this was built on the backs of slaves--the railroads, for instance. But not Gates'. There were no slaves...merely consumers. One could argue that this is truly "Capitalism at its best!" for certainly it was Capitalism that provided Gates with such wealth. Only that is a short sighted thought, considering it is Capitalism that ALSO states that in such a market competitors should have been clamoring to compete! And I REFUSE to believe that DOS/Win3.1/Win32 was absolutely the best, most marketable product during that period...okay, it may have been the best, but was it "97% of the market" best? I just don't believe so--I mean look how quickly Linux has stormed the scene. Are we to assume that NO ONE else but Microsoft was so astute at making operating systems until some kid sat down at his PC? Something just DOESN'T make sense here.
So what dynamic about Capitalism are we missing? What overlooked problem could explain a seemingly complete breakdown of basic competition? Or, can it be explained with what we already know? Personally, I look at Microsoft's accounting tactics. But of course they really didn't start until AFTER a pretty good amount of money had been made. I then look at the role of the US Government in making Billy G. a gazillionaire...after all, think of all those government agencies sending YOUR tax dollars to Redmond. Of course the relationship doesn't end there--military contractors would conform their systems to the Gov'ts, and state and local gov'ts would do the same. It is nearly like a viral chain of Microsoft infection. And all the while, we were supporting government research that could have/should have been capable of creating an open source operating system.
So is it the infamous Keynesian "invisible hand" run amok that created this? Does any one have a GOOD idea as to how much money Microsoft has profited (taking into account the top-down, hierarchial spread of influence) off the US Government since 1990?
Given my newfound respect for the dynamism and aggressiveness of true Capitalism, I refuse to call Bill Gates a Capitalistic success story...to do so would be to forever sully the greatness of the fair-market system.
As for the lying...well, I'm pretty much resigned to the fact that Apple has NO balls. They'll say whatever they think will sell machines and drive attention away from them. Unfortunately, they lie like women...pretty convincingly for a really long time, but then they ALWAYS fuck up and inadvertantly let slip the truth--but by that time they can say "That's old hat, let it go." Naw, I don't hold grudges...
I was really hoping that Apple would try to "change the world" more with OS X; they didn't. And I think that the work on Hurd presents a shift in paradigm (the concept of authentication for instance) that, IMHO, will stand in time like the early UNIX work does now.
The way we currently compute is based on very old ideas, and a lot of "new" ideas just simply aren't. Hurd is working toward implementing some very cool features that I think will change how we view operating systems. I just wish that Apple had the implementation foresight that these guys have had. Obviously the market rush of OS X with the technical infrastructure of Hurd would have been fantastic...I await the release.
25 Mb/s
Or is Bob just behind the times?
You should be able to get good acquisition speeds and LabVIEW is a really cool programming environment. They may even have a demo. The coolest part is that since it is a programming environment, you can collect your data and actually DO stuff with it at the same time.
http://www.labview.com
Not rumor, it's happening. AT&T Wireless has already begun deploying GSM equipment. At first is going to be a premium service for those who want "international" phones/numbers. Then it will be rolled out nationwide. They found that the cost to 3G (or 2.5 for that matter) TDMA was cost-prohibitive, and that going the GSM route would provide a less expensive upgrade path. You'd think some moron at AT&T WS would have dreamt that up a couple of years ago, but I guess they were too busy burning through our money.
The tech at the Apple Store was surprised to learn that that nugget of info had been omitted from the website.
Once again, a Slashdotter that Just Doesn't Get It. We Mac nerds use ONE arm to reply to each question...in series, just as they are asked. We also use just ONE button (using our ONE hand attached to that ONE arm) on our mouse to click on things, too.
It amazes me what creative things we Mac users accomplish...
But I guess now you will start complaining (like some other dolt did earlier) that since it only has ONE rotating knob, no one will be able to select songs AND change the volume. Sigh...
Maybe we need to get Apple thinking about asking Palm to open source BeOS. Would the Apple license be acceptable?
I see this as an Installer issue. On Windows, most installers will ASK you the name of the Program item to be placed in the Start menu. The Mac has never had this...in fact, the installers on the Mac, although sometimes nicer than Windows, have never seemed to get a GOOD handle on interactive installs. Apple's own System installer does a decent job, allowing a "custom" install, but many times still puts crap all over the place (and usually overwrites things you didn't want overwritten).
Really what needs to occur is for Apple to make a best-of-breed installer for OSX. Especially since we're playing with UNIX now (think of all the problems when multiple installers start monkeying with your /etc files or NetInfo database!), installation procedures are going to become VERY important. No developer should outwardly say they don't want a user looking over their "install" shoulder...I know in many cases, as an admin, I WANT TO KNOW WHAT IS BEING INSTALLED AND TO BE ABLE TO SAY NO! So back to this best-of-breed installer--Apple has plenty of lead to follow (VISE, Stuffit, their own), and it wouldn't be too hard. Essentially they need to provide ALL the flexiblity a developer would want while providing the user the ability to configure the level of interaction they are comfortable with (none, let me know when things are being put in menu/dock/Apple menu, complete control).
This is something they should do...but they won't.
I think if one argues that pipes are used more "in the heat of the moment" on the command line, then there will NEVER be a true graphical version. Going to the File menu and selecting Print (or more aptly Print One Copy) is as close as we'll get, on the fly. On the other hand, if you look at the importance of the pipe in a batch scenario, where you set things up ahead of time and resuse them like components, then G is your man.
Effectively you program modules that are object oriented, and made up of other parts. You then draw "circuits" between the parts. G is a bit headier than needed for novices, but if you could imagine a window in which you could drag and drop things, with a scriptable glue--well viola! Drop Wordprocessor and printer. Open toolbox and grab "On Drag and drop". Wire "On drag and drop" into the Wordprocessor. Double click on wordprocessor, opening its toolbox, and drag out "Find & Replace" (or substiture your own component--maybe one that supports grep) and configure it--it would automatically be wired into Word Processor. Then wire word processor into printer...
It would create an applet to take a file, find all "slashdot is lame" and replace with "slashdot is cool", and then print the document.
A graphical batch tool where the output of something is piped into the next. Of course the environment would need to be conscious as to what INPUTS the components could accept.
I was at the Sprint PCS store the other day looking at the Kyocera and Samsung Palm phones. Pretty cool. I have a Palm VIIx with Palm net, but to have a PIM, a network appliance, AND a phone would just be cool. Anyhow, Palm.net charges not by TIME, but by BIT...and this makes sense, as the data services are low-bandwidth and bursty. Just as it should be for a handheld device. Well, just to prove that they JUST DON'T GET IT Sprint PCS charges by the minute. You check your email and there is none: 16 seconds, 110 bytes, $0.39. I can go a whole month on Palm.net for $12, checking my email several times per day. I figured I'd rack up close to $50 on Sprint--and that's not allowing for actually GETTING any mail. I checked in with AT&T, they charge the same.
Apparently, the Kyocera and Samsung phones actually use a digital modem and connect to an ISP, rather than simply talking to the "network" like Palm.net. So you are physically setting up a PPP session with an ISP and running an IP stack. What a bunch of idiots. Wireless data network my ass.
So does anyone know of any providers that actually have a cool phone/Palm/data network worth needing extra battery life--that don't charge by the minute?
But, I have decided to eduate myself on economics so that I can attempt to right a manifesto about what is happening in America. And no I don't plan on living in a little shack in Montana...I just think that if someone can spell this situation out, others may see it for what it is and we can change it.
I understand the basis behind Socialism, Communism, and Marxism, and even Capitalism...however it seems to me that we can no longer claim that we follow the tenets of capitalism anymore in America. (And we have not been for some time.) My understanding of Capitalism is based on the idea that BOTH the supplier and the demander must be aware of their roles. That is, the suppier knows he must be competitive and provide a product that the market will desire. Also, and just as important, the consumer must be intelligent, make good purchasing decisions, and promote competition.
Yet, I know longer see this in America. Companies, such as AOL/TimeWarner/CNN/Netscape, grow ever larger, and seem to defy the basic laws of Capitalism by raising prices for declining quality on a non-restrainted "product". AT&T wireless is another perfect example. Some of these conglomerates truly have decided that it is okay to knife the baby on some of their customers because intelligent consumers are "too expensive". This spells trouble, I think, because it is contrary to the rules of capitalism. Instead of two equal sides giving and taking, we now have one side providing and the other begging. Almost like economic feudalism.
So my question: Has anyone come across any literature that describes this behavior or outlines what happens when Capitalism tilts on an unequal balance--both in favor of the supplier and the consumer? I have read some Smith, Marx, etc, and plan on reading much more. Any help would be appreciated.
The new code is REALLY broken, as nearly 100 posts are missing from this article now...
I enjoy reading how so many people believe we are a "capitalistic" system here in the US. Sorry, it just isn't so. We are foremost, a republic based upon democracy...meaning that some of the basic tenets of capitalism are voided. Therefore, government regulation can be a "Good Thing". For instance, our current telecommunications infrastructure (as well as our electrical grid) would not be nearly as complete or usable today if they were both NOT regulated. Companies, especially ones that succeed to the level of near monopoly, follow a basic tenet of capitalism--increase profits. The opposite of that is provide your customer with the best service...as that is an expense which affects profit. So by doing the math, you find that captalism says to do as little as possible to make as much money. That is quite adverse to creating a working, complete, and expandable infrastructure.
What so many people who beat the drum of "free market" seem to miss is that most of these companies were handed this infrastructure AND customers. That is hardly free market. And now, we expect these near-monopolistic cash cows to share? You'd have to be on drugs (and really bad ones) to not be able to see the insanity of that!
The reason there exists a telecom "infrastructure" is because the government, in one of the rare moments of "doing things right for the people", forced the hand of Ma Bell--saying that every American should have a telephone. That, again, was a "Good Thing". If you argue against that, then you surely do not belong in this discussion. The reason that long distance rates were so high during the 70s and early 80s was because the government began to step back from regulation, being lobbied like crazy from AT&T, and stopped watching what was happening...mostly because they were AT&T's biggest customer (what a conflict of interest, eh?) Technology for digital packet switching was in the works, but AT&T wanted nothing to do with it, instead sticking to the "old", but highly profitable, way. That was the impetus behind de-regulation..and since the gov't had forced AT&T's hand, and since it was granted a monopoly (meaning it got EVERYONE'S money), that essentially translated into the network belongs to the people, not simply AT&T.
Which brings us to deregulation...and our current situation. Since both the baby bells and cable companies have inherited a system that was primarily built-out on the citizen's dollar (again, they were granted a monopoly--they asked for it!) they cannot now claim that the network does not belong to all comers. The problem is that since deregulation, we have this sticky issue whereby gov't wasn't officially saying these guys were a monopoly, so they now are saying "Hey, we built into that "old" network with all new equipment, so it now belongs to us!" Stupid government. But one thing that we all must keep in mind, is that the baby bells and cable companies, even though de-regulated, are still treated as a monopoly and would, for all purposes, look like ones in the eyes of a court (hey, compare to Microsoft if you disagree). They DO NOT ENJOY a "free market"! The network they have was built with funds gained through an EXCLUSIVE agreement with the citizens. In a capitalistic sense, I agree you could argue that they do in fact own their network, regardless of inheritance...but from a republic standpoint, that infrastructure is valuable to both the citizens and national security and rightfully belongs to the citizens.
So, it is painfully obvious to any saavy technologist that we are back to where we were before the breakup of AT&T...the monopolies are making mad cash off a system that uses reliable and profitable circuit switching, a method that works for voice, but doesn't scale very well. The new guys are showing off packet-switching and new digital services, but are finding it hard to get to the consumer. The baby bells must either reinvest in new equipment (hurting their bottom end), which would also force them to compete at this new level (which they probably wouldn't be able to because their own infrastructure is geared the other way), or they lobby and stall and try to kill the technology until they, as a company, are able to strategically compete in that new market. That is were we are.
The question now becomes, what is best for the people? Do we allow a monopoly, which by all evidence has allowed itself to grow fat on complacency (c'mon, how much do you think caller id and its buddies really cost?), continue and position itself for continued dominance? All the while using the diversion of "free market" and capitalism? Look at the profits of these companies! They are NOT in line with a good capitalistic company attempting to bring costs and services in line! We, as consumers, are not playing with these guys on a fair playing field, and they know it...only we can't seem to figure it out. The alternative? We force them to open their lines, like the Telcom Act was SUPPOSED to do, and let in true competition. If they are as "good" as they say (and their profits indicate) then they will prosper. Either way, the consumer wins.
Make no mistake--this latest telecom insurgence was not true "free market" at work. Covad and the others (including wireless and the like) were forced to play in a dangerous market with some pretty tough fellows who had far too much control of their destinies.
Oh, and I won't even BEGIN to talk about collusion! Anyone notice how rates in DSL never seem to go down? They just seem to go up! How does a baby bell, who already has all the infrastructure in place to handle services (I mean, how different is DSL? It is NOT rocket science), jump into a market and continue to raise prices? [But never too high, always "competitive".]
Look, as consumers we are getting screwed. Our parents and grandparents have put their money into building an infrastructure that is being usurped from us by greedy companies under the veil of capitalism. Government regulation, done correctly, is OUR backlash to retain that infrastructure. Mere capitalistic campaigns (say NOT signing up for DSL with Verizon) may hurt the companies in the short run, but hurt the consumers more in the long run as choices DO NOT EXIST AND WILL NOT EXIST! I do not care to regulate what servcies Verizon decides to offer. I do not care to regulate their pricing structure to end customers. What I do care to regulate is fair access to OUR network...repair and expansion of our network...and exisitence of our network.
The SecurityFocus report was issued June 10. The patch was NOT issued "3 days later", as mentioned. In fact the patch had been incorporated into OSX server, so it was ready much earlier. However, there are now reports that the patch is incomplete and does not address the issue correctly. Go figure.
But again, the real issue here should be the fact that the "patch": is unavailable via software update...includes no instructions for installation...isn't qualified for OSX (not the Server, mind you, the consumer version)...is not accompanied with so much as a security advisory from Apple.
Clearly for a security threat--and lets be honest, SecurityFocus thinks so, as do others, IT IS A THREAT THAT NEEDS DEALT WITH--Apple has not even bothered with it. Their Security-Announce mailing list archive shows they didn't even send out an announcement about it. We can argue til we're blue about the severity of the threat, but I take the side that regardless of threat, it needs to be addressed, and Apple is going about that the wrong way.
If Apple's Open Source "movement" were healthy, this would not have occurred.