Seriously, the purchaser info is RIGHT THERE in the same tab in the "Get Info" window that displays the track length, play count, file format, bitrate, and other data that's clearly, readily, deliberately accessible to users, and IT HAS BEEN EVER SINCE THE STORE OPENED IN 2003.
Any DRM system needs to be able to associate ownership information with a music file, and it's not surprising that iTunes can show you that information. It doesn't automatically follow that that personal information is stored in the music file in plain text, or even stored in the music file at all.
But you're right: personal information is indeed stored in the music file in plain text, and has been for a while. I find that rather outrageous and a serious privacy violation. Not only do I have to worry about my MP3 player getting stolen, I also have to worry about my personal information getting stolen along with it.
Shame on Apple; this is not the right way of doing DRM.
I believe operating systems should have had effective file management, including searches, version control, and virtual folders more than a decade ago.
Quite right.
The only reason an ecosystem of third-party utilities has sprung up is because Microsoft has been so sluggish at improving their OS.
Yes, and why do you think that is? I'll tell you: because, currently, meaningful competition for desktop features is impossible; you may get a bunch of small shareware vendors, but Microsoft can kill them whenever they want. Therefore, nobody invests serious amounts of time or money in making the Windows desktop any better.
Let's face it, database-like file management was available in systems like BEOS since 1995.
Database-like file management has been available since the 1960's. It hasn't caught on because people haven't quite figured out how to make it work well for end users. There is still a lot of R&D investment to be done before this is going to work better than current file management, but nobody has an incentive to do that kind of investment as long as Microsoft can simply control what's on the desktop.
Unfortunately, now a wealth of third-party fixes to Windows limitations has sprung up, and MS can't implement what should be basic functionality without running foul of antitrust issues.
Even if there were no anti-trust issues, Microsoft simply has no economic incentive to do a good job. In the end, a bunch of Microsoft engineers will come up with some gee-whiz features that pay lip service to "database-like file management", but it makes no difference to Microsoft's bottom line whether it actually works or not.
We need serious competition for desktop features, user interfaces, kernels, etc., and that's only going to happen when the market can pick and choose operating system components.
And what about all those people who haven't the knowledge, experience, time or interest to do so ? You know, the 99% of the market that Microsoft and Apple are selling to ?
The same thing that happens now: they buy a complete, pre-installed system from a PC manufacturer.
Microsoft aren't selling you a garage full of parts and a greasy service manual, they're selling you a car.
Most people get Windows preinstalled with their PC and they buy a new PC when Windows has a major upgrade or their Windows installation has rotted away.
Furthermore, staying with your car analogy, cars are not produced from raw materials by a monolithic company; instead, they are assembled by auto manufacturers from parts obtained from hundreds of individual manufacturers. Microsoft is the antithesis of car manufacturing.
So Google is demanding that Microsoft remove Vista's desktop search feature a feature that other OSes already ship? If other OSes can ship it then so can Microsoft.
No, they are demanding that Microsoft lets people disable it. You know, like you can do on any other operating system.
Hell, if I'd been in charge of Microsoft, I would've been bundling Windows Desktop Search with XP for years now.
In fact, I think it's perfectly reasonable to demand that no operating system "bundle" desktop search, web browsers, or other software like that and instead give users the option to pick and choose what components they like.
That's what you think. That's probably what broadband users are actually paying on average. It's just that people like you are downloading hundreds of gigabytes while people like my mother are reading their E-mail and only want broadband for the convenience and fast load times.
Flat rate makes sense when available capacity is so high compared to common usage that accounting for usage is more expensive than simply letting everybody just use the service at a fixed fee. That's true for voice, dial-up, and maybe ISDN speeds.
For broadband, flat rates don't make any sense yet. What you get is either volume-capped flat rates, traffic shaping, or some kind of nebulous enforcement. Since those tend to be not very transparent to customers and hard to compare between providers, those kinds of models are probably bad for users.
ISPs should find a simple pricing model for broadband, like charging a few bucks per gigabyte of volume, plus some base fee (possibly with different rates for peak/off-peak usage). Based on that, people could more reasonably compare what they're actually getting for their money.
Of course, ISPs prefer a confusopoly, and users foolishly think they're getting a good deal with "all you can eat" bandwidth buffets.
Seems 100% accurate to me, just a little short on the details and context. Plenty of folks know some juicy tales of paper tape and Aiken labs.
The problem is the implication that he left Harvard in order to found a multi-billion dollar business, as if he had planned it all out.
He was dead on right about the future of the home computer
So were many other companies.
and he made that future, or broke it, depending on who you ask. He is a brilliant businessman.
The personal computer industry was built by thousands of companies, many of them run by brilliant technologists and brilliant businessmen.
Gates isn't stupid, but, in the end, it's extraordinary ruthlessness, not extraordinary brilliance, that has given him the edge and allowed him to succeed. And, as far as I'm concerned, that makes him a bad role model.
With a foresighted vision of the immense future potential of desktop computing, Gates left Harvard during his junior year to devote himself to building Microsoft, the company he and Allen founded in 1975.
Another example of how a lot of wealth can get you a lot of rewriting of history.
Come on kids... it's nice to dream and all, but what we're dealing with here -- again, at least on the surface -- is one very dry surface that has a heck of a lot of ultra-fine silt lying around in a low gravity environment.
It's quite clear that soil surfaces on Mars must regularly be exposed to liquid water. Why? Because we've already pretty much seen it: the Viking lander saw ground frost in its images, and at temperatures and pressures on Mars, that frost can turn liquid.
(Incidentally, silt was, by definition, created in running water.)
So, while I agree that these pictures don't show liquid water and that we haven't seen any puddles of water on Mars yet, an ultra-dry explanation of Mars doesn't work, and liquid water or salt solutions on the surface of Mars are not just possible, but likely.
As for the topic in question. The tracks in the original image do indeed look like they have gone through a puddle. How it could survive in the near vacuum is interesting... maybe it is very salty
The triple point of water is at 0.01 C and 0.006 atm, which tells you that plain water can, in fact, exist in liquid for in "near vacuum" (salt, of course, probably helps even more). Those conditions are pretty close to what you get on Mars.
Well, then 99% of the people shouldn't complain about the laws and representatives they are getting.
If you look at the actual laws you'll find all sorts of caveats and safeguards that unfortunately when implemented by bureaucrats disappear.
It's my experience that those bureaucrats are usually actually trying quite hard to do something reasonable with the laws they're asked to implement. The laws themselves, however, are often ambiguous because they are political compromises designed not to offend a lot of people and not to be too specific so that the people who voted for them can't be blamed.
Plain water can't stay liquid for very long at Mar's near vacuum. So the question is what water solutions can stay liquid at that temperature and pressure and for how long?
The triple point of water is around 0.01 C and 0.006 atm, which tells you that even plain water can be liquid at surface conditions that can exist on Mars. Salt solutions can exist in liquid form over a much wider range of conditions.
How much time have you spent looking at OpenXML before coming to your...
Not very much, because I don't have to: all it takes in order to determine that "OpenXML" fails to be open is to find places where it is defined in terms of Microsoft's implementation, and there are plenty of those.
I think the patent system is absurd, but this strikes me as a good use for it. Right now, vendors absolve themselves of any responsibility and think they have a right to get free reports and bug fixes from users. In fact, they have even created the impression that it is blackmail when bug reporters ask for money for their discoveries.
As I see it, if this company gets away with it, either, big companies will improve the quality of their software so that they have fewer vulnerabilities in the first place, or they will start to push for weakening software patents. Either way, everybody wins.
It took you, what, one minute to think of the stuff that you wrote, and you really think that NOBODY at Microsoft thought of it?
I'm sure Microsoft has "thought of" all sorts of things. That doesn't mean they can do anything about it. I mean, what economic reason or justification is there that Microsoft should continue to be able to make billions every year from Windows and Office when there are plenty of alternatives available?
In any case, as I wrote:
In fact, these agreements are so obviously bad for Microsoft that I really wonder when the other shoe will drop.
So, if you know more about Microsoft's secret master plan, please share it with us.
I doubt that companies are adopting Linux because it's "free-as-in-beer"; I think they are adopting Linux because it's technically and practically a better solution to their problems, and that wouldn't change even if they paid MS.
Wrong. Third parties are implementing parts of OOXML and trying to do the best they can, but nobody other than Microsoft can ever create a complete implementation because the behavior of OOXML is defined in terms of Microsoft software. The situation isn't much different from current Microsoft Office formats: others try to support them as best they can, but nobody has been able to create a fully interoperable implementation.
So you're saying you know for a fact that there are no patents covering anything in the ODF standard?
I'm saying that I know for a fact that Microsoft has applied for a patent on OOXML, while nobody has applied for a patent on ODF.
If so why did Sun produce a convenant not to sue ODF developers?
Because that gives people additional assurance that Sun doesn't have any hidden agenda when it comes to ODF; you don't actually need Sun's covenant unless you're paranoid. With OOXML, Microsoft's agenda isn't even hidden, and without Microsoft's covenant, you'd definitely be screwed.
The differences between Microsoft's proposed open standard OpenXML and IBM/Sun's ODF standard in terms of functionality they're virtually interchangable.
No, the difference between Microsoft's OOXML and ODF is that ODF can be implemented fully and interoperably by third parties, while OOXML cannot. That's not a legal question or a licensing question, it's a question of bad specification of OOXML. That's why ODF is an open format, while OOXML is a closed, proprietary format.
In addition, Microsoft has applied for a patent on OOXML, while there is no patent pending on ODF. That means that there is good reason to believe that OOXML is, in fact, a restricted format.
"Open formats" is a well-defined term. It means what it has always meant: a format that is unencumbered by copyrights or patents, and is sufficiently well documented to permit interoperable, independent implementations.
Of course, Microsoft has been trying to muddy the waters by calling their closed, proprietary format "open".
using this term is one of the best ways we can bring down Microsuck
Well, yes, in the sense that Microsoft's business model is monopolistic and involves closed formats. If Microsoft adopted open formats themselves, then things would be fine.
Ultimately, this may mean more leverage for one or a group of interests--something that is never good for a dye-in-the-wool open source believer.
Adoption of open formats, in the usual meaning of the word, is not just good for open source, it's good for the industry as a whole (except, of course, for Microsoft).
What is bad for everybody other than Microsoft is Microsoft's attempts to confuse people about what an open format is. ODF is an open format, OOXML is a closed, proprietary format.
Open source/format is such a misunderstood term
Well, yes. Quantum mechanics is also such a misunderstood term. Nevertheless, both "open format" and "quantum mechanics" have important, well defined meanings, and the responsibility is on you to understand and use them correctly.
I think this is a bad decision for Apple. ZFS cannot be incorporated into the Linux kernel due to Sun's choice of license, and Solaris isn't widely used compared to Linux.
Regardless of whether ZFS is actually "better" than other file systems (I don't think it is), choosing ZFS makes Macintosh even less compatible with the mainstream FOSS world than it already is.
Slashdot Mirror
They expect you to protect that info that they sell for you to have the same as your own personal info...
They can "expect" a lot of things, but I'm not going to fulfill their expectations. Instead, I'm just taking my business elsewhere.
That doesn't change the fact that it's an outrage that Apple has been doing this without explicit user consent.
even without DRM. No DRM does not mean no personal responsibility.
They put the info even into the DRM'ed files, where that information serves no purpose whatsoever: those files aren't useful to anybody else.
Seriously, the purchaser info is RIGHT THERE in the same tab in the "Get Info" window that displays the track length, play count, file format, bitrate, and other data that's clearly, readily, deliberately accessible to users, and IT HAS BEEN EVER SINCE THE STORE OPENED IN 2003.
Any DRM system needs to be able to associate ownership information with a music file, and it's not surprising that iTunes can show you that information. It doesn't automatically follow that that personal information is stored in the music file in plain text, or even stored in the music file at all.
But you're right: personal information is indeed stored in the music file in plain text, and has been for a while. I find that rather outrageous and a serious privacy violation. Not only do I have to worry about my MP3 player getting stolen, I also have to worry about my personal information getting stolen along with it.
Shame on Apple; this is not the right way of doing DRM.
I believe operating systems should have had effective file management, including searches, version control, and virtual folders more than a decade ago.
Quite right.
The only reason an ecosystem of third-party utilities has sprung up is because Microsoft has been so sluggish at improving their OS.
Yes, and why do you think that is? I'll tell you: because, currently, meaningful competition for desktop features is impossible; you may get a bunch of small shareware vendors, but Microsoft can kill them whenever they want. Therefore, nobody invests serious amounts of time or money in making the Windows desktop any better.
Let's face it, database-like file management was available in systems like BEOS since 1995.
Database-like file management has been available since the 1960's. It hasn't caught on because people haven't quite figured out how to make it work well for end users. There is still a lot of R&D investment to be done before this is going to work better than current file management, but nobody has an incentive to do that kind of investment as long as Microsoft can simply control what's on the desktop.
Unfortunately, now a wealth of third-party fixes to Windows limitations has sprung up, and MS can't implement what should be basic functionality without running foul of antitrust issues.
Even if there were no anti-trust issues, Microsoft simply has no economic incentive to do a good job. In the end, a bunch of Microsoft engineers will come up with some gee-whiz features that pay lip service to "database-like file management", but it makes no difference to Microsoft's bottom line whether it actually works or not.
We need serious competition for desktop features, user interfaces, kernels, etc., and that's only going to happen when the market can pick and choose operating system components.
And what about all those people who haven't the knowledge, experience, time or interest to do so ? You know, the 99% of the market that Microsoft and Apple are selling to ?
The same thing that happens now: they buy a complete, pre-installed system from a PC manufacturer.
Microsoft aren't selling you a garage full of parts and a greasy service manual, they're selling you a car.
Most people get Windows preinstalled with their PC and they buy a new PC when Windows has a major upgrade or their Windows installation has rotted away.
Furthermore, staying with your car analogy, cars are not produced from raw materials by a monolithic company; instead, they are assembled by auto manufacturers from parts obtained from hundreds of individual manufacturers. Microsoft is the antithesis of car manufacturing.
So Google is demanding that Microsoft remove Vista's desktop search feature a feature that other OSes already ship? If other OSes can ship it then so can Microsoft.
No, they are demanding that Microsoft lets people disable it. You know, like you can do on any other operating system.
Hell, if I'd been in charge of Microsoft, I would've been bundling Windows Desktop Search with XP for years now.
In fact, I think it's perfectly reasonable to demand that no operating system "bundle" desktop search, web browsers, or other software like that and instead give users the option to pick and choose what components they like.
That's what you think. That's probably what broadband users are actually paying on average. It's just that people like you are downloading hundreds of gigabytes while people like my mother are reading their E-mail and only want broadband for the convenience and fast load times.
Flat rate makes sense when available capacity is so high compared to common usage that accounting for usage is more expensive than simply letting everybody just use the service at a fixed fee. That's true for voice, dial-up, and maybe ISDN speeds.
For broadband, flat rates don't make any sense yet. What you get is either volume-capped flat rates, traffic shaping, or some kind of nebulous enforcement. Since those tend to be not very transparent to customers and hard to compare between providers, those kinds of models are probably bad for users.
ISPs should find a simple pricing model for broadband, like charging a few bucks per gigabyte of volume, plus some base fee (possibly with different rates for peak/off-peak usage). Based on that, people could more reasonably compare what they're actually getting for their money.
Of course, ISPs prefer a confusopoly, and users foolishly think they're getting a good deal with "all you can eat" bandwidth buffets.
Seems 100% accurate to me, just a little short on the details and context. Plenty of folks know some juicy tales of paper tape and Aiken labs.
The problem is the implication that he left Harvard in order to found a multi-billion dollar business, as if he had planned it all out.
He was dead on right about the future of the home computer
So were many other companies.
and he made that future, or broke it, depending on who you ask. He is a brilliant businessman.
The personal computer industry was built by thousands of companies, many of them run by brilliant technologists and brilliant businessmen.
Gates isn't stupid, but, in the end, it's extraordinary ruthlessness, not extraordinary brilliance, that has given him the edge and allowed him to succeed. And, as far as I'm concerned, that makes him a bad role model.
Another example of how a lot of wealth can get you a lot of rewriting of history.
Come on kids ... it's nice to dream and all, but what we're dealing with here -- again, at least on the surface -- is one very dry surface that has a heck of a lot of ultra-fine silt lying around in a low gravity environment.
It's quite clear that soil surfaces on Mars must regularly be exposed to liquid water. Why? Because we've already pretty much seen it: the Viking lander saw ground frost in its images, and at temperatures and pressures on Mars, that frost can turn liquid.
(Incidentally, silt was, by definition, created in running water.)
So, while I agree that these pictures don't show liquid water and that we haven't seen any puddles of water on Mars yet, an ultra-dry explanation of Mars doesn't work, and liquid water or salt solutions on the surface of Mars are not just possible, but likely.
As for the topic in question. The tracks in the original image do indeed look like they have gone through a puddle. How it could survive in the near vacuum is interesting ... maybe it is very salty
The triple point of water is at 0.01 C and 0.006 atm, which tells you that plain water can, in fact, exist in liquid for in "near vacuum" (salt, of course, probably helps even more). Those conditions are pretty close to what you get on Mars.
Well, then 99% of the people shouldn't complain about the laws and representatives they are getting.
If you look at the actual laws you'll find all sorts of caveats and safeguards that unfortunately when implemented by bureaucrats disappear.
It's my experience that those bureaucrats are usually actually trying quite hard to do something reasonable with the laws they're asked to implement. The laws themselves, however, are often ambiguous because they are political compromises designed not to offend a lot of people and not to be too specific so that the people who voted for them can't be blamed.
Plain water can't stay liquid for very long at Mar's near vacuum. So the question is what water solutions can stay liquid at that temperature and pressure and for how long?
The triple point of water is around 0.01 C and 0.006 atm, which tells you that even plain water can be liquid at surface conditions that can exist on Mars. Salt solutions can exist in liquid form over a much wider range of conditions.
See also here:
http://mars.spherix.com/spie2/spie98.htm
If society doesn't want this kind of security research, well, they aren't going to get it and will have to deal with the consequences.
Such as "autoSpaceLikeWord95", "suppressTopSpacingWP", etc.
p oint0.html
You can find a longer discussion here:
http://fussnotes.typepad.com/Achieving_Openness_1
How much time have you spent looking at OpenXML before coming to your ...
Not very much, because I don't have to: all it takes in order to determine that "OpenXML" fails to be open is to find places where it is defined in terms of Microsoft's implementation, and there are plenty of those.
Wow, we got one: MickDownUnder is indeed one of those rare individuals--a Microsoft fanboi.
But the facts are clear nevertheless: OOXML ("Microsoft OpenXML") is not an open format, while ODF is. That's all there's to it.
I think the patent system is absurd, but this strikes me as a good use for it. Right now, vendors absolve themselves of any responsibility and think they have a right to get free reports and bug fixes from users. In fact, they have even created the impression that it is blackmail when bug reporters ask for money for their discoveries.
As I see it, if this company gets away with it, either, big companies will improve the quality of their software so that they have fewer vulnerabilities in the first place, or they will start to push for weakening software patents. Either way, everybody wins.
I'm sure Microsoft has "thought of" all sorts of things. That doesn't mean they can do anything about it. I mean, what economic reason or justification is there that Microsoft should continue to be able to make billions every year from Windows and Office when there are plenty of alternatives available?
In any case, as I wrote:
So, if you know more about Microsoft's secret master plan, please share it with us.
I doubt that companies are adopting Linux because it's "free-as-in-beer"; I think they are adopting Linux because it's technically and practically a better solution to their problems, and that wouldn't change even if they paid MS.
OpenXML has/is being implemented by 3rd parties.
Wrong. Third parties are implementing parts of OOXML and trying to do the best they can, but nobody other than Microsoft can ever create a complete implementation because the behavior of OOXML is defined in terms of Microsoft software. The situation isn't much different from current Microsoft Office formats: others try to support them as best they can, but nobody has been able to create a fully interoperable implementation.
So you're saying you know for a fact that there are no patents covering anything in the ODF standard?
I'm saying that I know for a fact that Microsoft has applied for a patent on OOXML, while nobody has applied for a patent on ODF.
If so why did Sun produce a convenant not to sue ODF developers?
Because that gives people additional assurance that Sun doesn't have any hidden agenda when it comes to ODF; you don't actually need Sun's covenant unless you're paranoid. With OOXML, Microsoft's agenda isn't even hidden, and without Microsoft's covenant, you'd definitely be screwed.
The differences between Microsoft's proposed open standard OpenXML and IBM/Sun's ODF standard in terms of functionality they're virtually interchangable.
No, the difference between Microsoft's OOXML and ODF is that ODF can be implemented fully and interoperably by third parties, while OOXML cannot. That's not a legal question or a licensing question, it's a question of bad specification of OOXML. That's why ODF is an open format, while OOXML is a closed, proprietary format.
In addition, Microsoft has applied for a patent on OOXML, while there is no patent pending on ODF. That means that there is good reason to believe that OOXML is, in fact, a restricted format.
Increasingly, [open formats] means
"Open formats" is a well-defined term. It means what it has always meant: a format that is unencumbered by copyrights or patents, and is sufficiently well documented to permit interoperable, independent implementations.
Of course, Microsoft has been trying to muddy the waters by calling their closed, proprietary format "open".
using this term is one of the best ways we can bring down Microsuck
Well, yes, in the sense that Microsoft's business model is monopolistic and involves closed formats. If Microsoft adopted open formats themselves, then things would be fine.
Ultimately, this may mean more leverage for one or a group of interests--something that is never good for a dye-in-the-wool open source believer.
Adoption of open formats, in the usual meaning of the word, is not just good for open source, it's good for the industry as a whole (except, of course, for Microsoft).
What is bad for everybody other than Microsoft is Microsoft's attempts to confuse people about what an open format is. ODF is an open format, OOXML is a closed, proprietary format.
Open source/format is such a misunderstood term
Well, yes. Quantum mechanics is also such a misunderstood term. Nevertheless, both "open format" and "quantum mechanics" have important, well defined meanings, and the responsibility is on you to understand and use them correctly.
I'm sorry, I can't put my finger on it, but 8ft robotic teddy bears carrying 250 pound soldiers in their arms just seems WRONG somehow.
I think this is a bad decision for Apple. ZFS cannot be incorporated into the Linux kernel due to Sun's choice of license, and Solaris isn't widely used compared to Linux.
Regardless of whether ZFS is actually "better" than other file systems (I don't think it is), choosing ZFS makes Macintosh even less compatible with the mainstream FOSS world than it already is.