...NASA...being in full control of what they can and cannot take.
You bet your boots they are.
These aren't robots in a factory we're talking about...
I don't think anyone said that they were.
What I said was that this is the last thing a configuration manager might think of independently - and that's assuming that such a configuration manager and staff exists. Once upon a time, NASA was quite strict in knowing and controlling things to the last iota in space. Let's see if we can find the process definition - here it is: http://www.spaceref.com/shuttle/computer/PGSC.CM.Plan.doc
That's an older copy, but the best that I could do on short notice.
So, let's be clear: 1. NASA isn't a faceless Big Brother 2. NASA has a lot of people trying to coordinate a lot of stuff 3. NASA develops processes to ensure that everything's taken care of, within the reasonable limits of human error (they even have processes to improve processes) 4. The process for what software goes into POC - Portable Onboard Computers - exists and is well-defined
So, if another config board allowed for entertainment DVDs to go up, then someone missed this config board meeting about it.
If, on the other hand, they tell astronauts that they can take up to two pounds of personal items (my made up example) such as books, MP3 players (I don't know) within volume constraints of X cc, etc - then maybe an astronaut missed a config meeting.
I grief on NASA all of the time - but I think your griefing is misplaced, as is that of people ragging the tune, "NASA management sucks," for this particular subject. Astronauts aren't robots - but neither are they helpless victims of a careless NASA that cruelly sends them in harm's way without a lot of foresight and planning.
Either someone -possibly the astronauts themselves - didn't follow a process or screwed up and missed a meeting or someone now has the job of improving a process or creating a new sub-process.
And that's my response to any arguments on this particular subject of a) NASA has bad management, b) NASA is stupid, c) it's so easy, they should have just thought of this, d) they use the wrong PCs, and e) NASA doesn't care.
If anyone's interested in conjecture, here's mine: if NASA were a military organization, either the DVDs would have never made it into space or the POCs would be able to play them - the military has moral and entertainment officers for a reason, and they do tend to think about taking care of people whose jobs place them in life and death situations. Taxpayers don't question those roles and Tony Curtis made generations laugh playing that role in movies. But I can just imagine the outcry if it got out in the popular press that NASA has job openings for "Entertainment and Moral Coordiantor, Shuttle and ISS Directorate." Yeah - that would get funded. (Hell - maybe the job already exists and is staffed. If so - then THEY missed the meetings.)
I agree with the idea that if I were in space, the last thing I'd do with that little precious time off would be to watch an idiot box.
I equally agree with the idea that if I were in space, the first thing I'd do is watch Star Wars (OK, maybe Bab 5, but that's me) if I got the chance.
If I had to choose to which story to tell at parties where people would be buying me drinks, I'd choose the second.
It's not that amenities aren't well-deserved - they are. But honestly - would the ability to watch movies have even hit your radar if you were in charge of configuring those PCs? It sure wouldn't have hit mine.
I cannot believe that people are griefing NASA for this one.
Too bad vlc wasn't part of their default software.
Yeah - too bad. Ever read about the legal use of this?
...there is not need to obtain any patent licenses for VideoLAN software within the European Union...
Is libdvdcss legal?
The use and distribution of the libdvdcss library is controversial in a few countries such as the United States because of a law called the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act). If you are unsure about the legality of using and distributing this library in your country, please consult your lawyer.
Beware: VLC media player binaries are distributed with the libdvdcss library included.
You know - NASA - American tax dollars - legal. Or maybe it's NASA's job to have one of their lawyers figure out of it's OK. Or challenging the stupidity of the DCMA should have been part of the mission while they were just, ya know, tooling around, fixing the Hubble.
Yep - too bad it wasn't part of their default software.
Yeah, easy to hate on Win, love OS X and yadda yadda yadda.
The laptops must have been there for a reason. Perhaps someone in configuration management said, "Gee, it's going into space, it might be mission-critical at some point, so let's not load it up with entertainment stuff and bloatware."
I don't know - I'm in a more than usual snarky mood.
The real scary part of this for me is not the government, more on that in a sec, but your girlfriend/boyfriend/housemate. Anyone who feels like he/she wants to do some snooping now has a treasure chest of stuff to take out of context.
The scary part for me is that you live in a world where screen savers are not secure and you use an operating system that doesn't let an authorized user - s.o. or housemate - log in to their own account only, not yours.
Despite the/var folder being visible, the contents below that are not - unless you've given admin privileges to your housemates. If it's your housemate's computer (obviously, they'll have privileges) then it's you that's exposed - the only solution for that is the obvious one - get your own computer, disallow access to anyone else.
Just because someone might sleep with you in no way holds you to giving them any access whatsoever to your computer.
Seriously/., you can't even buy starter edition in the US or most technologically-capable countries. It's for underdeveloped countries. It's been this way for years now, it was like this for Vista also.
And, from TFA:
Windows 7 Starter Edition, unlike XP Starter Edition, will be for sale to users in both developing and developed nations.
That's why/. is called News for Nerds, Stuff that matters. When something that was one way is now another, many people call that news.
In the time you've taken to call/. dumb, you could have RTFA and learned also:
Specifically, according to TechARP's information, Microsoft's maximum specs for machines it will consider to be netbooks/"small notebooks" will change in the following ways:
Screen size: With XP and Vista, maximum allowable screen size was 12.1 inches; with Windows 7, it will be 10.2 inches
Storage: Maximum limits for XP and Vista: 160 GB HDD or 32 GB SDD; with Windows 7, it will be 250 GB HDD or 64 GB SDD
Graphics: With XP and Vista, netbooks/small notebooks was "less than or equal to DX9; with Windows 7, there will be no limitation
CPUs: With XP and Vista, netbooks/small notebooks had to have "single core processors that do not exceed 1 GHz frequency, or Intel Atom (N270, N280, 230, Z500, Z510, Z515, Z520, Z530, Z540, Z550); Intel Celeron 220; AMD (MV-40, 1050P, TF-20, Geode LX, Athlon 2650e, Sempron 210U); VIA (C7-M ULV, Nano U1700, U2250, U2300, U2400 or U2500). With Windows 7, the maximum will be "single core processors that do not exceed 2 GHz frequency, and have a CPU thermal design power that is less than or equal to 15 W, not including the graphics and chipset."
Well - first we have doubt about Tesla's surviving to become a museum, and now this. However it goes for BP - and I do hope that it can be saved as a museum, here's a little reminder of a site that many/.ers know about - http://www.xat.nl/enigma-e/index.htm
The spirit of the machine will continue to thrive, it seems. I hope the same is true of BP, where Turing & company changed things for so many.
They hurt you at home and they hit you at school, They hate you if you're clever and they despise a fool, Till you're so fucking crazy you can't follow their rules, A working class hero is something to be, A working class hero is something to be. When they've tortured and scared you for twenty odd years, Then they expect you to pick a career, When you can't really function you're so full of fear...
OK, I really, really appreciate this help. Like you, I had exposure to this stuff in undergrad work - some 35 or more years ago, and otherwise, maybe kinda spoon-fed - I only really paid attention to the DOJ actions against IBM and MS. So I'll start re-reading - evidently I didn't retain what I thought that I had.
Yes, I had the right idea for the intention of the anti-trust laws. I guess you were right - I did NOT clearly understand leveraging (and sorry, google wasn't helping me).
And if anything, I was more guilty of thinking as a consumer advocate than CS-y. I think consumers are well-served by music player software assisting them in managing their portable music devices (iTunes/iPod, WMP/Zune, etc). From what I ***thought*** you were saying, if the tech treated a portable music player like a printer (geez - finding decent analogies is f*ing hard), in that the interfaces are known by all, doable by all, then the lock-in is gone - and the leverage is gone. That's what I thought you meant, anyway.
The mosquito repellant/mousetrap example was helpful. However - so far as I know, no one charges for their music playing software - so there's no market to undermine - so long as you don't penalize for the non-use of your software. Is that correct?
But that leaves the iTMS as the leveraged market (I believe that I got the use of terms right here).
But the complaint goes beyond software licensing politics and charges Apple with deliberately designing its iPod hardware to be incompatible with WMA. One of the third-party components in iPods, the Portal Player System-On-A-Chip, supports WMA, according to the complaint. "Apple, however, deliberately designed the iPod's software so that it would only play a single protected digital format, Apple's FairPlay-modified AAC format," the complaint states. "Deliberately disabling a desirable feature of a computer product is known as 'crippling' a product, and software that does this is known as 'crippleware.' "
Frankly, this sounds exactly like the explanation that you've given - except - the charge is not necessarily true.
Apple, for its part, might reasonably claim it doesn't want to license WMA from Microsoft, a cost the complaint speculates is unlikely to exceed $800,000, or 3 cents per iPod sold in 2005.
Apple didn't disable the feature - they didn't enable this private format. AAC isn't private. FairPlay is, FairPlay with AAC is, but if we see the demise of FairPlay (yeah, I know - and if chickens had lips, they'd tell me how great the future will be) - that just leaves the unsupported codec.
So - if they did a firmware update to support WMA - and they could - PROVIDED THERE'S ENOUGH NVM so to do - then this action would go away, wouldn't it?
But still - the action isn't that iTMS is bad or iPods only support AAC and AAC is private - all misstatements I've seen regularly - it's that iTMS has locked out those preferring to use WMA. If that's true - what about Ogg/Vorbis?
Anyway - thanks for the help - if you don't have time to continue to respond, I understand - but I'm hoping that you will.
When MS was convicted of violations for tying WMP to Windows, the separation between the application and underlying frameworks within the OS was not even an issue. It's about markets, not technologies.
That was a European finding, not a US one. Further, this opinion shows that things are never cut and dried. Most interestingly, they state:
The reason is, to allow competition. If Windows Media Player code automatically comes on all machines, then content providers know that they have to encode in only one format. Just so long as enough machines are out there without Windows Media Player, then content providers and Web sites will find it worth their while to dual encode. Even a relatively small number of machines that don't come with Windows Media Player will be enough to preserve competition in the market. That's why Microsoft is so concerned. - from http://www.law.yale.edu/news/2128.htm
That's about codecs, not just a player.
I think you're jumping the shark - the anticompetitive part was about compatibilities.
Let me head you off right there. You list a lot of aspects of the software, but you're looking at it from a technical, CS perspective. Antitrust laws are written based upon economic markets. No one writes a law that specifies Web browsers, they write laws that specify "competing products".
Before I read the rest of your comment, let me head you off. The US DOJ found MS to be guilty of anticompetitive practices specifically within context of these very technical things, and coincidentally, over a browser, to boot. Yes, I know the laws are generalized, but the violations always revolve around the specific and concrete.
So, what I'm driving at - in an attempt to understand your point of view - is very much at the heart of the matter.
It refutes the my [sic] position, but you don't know what my position is? You're very confused.
Yes, and I'm honest and polite about it, so kindly get worked up.
Umm, iPods are devices. They don't leverage anything. Do you know what leveraging is, in terms of antitrust?
OK, you're quote was: "Apple's leveraging of the iPod" which I misquoted - sorry, no malice aforethought or intended.
However - my chronology was of Apple's actions and is - so far as I honestly know - not flawed. Yes, other products preceded theirs in the market.
Apple leveraged share of the portable, digital music player market to gain in other, related but separate markets, including music jukebox software and music download services. This may or may not be illegal depending upon how great Apples influence in the portable, digital music player marekt was at the time of the action. Is that clear enough for you?
No - only your language is clear - this may be illegal depending upon how Apple's influence was. Why is that illegal? I'm asking - again - politely. Why? How? I have only a layman's understanding of the law - but it's not a small understanding, IMO. They did not use leverage against suppliers, partners or distributors. They used their market leverage only. They built a better mousetrap, marketed it, and expanded the product line. That is not illegal. If I am wrong, kindly either explain the law or point me somewhere where I can get that explanation.
Are you European with a acquaintance of US law or vice versa? I am the latter.
I think the US courts should look into Apple's leveraging of the iPod and it is quite possibly illegal.
In our parallel-thread discussion, you keep going on about leveraging. Here's the chronological order of things: 1. iTunes became a standalone success. Apple provided, built-in, what everyone in the day was telling their friends that computers can now do - give you a computer-based music library and the ability to burn CDs. It was Apple, it just worked. 2. The iPod came out. It used the same super-easy visual user interface that the desktop iTunes used. Originally, it worked only with Apples with Firewire. 3. Due to market demand, Apple release the Win version of iTunes and the USB iPod. Market demand satisfied. 4. Apple introduced the iTMS. Pundits and Win fans worldwide predicted its demise. It just worked - meaning - it broke the full-album-only marketing for the industry (like the iPod, others had preceded, they succeeded) - and it was super-easy to use - and it worked in finally having a major player break the supplier-dictated DRM nightmare.
If anything, Apple leveraged their success to begin the end of DRM for downloadable music.
The chronology completely refutes your position - which, BTW, you still haven't stated clearly at all. What did the iPod leverage?
Why do you persist in believing that just because no one has matched Apple's iTunes/iPod/iTMS market success that that in and of itself is anticompetitive, monopolistic or otherwise illegal? It's simply not, no matter how much you seem to want it to be.
I'm not sure what you mean by an iTunes extension. iPods and iTunes(the software) and the iTunes store are all separate markets as markets are legally defined.
(on my remark of defining iTunes) - I don't understand the problem. iTunes is a piece of software. It's not had to define. It connects to the iPod device and to the iTunes Music Store service.
Based on the fact that you've gotten the definition only slightly correct, defining it is a obviously an issue. Your claim that iTunes is a market, as legally defined, notwithstanding: 1. iTunes is an xml music browser. Like any browser, it allows you to move content around (e.g., Save page as...) It's primary function is to browse music on the platform on which it resides. It existed long before the iPod and the iTMS - and it still presents this as its primary function in its user interface, in its desktop form. 2. iTunes seems to be the music browser built into the iPod. Or, more accurately, a branch, stripping away those functions not germane to an iPod. 3. iTunes - as a browser - relies on QuickTime and its muscle to do any actual music playback. 4. iTunes is the functional component responsible for FairPlay management. Given that Apple is on record from the beginning as accepting DRM as a necessary evil that they would like dropped, that can be considered a minor function, like it or not. It is already considered obsolete by many.
So, no, just because it's convenient to define iTunes as a legal market, you (strictly rhetorical, not ad hominem) won't get relief saying, "iTunes, QuickTime - whatever, you know what I mean" - how would a court know what you mean? What do you mean? Is your complaint with QuickTime or iTunes? I honestly can't tell - sorry, neither trolling nor trying to be dense.
didn't say it was lock-in. It is tying. Because every iPod ships with a copy of iTunes, which connects to the iTMS, Apple gains an advantage against Amazon in selling music online. That in and of itself is illegal tying if Apple has monopoly influence on the iPod's relevant market.
Ok, either I'm right or you are on this one. IANAL. But to my knowledge, what you're insisting is illegal, simply isn't. Apple gained an advertising advantage over Amazon - not a technological one nor a functional one nor a pricing one.
The problem is hurting market share for creators of software jukeboxes and music services, who are harmed by not being on a level playing field with Apple's offerings in the same market. That's the relevant (potential) crime.
No one is on a level playing field with my DirecTV receiver - it only works with the DirecTV system. That's a more direct example, but isn't a crime and won't be - even if DirecTV becomes market dominant.
Music services can serve an iPod owner quite easily - unless they want to muck about their own closed, DRM. Why Apple choose to not license FairPlay is covered here, fwiw - http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/
So, that leaves your argument down to writers of software jukeboxes being harmed. In such a case - iTunes isn't a software jukebox, but iTunes+QuickTime is. So, what you're really saying will remove the evil is for Apple to publish the API for QuickTime. That gets you the ability to write your own xml browser.
That levels the playing field significantly, but not entirely. For it to be truly level anything in iTunes that directs users to the iTunes store needs to be available to others to provide a similar way to direct to their products.
What function? I'll assume not album covers, but for browsing and purchasing music and movies. So - your relief would require iTunes to be able to handle any browser protocols and security protocols thrown at it - otherwise, an evil "competitor" (an equivalent of a squatter) could keep finding ways to break the iTunes/external-si
Frankly, I don't think this figures into Apple's motivation at all.
Yeah - I didn't think that it did, I was just covering bases, hence my statement, "if it does exist."
Ban Apple from bundling iTunes with the iPod.
Given that the iPod is strictly (by appearance) an iTunes extension, I don't think that that's reasonably possible.
Force Apple to bundle any and all iTunes competitors with the iPod (but let them bundle iTunes).
That's roughly impossible - either beginning with how to define iTunes and stepping with how large the shareware list alone is, and ending with those competitors wanting to be bundled and represented by Apple. N.B. - what you suggest is so unusual that I want to call it unprecedented - but that's probably too strong a word.
For me, the idea that the iTMS matters is a non-starter. No one is ragging Netflix for compatibility, for example, and the iTMS/iTunes+iPod lock is a phantom - one can already use Amazon music for an example on-line music store - but following iTunes instructions, just about any music source can make its way to an iPod. (Amazon even gives instructions and help for this - so where's the iTMS lock-in?)
As for this:
What Apple could be guilty of is leveraging the iPod to increase market share of iTunes and the iTunes store by making sure other jukebox software and music download stores do not work as well with iPods as iTunes+iTunes store. There are several possible effective remedies:
Break Apple's iPod business into a separate company not tied to Apple.
That's an odd proposal to a non-problem. The iPod+iTMS isn't a monopoly and the European courts that tried to make this case rightfully failed. Just because someone is market dominant doesn't make them a monopoly. When they cross the line and use anti-competitive practices - that's when monopoly comes into play.
Being dominant in and of itself isn't a crime or even unethical.
I own an iPod and some Macs (among other platforms). Maybe I'm less sympathetic because I just don't care about the iTMS - and I'm a prime market target. Why anyone would want the iTMS escapes me, but people evidently do. (IOW - be careful what you wish for.)
If you want iPod/iTMS access to be fair (per your suggestions) then really all Apple has to do is to remove it from the iTunes browser and open it up to any browser. Or, provide scripts so that music downloads are automatically dispatched to iTunes. And that would be fair at about the same time that Netflix works in OS X.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah ... moral was supposed to be morale. I'm a Grammar Nazi, not a Spelling Nazi. See also, http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1221921&cid=27828087 for clarification this.
Thank you.
...NASA...being in full control of what they can and cannot take.
You bet your boots they are.
These aren't robots in a factory we're talking about...
I don't think anyone said that they were.
What I said was that this is the last thing a configuration manager might think of independently - and that's assuming that such a configuration manager and staff exists. Once upon a time, NASA was quite strict in knowing and controlling things to the last iota in space. Let's see if we can find the process definition - here it is: http://www.spaceref.com/shuttle/computer/PGSC.CM.Plan.doc
That's an older copy, but the best that I could do on short notice.
So, let's be clear:
1. NASA isn't a faceless Big Brother
2. NASA has a lot of people trying to coordinate a lot of stuff
3. NASA develops processes to ensure that everything's taken care of, within the reasonable limits of human error (they even have processes to improve processes)
4. The process for what software goes into POC - Portable Onboard Computers - exists and is well-defined
So, if another config board allowed for entertainment DVDs to go up, then someone missed this config board meeting about it.
If, on the other hand, they tell astronauts that they can take up to two pounds of personal items (my made up example) such as books, MP3 players (I don't know) within volume constraints of X cc, etc - then maybe an astronaut missed a config meeting.
I grief on NASA all of the time - but I think your griefing is misplaced, as is that of people ragging the tune, "NASA management sucks," for this particular subject. Astronauts aren't robots - but neither are they helpless victims of a careless NASA that cruelly sends them in harm's way without a lot of foresight and planning.
Either someone -possibly the astronauts themselves - didn't follow a process or screwed up and missed a meeting or someone now has the job of improving a process or creating a new sub-process.
And that's my response to any arguments on this particular subject of a) NASA has bad management, b) NASA is stupid, c) it's so easy, they should have just thought of this, d) they use the wrong PCs, and e) NASA doesn't care.
If anyone's interested in conjecture, here's mine: if NASA were a military organization, either the DVDs would have never made it into space or the POCs would be able to play them - the military has moral and entertainment officers for a reason, and they do tend to think about taking care of people whose jobs place them in life and death situations. Taxpayers don't question those roles and Tony Curtis made generations laugh playing that role in movies. But I can just imagine the outcry if it got out in the popular press that NASA has job openings for "Entertainment and Moral Coordiantor, Shuttle and ISS Directorate." Yeah - that would get funded. (Hell - maybe the job already exists and is staffed. If so - then THEY missed the meetings.)
I agree with the idea that if I were in space, the last thing I'd do with that little precious time off would be to watch an idiot box.
I equally agree with the idea that if I were in space, the first thing I'd do is watch Star Wars (OK, maybe Bab 5, but that's me) if I got the chance.
If I had to choose to which story to tell at parties where people would be buying me drinks, I'd choose the second.
Seriously - thanks for getting the point.
It's not that amenities aren't well-deserved - they are. But honestly - would the ability to watch movies have even hit your radar if you were in charge of configuring those PCs? It sure wouldn't have hit mine.
I cannot believe that people are griefing NASA for this one.
Too bad vlc wasn't part of their default software.
Yeah - too bad. Ever read about the legal use of this?
...there is not need to obtain any patent licenses for VideoLAN software within the European Union...
Is libdvdcss legal?
The use and distribution of the libdvdcss library is controversial in a few countries such as the United States because of a law called the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act). If you are unsure about the legality of using and distributing this library in your country, please consult your lawyer.
Beware: VLC media player binaries are distributed with the libdvdcss library included.
From http://www.videolan.org/support/faq.html
You know - NASA - American tax dollars - legal. Or maybe it's NASA's job to have one of their lawyers figure out of it's OK. Or challenging the stupidity of the DCMA should have been part of the mission while they were just, ya know, tooling around, fixing the Hubble.
Yep - too bad it wasn't part of their default software.
Yeah, easy to hate on Win, love OS X and yadda yadda yadda.
The laptops must have been there for a reason. Perhaps someone in configuration management said, "Gee, it's going into space, it might be mission-critical at some point, so let's not load it up with entertainment stuff and bloatware."
I don't know - I'm in a more than usual snarky mood.
heh heh heh
Buttah! A voice like buttah!
The real scary part of this for me is not the government, more on that in a sec, but your girlfriend/boyfriend/housemate. Anyone who feels like he/she wants to do some snooping now has a treasure chest of stuff to take out of context.
The scary part for me is that you live in a world where screen savers are not secure and you use an operating system that doesn't let an authorized user - s.o. or housemate - log in to their own account only, not yours.
Despite the /var folder being visible, the contents below that are not - unless you've given admin privileges to your housemates. If it's your housemate's computer (obviously, they'll have privileges) then it's you that's exposed - the only solution for that is the obvious one - get your own computer, disallow access to anyone else.
Just because someone might sleep with you in no way holds you to giving them any access whatsoever to your computer.
Because on a clear disk, you can seek forever?
Seriously /., you can't even buy starter edition in the US or most technologically-capable countries. It's for underdeveloped countries. It's been this way for years now, it was like this for Vista also.
And, from TFA:
Windows 7 Starter Edition, unlike XP Starter Edition, will be for sale to users in both developing and developed nations.
That's why /. is called News for Nerds, Stuff that matters. When something that was one way is now another, many people call that news.
In the time you've taken to call /. dumb, you could have RTFA and learned also:
Specifically, according to TechARP's information, Microsoft's maximum specs for machines it will consider to be netbooks/"small notebooks" will change in the following ways:
Screen size: With XP and Vista, maximum allowable screen size was 12.1 inches; with Windows 7, it will be 10.2 inches
Storage: Maximum limits for XP and Vista: 160 GB HDD or 32 GB SDD; with Windows 7, it will be 250 GB HDD or 64 GB SDD
Graphics: With XP and Vista, netbooks/small notebooks was "less than or equal to DX9; with Windows 7, there will be no limitation
CPUs: With XP and Vista, netbooks/small notebooks had to have "single core processors that do not exceed 1 GHz frequency, or Intel Atom (N270, N280, 230, Z500, Z510, Z515, Z520, Z530, Z540, Z550); Intel Celeron 220; AMD (MV-40, 1050P, TF-20, Geode LX, Athlon 2650e, Sempron 210U); VIA (C7-M ULV, Nano U1700, U2250, U2300, U2400 or U2500). With Windows 7, the maximum will be "single core processors that do not exceed 2 GHz frequency, and have a CPU thermal design power that is less than or equal to 15 W, not including the graphics and chipset."
This article made me wonder what had happened to the stolen one... it was returned, after all.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/tvs-paxman-sent-stolen-enigma-machine-634351.html
Well - first we have doubt about Tesla's surviving to become a museum, and now this. However it goes for BP - and I do hope that it can be saved as a museum, here's a little reminder of a site that many /.ers know about - http://www.xat.nl/enigma-e/index.htm
The spirit of the machine will continue to thrive, it seems. I hope the same is true of BP, where Turing & company changed things for so many.
OK, it's probably silly given that the heliosheath has a drop-off, but...
How do we know there isn't a similar sheath around the galaxy that's similarly affecting observations?
I completely agree - and it's worth noting that we're talking about a spacecraft launched in 1977 - so it's flying tech is even older.
Not only that - our ground tech is truly incredible.
The power received at an earth antenna is 1e-16 watts - imagine finding and holding that signal in the cosmic background noise!
http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/didyouknow.html
Will that link work tomorrow? TFS did a better job, if you can bother to read it.
Maybe the link won't work tomorrow - the point of my post is that it is there TODAY.
If you had bothered to RTFA(s), which I in fact had, you'd notice that this was yesterday's news - oh - sorry - that was in TFS, too.
Thanks a lot for your highly cogent criticism.
http://www.google.com/ - check out today's logo.
From Working Class Hero:
They hurt you at home and they hit you at school,
They hate you if you're clever and they despise a fool,
Till you're so fucking crazy you can't follow their rules,
A working class hero is something to be,
A working class hero is something to be.
When they've tortured and scared you for twenty odd years,
Then they expect you to pick a career,
When you can't really function you're so full of fear...
Entertainment my ass - this is just sad.
Hey, I just wanted to say, thanks again for the help in understanding this - I had a lot of confusion!
OK, I really, really appreciate this help. Like you, I had exposure to this stuff in undergrad work - some 35 or more years ago, and otherwise, maybe kinda spoon-fed - I only really paid attention to the DOJ actions against IBM and MS. So I'll start re-reading - evidently I didn't retain what I thought that I had.
Yes, I had the right idea for the intention of the anti-trust laws. I guess you were right - I did NOT clearly understand leveraging (and sorry, google wasn't helping me).
And if anything, I was more guilty of thinking as a consumer advocate than CS-y. I think consumers are well-served by music player software assisting them in managing their portable music devices (iTunes/iPod, WMP/Zune, etc). From what I ***thought*** you were saying, if the tech treated a portable music player like a printer (geez - finding decent analogies is f*ing hard), in that the interfaces are known by all, doable by all, then the lock-in is gone - and the leverage is gone. That's what I thought you meant, anyway.
The mosquito repellant/mousetrap example was helpful. However - so far as I know, no one charges for their music playing software - so there's no market to undermine - so long as you don't penalize for the non-use of your software. Is that correct?
But that leaves the iTMS as the leveraged market (I believe that I got the use of terms right here).
Here's the EU antitrust complaint about iTMS - only on the grounds of sales territories - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17920298/
Here's the one about iTMS not supporting WMA - http://www.informationweek.com/news/personal_tech/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=205207895
But the complaint goes beyond software licensing politics and charges Apple with deliberately designing its iPod hardware to be incompatible with WMA. One of the third-party components in iPods, the Portal Player System-On-A-Chip, supports WMA, according to the complaint. "Apple, however, deliberately designed the iPod's software so that it would only play a single protected digital format, Apple's FairPlay-modified AAC format," the complaint states. "Deliberately disabling a desirable feature of a computer product is known as 'crippling' a product, and software that does this is known as 'crippleware.' "
Frankly, this sounds exactly like the explanation that you've given - except - the charge is not necessarily true.
Apple, for its part, might reasonably claim it doesn't want to license WMA from Microsoft, a cost the complaint speculates is unlikely to exceed $800,000, or 3 cents per iPod sold in 2005.
Apple didn't disable the feature - they didn't enable this private format. AAC isn't private. FairPlay is, FairPlay with AAC is, but if we see the demise of FairPlay (yeah, I know - and if chickens had lips, they'd tell me how great the future will be) - that just leaves the unsupported codec.
So - if they did a firmware update to support WMA - and they could - PROVIDED THERE'S ENOUGH NVM so to do - then this action would go away, wouldn't it?
But still - the action isn't that iTMS is bad or iPods only support AAC and AAC is private - all misstatements I've seen regularly - it's that iTMS has locked out those preferring to use WMA. If that's true - what about Ogg/Vorbis?
Anyway - thanks for the help - if you don't have time to continue to respond, I understand - but I'm hoping that you will.
When MS was convicted of violations for tying WMP to Windows, the separation between the application and underlying frameworks within the OS was not even an issue. It's about markets, not technologies.
That was a European finding, not a US one. Further, this opinion shows that things are never cut and dried. Most interestingly, they state:
The reason is, to allow competition. If Windows Media Player code automatically comes on all machines, then content providers know that they have to encode in only one format. Just so long as enough machines are out there without Windows Media Player, then content providers and Web sites will find it worth their while to dual encode. Even a relatively small number of machines that don't come with Windows Media Player will be enough to preserve competition in the market. That's why Microsoft is so concerned. - from http://www.law.yale.edu/news/2128.htm
That's about codecs, not just a player.
I think you're jumping the shark - the anticompetitive part was about compatibilities.
Sorry - I meant to say, kindly don't get worked up - as in, I'm not trolling and I am looking for your help if I'm misinformed.
Let me head you off right there. You list a lot of aspects of the software, but you're looking at it from a technical, CS perspective. Antitrust laws are written based upon economic markets. No one writes a law that specifies Web browsers, they write laws that specify "competing products".
Before I read the rest of your comment, let me head you off. The US DOJ found MS to be guilty of anticompetitive practices specifically within context of these very technical things, and coincidentally, over a browser, to boot. Yes, I know the laws are generalized, but the violations always revolve around the specific and concrete.
So, what I'm driving at - in an attempt to understand your point of view - is very much at the heart of the matter.
It refutes the my [sic] position, but you don't know what my position is? You're very confused.
Yes, and I'm honest and polite about it, so kindly get worked up.
Umm, iPods are devices. They don't leverage anything. Do you know what leveraging is, in terms of antitrust?
OK, you're quote was: "Apple's leveraging of the iPod" which I misquoted - sorry, no malice aforethought or intended.
However - my chronology was of Apple's actions and is - so far as I honestly know - not flawed. Yes, other products preceded theirs in the market.
Apple leveraged share of the portable, digital music player market to gain in other, related but separate markets, including music jukebox software and music download services. This may or may not be illegal depending upon how great Apples influence in the portable, digital music player marekt was at the time of the action. Is that clear enough for you?
No - only your language is clear - this may be illegal depending upon how Apple's influence was. Why is that illegal? I'm asking - again - politely. Why? How? I have only a layman's understanding of the law - but it's not a small understanding, IMO. They did not use leverage against suppliers, partners or distributors. They used their market leverage only. They built a better mousetrap, marketed it, and expanded the product line. That is not illegal. If I am wrong, kindly either explain the law or point me somewhere where I can get that explanation.
Are you European with a acquaintance of US law or vice versa? I am the latter.
I think the US courts should look into Apple's leveraging of the iPod and it is quite possibly illegal.
In our parallel-thread discussion, you keep going on about leveraging. Here's the chronological order of things:
1. iTunes became a standalone success. Apple provided, built-in, what everyone in the day was telling their friends that computers can now do - give you a computer-based music library and the ability to burn CDs. It was Apple, it just worked.
2. The iPod came out. It used the same super-easy visual user interface that the desktop iTunes used. Originally, it worked only with Apples with Firewire.
3. Due to market demand, Apple release the Win version of iTunes and the USB iPod. Market demand satisfied.
4. Apple introduced the iTMS. Pundits and Win fans worldwide predicted its demise. It just worked - meaning - it broke the full-album-only marketing for the industry (like the iPod, others had preceded, they succeeded) - and it was super-easy to use - and it worked in finally having a major player break the supplier-dictated DRM nightmare.
If anything, Apple leveraged their success to begin the end of DRM for downloadable music.
The chronology completely refutes your position - which, BTW, you still haven't stated clearly at all. What did the iPod leverage?
Why do you persist in believing that just because no one has matched Apple's iTunes/iPod/iTMS market success that that in and of itself is anticompetitive, monopolistic or otherwise illegal? It's simply not, no matter how much you seem to want it to be.
I'm not sure what you mean by an iTunes extension. iPods and iTunes(the software) and the iTunes store are all separate markets as markets are legally defined.
(on my remark of defining iTunes) - I don't understand the problem. iTunes is a piece of software. It's not had to define. It connects to the iPod device and to the iTunes Music Store service.
Based on the fact that you've gotten the definition only slightly correct, defining it is a obviously an issue. Your claim that iTunes is a market, as legally defined, notwithstanding:
1. iTunes is an xml music browser. Like any browser, it allows you to move content around (e.g., Save page as...) It's primary function is to browse music on the platform on which it resides. It existed long before the iPod and the iTMS - and it still presents this as its primary function in its user interface, in its desktop form.
2. iTunes seems to be the music browser built into the iPod. Or, more accurately, a branch, stripping away those functions not germane to an iPod.
3. iTunes - as a browser - relies on QuickTime and its muscle to do any actual music playback.
4. iTunes is the functional component responsible for FairPlay management. Given that Apple is on record from the beginning as accepting DRM as a necessary evil that they would like dropped, that can be considered a minor function, like it or not. It is already considered obsolete by many.
So, no, just because it's convenient to define iTunes as a legal market, you (strictly rhetorical, not ad hominem) won't get relief saying, "iTunes, QuickTime - whatever, you know what I mean" - how would a court know what you mean? What do you mean? Is your complaint with QuickTime or iTunes? I honestly can't tell - sorry, neither trolling nor trying to be dense.
didn't say it was lock-in. It is tying. Because every iPod ships with a copy of iTunes, which connects to the iTMS, Apple gains an advantage against Amazon in selling music online. That in and of itself is illegal tying if Apple has monopoly influence on the iPod's relevant market.
Ok, either I'm right or you are on this one. IANAL. But to my knowledge, what you're insisting is illegal, simply isn't. Apple gained an advertising advantage over Amazon - not a technological one nor a functional one nor a pricing one.
The problem is hurting market share for creators of software jukeboxes and music services, who are harmed by not being on a level playing field with Apple's offerings in the same market. That's the relevant (potential) crime.
No one is on a level playing field with my DirecTV receiver - it only works with the DirecTV system. That's a more direct example, but isn't a crime and won't be - even if DirecTV becomes market dominant.
Music services can serve an iPod owner quite easily - unless they want to muck about their own closed, DRM. Why Apple choose to not license FairPlay is covered here, fwiw - http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/
So, that leaves your argument down to writers of software jukeboxes being harmed. In such a case - iTunes isn't a software jukebox, but iTunes+QuickTime is. So, what you're really saying will remove the evil is for Apple to publish the API for QuickTime. That gets you the ability to write your own xml browser.
That levels the playing field significantly, but not entirely. For it to be truly level anything in iTunes that directs users to the iTunes store needs to be available to others to provide a similar way to direct to their products.
What function? I'll assume not album covers, but for browsing and purchasing music and movies. So - your relief would require iTunes to be able to handle any browser protocols and security protocols thrown at it - otherwise, an evil "competitor" (an equivalent of a squatter) could keep finding ways to break the iTunes/external-si
Frankly, I don't think this figures into Apple's motivation at all.
Yeah - I didn't think that it did, I was just covering bases, hence my statement, "if it does exist."
Ban Apple from bundling iTunes with the iPod.
Given that the iPod is strictly (by appearance) an iTunes extension, I don't think that that's reasonably possible.
Force Apple to bundle any and all iTunes competitors with the iPod (but let them bundle iTunes).
That's roughly impossible - either beginning with how to define iTunes and stepping with how large the shareware list alone is, and ending with those competitors wanting to be bundled and represented by Apple. N.B. - what you suggest is so unusual that I want to call it unprecedented - but that's probably too strong a word.
For me, the idea that the iTMS matters is a non-starter. No one is ragging Netflix for compatibility, for example, and the iTMS/iTunes+iPod lock is a phantom - one can already use Amazon music for an example on-line music store - but following iTunes instructions, just about any music source can make its way to an iPod. (Amazon even gives instructions and help for this - so where's the iTMS lock-in?)
As for this:
What Apple could be guilty of is leveraging the iPod to increase market share of iTunes and the iTunes store by making sure other jukebox software and music download stores do not work as well with iPods as iTunes+iTunes store. There are several possible effective remedies:
Break Apple's iPod business into a separate company not tied to Apple.
That's an odd proposal to a non-problem. The iPod+iTMS isn't a monopoly and the European courts that tried to make this case rightfully failed. Just because someone is market dominant doesn't make them a monopoly. When they cross the line and use anti-competitive practices - that's when monopoly comes into play.
Being dominant in and of itself isn't a crime or even unethical.
I own an iPod and some Macs (among other platforms). Maybe I'm less sympathetic because I just don't care about the iTMS - and I'm a prime market target. Why anyone would want the iTMS escapes me, but people evidently do. (IOW - be careful what you wish for.)
If you want iPod/iTMS access to be fair (per your suggestions) then really all Apple has to do is to remove it from the iTunes browser and open it up to any browser. Or, provide scripts so that music downloads are automatically dispatched to iTunes. And that would be fair at about the same time that Netflix works in OS X.
I wonder if I could get George W. and Dick C., I hear they are currently unemployed...
Did you just suggest - even jokingly - giving them more camera time? Seriously - are you fucking insane? :)