If a disc with copyrighted protection technology remains inside the drive after following the procedures above, or if the computer does not start up normally, it is recommended that you contact an Apple Authorized Service Provider (AASP) or Apple Technical Support. CD audio discs that incorporate copyright protection technologies do not adhere to published Compact Disc standards. Apple designs its CD drives to support media that conforms to such standards. Apple computers are not designed to support copyright protected media that do not conform to such standards. Therefore, any attempt to use non standard discs with Apple CD drives will be considered a misapplication of the product. Under the terms of Apple's One-Year Limited Warranty, AppleCare Protection Plan, or other AppleCare agreement any misapplication of the product is excluded from Apple's repair coverage. Because the Apple product is functioning correctly according to its design specifications, any fee assessed by an Apple Authorized Service Provider or Apple for repair service will not be Apple's responsibility.
What I want to know is this: When will we get a good, preferably in-dash, hard drive based MP3 player for the car? You know, it could be done many ways, actually. Any of these companies could easily adapt the power supply for these devices to a standard 12 volts and then make the hard drive portion removable to bring in house and "sync up" via usb/firewire, whatever.
This would preferably also have a CD player in dash that could play regular as well as MP3 cds.
Hell, they could actually create a trunk mounted MP3 unit designed for use in car, similar to car CD changers.
I guess there's the Rio Car, but this is a little pricey a (imho) rather ugly design.
You see all sorts of kits with small computers mounted in trunks hooked up though power inverters, etc. You could also get a cigarette lighter adaptor for any of these jukeboxes. But none of these are eloquent solutions to a problem that really already HAS a solution.
Message To Big Audio Company: I want my entire (400+) CD collection in my dash or trunk in MP3 format. I want large drives (20gigs +). I want it cheap ( $600), I want it pretty. I want it flexible. (Upgrades/Add-ons?) And I want it NOW!
Ok, I'm about to set up my first site that actually makes use of online transactions. It seems to me that as long as three things are done correctly that the majority of security risks have been eliminated. 1) Only take credit information over an encrypted connection. 2) make sure that you have a secure link to your credit card processor (this would be a given, right?) and 3) don't keep the customers credit information at all.
These seem to me to be reasonably adequate security. Aren't the two major way of stealing credit card information by packet sniffing and looking for it and by breaking into/stealing databases where the numbers are stored?
I'm not saying that these are the only way, but the two major. If I'm wrong, please correct me.
I was going to say that if you're going to store credit cards you should at least encrypt them, but I guess this is always crack-able.
Any thoughts?
Doug
<rant>
Ok. As a web developer I want to bitch about the state of browsers.
Call me uninformed, stupid or whatever you will, but after having played with Netscape 6, IE 5.5, Opera 4 and Netscape 4.72. I can't imagine that there's anything that can be done to make my life easier as a developer.
For a long time, and I've said this on Slashdot before, my main problem with Opera 4 and Netscape 6 is that they don't freaking display layers the same and NONE of them support JavaScript the same way. Using JavaScript in all four of these browsers is pretty much a lost cause as far as I'm concerned. You may as well learn four distinct languages.
Now ok, as a Developer I do write a lot of stuff by hand. But lets face the fact, using an editor like DreamWeaver make a hell of a lot more since as you can hammer something out reasonably quickly with typically good code.
As a side note, I just got my paws on DreamWeaver 4, which claims to be WC3 compliant. So, in theory anything I write in DreamWeaver 4 should work at least as well in Opera 4 and in Netscape 6. Right? No!
Here's my several hour story about disappointment. I've been working for several monts on a site that makes creative use of layers on the opening page. (I'd show you, but it's not live yet.) This first page was originally created in DreamWeaver 3 using DreamWeaver 3 behaviors to show and hide layers as necessary. Worked great, but only in Netscape 4.7x and IE 5+. Netscape 6 and Opera 4 wouldn't display the layers when it was supposed to. This boiled down to something I never took the time to figure out in the actual JavaScript of the DreamWeaver 3 behavior.
Now the other day I got a copy of DreamWeaver 4. Macromedia claims that it's WC3 complaint. Excellent, this is the solution to my problem. I'll simply redo the page real quick in DreamWeaver 4 and it should work in all these browsers. Much to my surprise the JavaScript worked! My problem though is that the browsers seem to handle the layer and other such tags differently. In Netscape 6 the entire layer is shifted a pixel up so it doesn't align where it's supposed to. Other than that, it worked fine. In opera the link in the image map on the image in the layer wouldn't work. It wouldn't do a think. I tried setting on onClick to load the next page with JavaScript. No luck. IE and Netscape 4.72 seemed to work fine.
Which brings me to my point: What the hell?!? These two so called WC3 complaint browsers won't display code created in a WC3 compliant editor the same way! What use are these bloody standards? I understand they're complicated as hell and that I sure couldn't do the work, but it seems to me that there's truly something lacking for all of the options.
So here's my proposal: Let's get all of the major and some of the minor browsers companies together and (by some miracle) get them all to agree on standards or something. Then make THEM be the consortium that creates the standards. Then if browsers like IE want to implement other proprietary features, then that's FINE. (as long as they don't go calling them standard.)
</rant>
But it's past my bedtime so I must go sleep. Bye now.
I downloaded Opera 4 last week and the only thing that kept me from switching was it's Javascript support. I work in Dreamweaver a lot and rather than coding my own Javascript to show or hide layers I tend to use Dreamweavers built in behaviors. (They're easy and the work with IE and NS.)
The problem I've found is that Neither Mozilla or Opera support this code. I'm not sure if it's not compliant with "standard" Javascript or what. And I haven't had the time to test any of my own code yet.
What strikes me as the reason not to switch is that I'm not the only developer in the world who uses Dreamweaver. Lots of other pages use this code and it will inhibit my ability to view pages. I don't want to have to switch browsers cause I'm going to a slightly artsyer page.
in a strongly worded statement earlier this summer, MPAA president Jack Valenti made it clear where he stood: "(2600 publisher Eric Corley) is transporting individuals electronically to locations in order to facilitate the illegal copying of DVDs. His behavior is analogous to driving someone to a home so that they may burglarize the home." </quoteArticle>
Does this mean that driving people to houses sould be illigal, just in case they were to burgle the house?
vw_bob
Re:mozilla feature complete? bullshit
on
Mozilla M17 Is Out
·
· Score: 1
Sir, I was. I couldn't get it to work.
To the best of my knowlege there are four different "layer" tags. <div>, <span>, <layer> and <ilayer>. I'm rather clueless about how the last three work, but the fact of the mater is that I use <div> and moz dosn't support it in any way that I've tried to use it.
And as I said, NS 4x supports it as does IE 4 and up.
If mozilla is so feature complete, then why the hell dosn't it support layers like NS 4.whatever does? I havn't been able to get a single layers page to work at all in any of the milestones.
And another thing, I totaly dislike the interface. If mozilla were feature complete, I might acutaly figure out how to create a REAL interface. ( and remove all the shit I don't need or want) I wish it was as easy as it is to do for IE... ahhhh. active X controls....
But ok, I'm getting really sick of NS. I've been a devoted user for years, but shit, this dosn't touch IE and IE is getting to be much beter than NS.
*ducks flying objects thrown by crowd and exits stage right*
This can't be correct. I simply don't believe it. The code for Win ME is supposed to be from the same code as SE, 98 and 95. I don't see how they could say it's from the same family and still remove the command prompt.
Furthermore, what about visual studio? (and many other programs) Lots of people still use the command prompt for lots of stuff! I mean come on! How am I supposed to rename 100 files in my x:\dir\dir\dir directory named this01ismyfile.txt to this01isntmyfile.txt ? Jesus, that'd take all day!
And my next point. Did anyone try clicking start->run and then running "command" this has always brought up a command prompt and I expect that it still will.
ok, you got me. I guess for a movie to be successful it merely has to have nifty special effects. I guess it's only required for animated movies to have a plot to succeed. (Hence any Disney animated movie seems to do well.)
All I have to say is that if the plot hadn't sucked the movie would have rocked.
Lets face it, what matters in a movie is plot, not all the special effects, or in this case the nifty, and quite excellent, animation. The animation and special effects should really be a secondary, but still very important consideration.
When I got my first copy of Macromedia Drictor I got a discount for getting it with out paper documents. I think it saved 50-100 bucks. All the documentation was provided in html on the cd and in the help file.
It was just fine for me. But I think that the customer should be given the choice. Some people handle different types of documentation differently.
This is a little image showing what I'm talking about. This strikes me a weird. Is this an interface for a daughter board as someone said eariler? What it looks like to me is that this was designed to somehow be mounted on another motherboard (or something).... But that strikes me a realy weird because of the location of the, er... connectors? (the word escapes me). Weird.
The only thing I can find on this is "(32-bit PCI and 16-bit ISA) Support 4 master of PCI slot". Is that what these are? then why that little metal thing on that right that screws into a case?
All this will do is stop the average (honest) consumer from making mp3s.
Think about it. Using the analogy from someone else, "Joe" consumer goes to the store and buys said cd. He takes it home, trys to make an MP3 and fails. Well he's shit outta luck, even though he bought the disk.
Here's how it would happen for the "mp3 pirate": "Joe2" non-consumer decides he wants the latest stuff by some band. He fires up his computer and proceeds to look for the mp3. He finds it (kindly ripped by someone else with the technology to do it despite the copy protection) and downloads it.
Maybe I'm crazy, but it seems to me that if etoys is really only concerned with decency then why don't they go after other domains similar to theirs that seem to be, well, more indecent?
For example, eboys.com (it's "under construction" now, but who know what it could be -- it COULD be naughty)
Or may eroys.com? R is only one key to the left of T and it's not at all hard to imagine someone (a kid maybe) going there by accident. If you click on one of the three the "adult" links on that page you're in for an amusing surprise.
On the other hand, etoys has grabbed up etoys.net, etoys.org, eyoys.com, etoyz(net, com, and org) (and I'm sure many more) - a whois search at Network Solutions show that etoys owns etoy.net and etoy.org, even though neither resolve to a site (maybe because it would make them look even worse in the public light?)
My point here is this: If etoys is only trying to remove profanity and help to make the net a more decent place, then why aren't they going after the animal porn which is on a url that is technically closer to theirs than etoy.com?
It's obvious that etoys is simply trying to push people around so that every conceivable misspelling of etoys will land on their page. I personally think this is sick and deplorable. They have totally surrounded etoy!! It's my opinion that etoys will force etoy to give up their domain name, one way or another.
The only way to stop this is to find some way to organize the thousands of people who read/. and make some sort of organized and focused move against this kind of crap. How? Hell if I know! But if I come up with any ideas I'll be sure to let you know.
Ok, I realise that this is probably more than a little off topic, but I had a stroke of briliance!!
Ok, here's the deal: most of us have seen Rob's Hamster Havoc animation, right? Well wouldn't it be cool to make this into a game? You could use the whole "sphere-walking-idea" as the user interface, but you'd use your arms too! The resistance on how hard it is to rotate the sphere could be controled by motors that work against you (like a motor that runs a rubber wheel that makes it harder (or imposible) to go in certain directons). This would be great for simulating all sorts of terrains IE: grass, cement, enclines, etc -- hell, if you get going up a ramp that's too steep then they could start spinning the ball against you and make you roll backwards.
If they decided to go a bit crazy with this they could make the walls of the sphere be a screen that displays your surroundings -- and they could use hydrolics to shake the sphere to make it feel more real.
Ok, I've had my rant -- I'll go take my medicine now.
And as I'm about to post this, I believe that I remember seeing something like this on that American Gladiators show.... whatever
Slashdot Mirror
From the apple website:
If a disc with copyrighted protection technology remains inside the drive after following the procedures above, or if the computer does not start up normally, it is recommended that you contact an Apple Authorized Service Provider (AASP) or Apple Technical Support. CD audio discs that incorporate copyright protection technologies do not adhere to published Compact Disc standards. Apple designs its CD drives to support media that conforms to such standards. Apple computers are not designed to support copyright protected media that do not conform to such standards. Therefore, any attempt to use non standard discs with Apple CD drives will be considered a misapplication of the product. Under the terms of Apple's One-Year Limited Warranty, AppleCare Protection Plan, or other AppleCare agreement any misapplication of the product is excluded from Apple's repair coverage. Because the Apple product is functioning correctly according to its design specifications, any fee assessed by an Apple Authorized Service Provider or Apple for repair service will not be Apple's responsibility.
This means war!!!!
:) Rock on Japan.
j/k
They're probably using it to find ways to permently get rid of that "I'm Turning Japanesa" song.
What I want to know is this: When will we get a good, preferably in-dash, hard drive based MP3 player for the car? You know, it could be done many ways, actually. Any of these companies could easily adapt the power supply for these devices to a standard 12 volts and then make the hard drive portion removable to bring in house and "sync up" via usb/firewire, whatever.
This would preferably also have a CD player in dash that could play regular as well as MP3 cds.
Hell, they could actually create a trunk mounted MP3 unit designed for use in car, similar to car CD changers.
I guess there's the Rio Car, but this is a little pricey a (imho) rather ugly design.
You see all sorts of kits with small computers mounted in trunks hooked up though power inverters, etc. You could also get a cigarette lighter adaptor for any of these jukeboxes. But none of these are eloquent solutions to a problem that really already HAS a solution.
Message To Big Audio Company: I want my entire (400+) CD collection in my dash or trunk in MP3 format. I want large drives (20gigs +). I want it cheap ( $600), I want it pretty. I want it flexible. (Upgrades/Add-ons?) And I want it NOW!
Ok, I'm about to set up my first site that actually makes use of online transactions. It seems to me that as long as three things are done correctly that the majority of security risks have been eliminated. 1) Only take credit information over an encrypted connection. 2) make sure that you have a secure link to your credit card processor (this would be a given, right?) and 3) don't keep the customers credit information at all. These seem to me to be reasonably adequate security. Aren't the two major way of stealing credit card information by packet sniffing and looking for it and by breaking into/stealing databases where the numbers are stored? I'm not saying that these are the only way, but the two major. If I'm wrong, please correct me. I was going to say that if you're going to store credit cards you should at least encrypt them, but I guess this is always crack-able. Any thoughts? Doug
I need to rant:
<rant>
Ok. As a web developer I want to bitch about the state of browsers.
Call me uninformed, stupid or whatever you will, but after having played with Netscape 6, IE 5.5, Opera 4 and Netscape 4.72. I can't imagine that there's anything that can be done to make my life easier as a developer.
For a long time, and I've said this on Slashdot before, my main problem with Opera 4 and Netscape 6 is that they don't freaking display layers the same and NONE of them support JavaScript the same way. Using JavaScript in all four of these browsers is pretty much a lost cause as far as I'm concerned. You may as well learn four distinct languages.
Now ok, as a Developer I do write a lot of stuff by hand. But lets face the fact, using an editor like DreamWeaver make a hell of a lot more since as you can hammer something out reasonably quickly with typically good code.
As a side note, I just got my paws on DreamWeaver 4, which claims to be WC3 compliant. So, in theory anything I write in DreamWeaver 4 should work at least as well in Opera 4 and in Netscape 6. Right? No!
Here's my several hour story about disappointment. I've been working for several monts on a site that makes creative use of layers on the opening page. (I'd show you, but it's not live yet.) This first page was originally created in DreamWeaver 3 using DreamWeaver 3 behaviors to show and hide layers as necessary. Worked great, but only in Netscape 4.7x and IE 5+. Netscape 6 and Opera 4 wouldn't display the layers when it was supposed to. This boiled down to something I never took the time to figure out in the actual JavaScript of the DreamWeaver 3 behavior.
Now the other day I got a copy of DreamWeaver 4. Macromedia claims that it's WC3 complaint. Excellent, this is the solution to my problem. I'll simply redo the page real quick in DreamWeaver 4 and it should work in all these browsers. Much to my surprise the JavaScript worked! My problem though is that the browsers seem to handle the layer and other such tags differently. In Netscape 6 the entire layer is shifted a pixel up so it doesn't align where it's supposed to. Other than that, it worked fine. In opera the link in the image map on the image in the layer wouldn't work. It wouldn't do a think. I tried setting on onClick to load the next page with JavaScript. No luck. IE and Netscape 4.72 seemed to work fine.
Which brings me to my point: What the hell?!? These two so called WC3 complaint browsers won't display code created in a WC3 compliant editor the same way! What use are these bloody standards? I understand they're complicated as hell and that I sure couldn't do the work, but it seems to me that there's truly something lacking for all of the options.
So here's my proposal: Let's get all of the major and some of the minor browsers companies together and (by some miracle) get them all to agree on standards or something. Then make THEM be the consortium that creates the standards. Then if browsers like IE want to implement other proprietary features, then that's FINE. (as long as they don't go calling them standard.)
</rant>
But it's past my bedtime so I must go sleep. Bye now.
Doug
I actualy got *zero* seconds on that reflex thing! Don't ask me how... I must just be the man!
I downloaded Opera 4 last week and the only thing that kept me from switching was it's Javascript support. I work in Dreamweaver a lot and rather than coding my own Javascript to show or hide layers I tend to use Dreamweavers built in behaviors. (They're easy and the work with IE and NS.)
The problem I've found is that Neither Mozilla or Opera support this code. I'm not sure if it's not compliant with "standard" Javascript or what. And I haven't had the time to test any of my own code yet.
What strikes me as the reason not to switch is that I'm not the only developer in the world who uses Dreamweaver. Lots of other pages use this code and it will inhibit my ability to view pages. I don't want to have to switch browsers cause I'm going to a slightly artsyer page.
Anyone have any input?
vw_bob
in a strongly worded statement earlier this summer, MPAA president Jack Valenti made it clear where he stood: "(2600 publisher Eric Corley) is transporting individuals electronically to locations in order to facilitate the illegal copying of DVDs. His behavior is analogous to driving someone to a home so that they may burglarize the home." </quoteArticle>
Does this mean that driving people to houses sould be illigal, just in case they were to burgle the house?
vw_bob
Sir, I was. I couldn't get it to work.
To the best of my knowlege there are four different "layer" tags. <div>, <span>, <layer> and <ilayer>. I'm rather clueless about how the last three work, but the fact of the mater is that I use <div> and moz dosn't support it in any way that I've tried to use it.
And as I said, NS 4x supports it as does IE 4 and up.
So ha!
If mozilla is so feature complete, then why the hell dosn't it support layers like NS 4.whatever does? I havn't been able to get a single layers page to work at all in any of the milestones.
And another thing, I totaly dislike the interface. If mozilla were feature complete, I might acutaly figure out how to create a REAL interface. ( and remove all the shit I don't need or want) I wish it was as easy as it is to do for IE... ahhhh. active X controls....
But ok, I'm getting really sick of NS. I've been a devoted user for years, but shit, this dosn't touch IE and IE is getting to be much beter than NS.
*ducks flying objects thrown by crowd and exits stage right*
vw_bob
This can't be correct. I simply don't believe it. The code for Win ME is supposed to be from the same code as SE, 98 and 95. I don't see how they could say it's from the same family and still remove the command prompt.
Furthermore, what about visual studio? (and many other programs) Lots of people still use the command prompt for lots of stuff! I mean come on! How am I supposed to rename 100 files in my x:\dir\dir\dir directory named this01ismyfile.txt to this01isntmyfile.txt ? Jesus, that'd take all day!
And my next point. Did anyone try clicking start->run and then running "command" this has always brought up a command prompt and I expect that it still will.
vw_bob
ok, you got me. I guess for a movie to be successful it merely has to have nifty special effects. I guess it's only required for animated movies to have a plot to succeed. (Hence any Disney animated movie seems to do well.)
Well ok then, I give up, you win. vw_bob
All I have to say is that if the plot hadn't sucked the movie would have rocked.
Lets face it, what matters in a movie is plot, not all the special effects, or in this case the nifty, and quite excellent, animation. The animation and special effects should really be a secondary, but still very important consideration.
vw_bob
(get your local coupons at www.couponfeast.com) -- (why? why not?)
When I got my first copy of Macromedia Drictor I got a discount for getting it with out paper documents. I think it saved 50-100 bucks. All the documentation was provided in html on the cd and in the help file.
It was just fine for me. But I think that the customer should be given the choice. Some people handle different types of documentation differently.
This is a little image showing what I'm talking about. This strikes me a weird. Is this an interface for a daughter board as someone said eariler? What it looks like to me is that this was designed to somehow be mounted on another motherboard (or something).... But that strikes me a realy weird because of the location of the, er... connectors? (the word escapes me). Weird.
The only thing I can find on this is "(32-bit PCI and 16-bit ISA) Support 4 master of PCI slot". Is that what these are? then why that little metal thing on that right that screws into a case?
Any thoughts people?
All this will do is stop the average (honest) consumer from making mp3s.
Think about it. Using the analogy from someone else, "Joe" consumer goes to the store and buys said cd. He takes it home, trys to make an MP3 and fails. Well he's shit outta luck, even though he bought the disk.
Here's how it would happen for the "mp3 pirate": "Joe2" non-consumer decides he wants the latest stuff by some band. He fires up his computer and proceeds to look for the mp3. He finds it (kindly ripped by someone else with the technology to do it despite the copy protection) and downloads it.
Now who gets the short end of the stick?
Maybe I'm crazy, but it seems to me that if etoys is really only concerned with decency then why don't they go after other domains similar to theirs that seem to be, well, more indecent?
/. and make some sort of organized and focused move against this kind of crap. How? Hell if I know! But if I come up with any ideas I'll be sure to let you know.
For example, eboys.com (it's "under construction" now, but who know what it could be -- it COULD be naughty)
Or may eroys.com? R is only one key to the left of T and it's not at all hard to imagine someone (a kid maybe) going there by accident. If you click on one of the three the "adult" links on that page you're in for an amusing surprise.
On the other hand, etoys has grabbed up etoys.net, etoys.org, eyoys.com, etoyz(net, com, and org) (and I'm sure many more) - a whois search at Network Solutions show that etoys owns etoy.net and etoy.org, even though neither resolve to a site (maybe because it would make them look even worse in the public light?)
My point here is this: If etoys is only trying to remove profanity and help to make the net a more decent place, then why aren't they going after the animal porn which is on a url that is technically closer to theirs than etoy.com?
It's obvious that etoys is simply trying to push people around so that every conceivable misspelling of etoys will land on their page. I personally think this is sick and deplorable. They have totally surrounded etoy!! It's my opinion that etoys will force etoy to give up their domain name, one way or another.
The only way to stop this is to find some way to organize the thousands of people who read
Ok, I realise that this is probably more than a little off topic, but I had a stroke of briliance!!
Ok, here's the deal: most of us have seen Rob's Hamster Havoc animation, right? Well wouldn't it be cool to make this into a game? You could use the whole "sphere-walking-idea" as the user interface, but you'd use your arms too! The resistance on how hard it is to rotate the sphere could be controled by motors that work against you (like a motor that runs a rubber wheel that makes it harder (or imposible) to go in certain directons). This would be great for simulating all sorts of terrains IE: grass, cement, enclines, etc -- hell, if you get going up a ramp that's too steep then they could start spinning the ball against you and make you roll backwards.
If they decided to go a bit crazy with this they could make the walls of the sphere be a screen that displays your surroundings -- and they could use hydrolics to shake the sphere to make it feel more real.
Ok, I've had my rant -- I'll go take my medicine now.
And as I'm about to post this, I believe that I remember seeing something like this on that American Gladiators show.... whatever