huh? what's not obvious? === >>> import this The Zen of Python, by Tim Peters
Beautiful is better than ugly. Explicit is better than implicit. Simple is better than complex. Complex is better than complicated. Flat is better than nested. Sparse is better than dense. Readability counts. Special cases aren't special enough to break the rules. Although practicality beats purity. Errors should never pass silently. Unless explicitly silenced. In the face of ambiguity, refuse the temptation to guess. There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it. Although that way may not be obvious at first unless you're Dutch. Now is better than never. Although never is often better than *right* now. If the implementation is hard to explain, it's a bad idea. If the implementation is easy to explain, it may be a good idea. Namespaces are one honking great idea -- let's do more of those! ===
do you have any authoritative source for your claim that it uses iTunes on the back end? there was protection on the stream... and it was broken by DVD Jon.
Is there a version for Windows?
There are no current plans for porting Airfoil to Windows. However, this is the most logical of all our products to be ported, so stay tuned.
ok... so if they are using RTSP to stream the bits, they're still using a proprietary method to encode those bits:) so we're both right? or both wrong?;)
2. It still uses iTunes. The backend uses the iTunes API to add a local stream to the library and send it to the Airport Express.
huh? can you back that up? the FAQ says that the stream is sent directly to the airport express, which is quite believable since DVD Jon cracked the algorithm and posted it publicly ages ago...
huh? do you have any URL's to back up your claim? afaik, apple purposefully used a proprietary algorithm. Jon Lech Johansen (yes... DVD Jon) was the one to reverse-engineer it: http://nanocrew.net/blog/apple/revairtunes.html
the people that originally brought the suit are not at all happy with the settlement and are trying to fight it. the diebold press release about the supposedly court-approved settlement came out of the blue and caught them off guard.
there was a judge looking into the settlement... let's see what happens.
Last October elections lawyer Lowell Finley came to me with the idea of making Diebold give a refund for junk voting machines based on laws regarding defrauding the gov't when making sales. Electronic voting law is new and poorly developed; contractor fraud law is MUCH older and much stronger.
I said I'd do it as long as Bev was a plaintiff too.
We filed the suit "under seal" (per the rules) in Alameda County Superior Court in November of '03. The California Attorney General (AG)'s office extended the seal several times while deciding whether or not to "join in", finally doing so Sept. of '04.
About a month ago, the AG's office announced a "proposed settlement" with Diebold, for peanuts. They claimed total damages of $2.6mil and offered Bev and I $76k a piece so long as we didn't complain about this "sweetheart deal", the announcement of which caused Diebold's stock to bump up by over $42mil the next day alone. We were told that any attempt to derail the "proposed settlement" would lead to the AG's office arguing that Bev and I should get nada.
We had already decided to fight this thing regardless, even if it meant colliding with the state's top lawyer. We don't have "veto power" over the proposed settlement, but we do get the right to speak against it before the judge. We assumed that would be a brutal fight with long odds.
But then a funny thing happened.
Alameda County assigned an unusual judge. They pulled the former head of the entire county court system out of retirement, a guy name of William McKinstry. Our sources so far say he's good. And with no other cases on his docket, he seems to be paying attention to what's going on...before we even got a chance to file our opposition data, he put out a set of questions to all the lawyers involved that shows...well, he's deep into "smells a rat mode". Check out what he wrote, verbatim:
http://www.equalccw.com/judgesmellsarat.pdf
Note that the "Qui Tams" is basically Latin for "whistleblowers" - Bev and I.
This document is unbelievably good. We not only have a chance here, the judge is already questioning what's up.
Folks, if we can derail this "proposed settlement", Diebold is in deep kimchee. They either have to come up with a lot more money, or face discovery which is gonna be brutal considering they've now admitted ownership of the 15,000 or so internal memos in the Federal case recently won by Indymedia and EFF. Between that and the other bodies buried which Bev and I know about, discovery will be "anal probe level sans lube" }>. They'll do *anything* to avoid that, possibly right up to quitting the elections biz.
Oh yeah. Hell yeah.
Jim March http://www.equalccw.com/voteprar.html === his 12/17 post in the same thread said: "Actions are being taken. Won't have a real report until Monday at the earliest, maybe longer. But yeah, we haven't given up...be stupid to do so with the judge asking those questions."
anybody notice that the new util-linux is missing/bin/mount, umount, swapon, and swapoff?
i was running util-linux-rhcn-2.9h-1 and made the mistake of just uninstalling it and installing the new one. now i can't get past single user mode because i have no mount. what's the easiest way out of this predicament (you can tell i'm no expert)?
Slashdot Mirror
From TFA: "Cutkosky has collaborated with scientists from [...] a robot-building company called Boston Dynamics."
http://www.bostondynamics.com/robot_rise.html
first, this isn't new. this is "news" from 1/09. second, this is an IMPROVEMENT that comcast made, imnsho. good story about it here:
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Comcast-Slammed-For-NonExistent-Throttling-Changes-105380
http://en.think.no/
file a bug. http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/
thanks, Mark!
re your sig:
:P
I have a really elegant proof for Fermat's last theorem. If this sig was only a bit longer...
as long as we're feeling pedantic, you should fix this to be "If this sig were only a bit longer..."
you should use the subjunctive mood when discussing a hypothetical situation
queue Quagmire:
"Fat OS's need love, too... they just have to PAY!"
huh? what's not obvious?
===
>>> import this
The Zen of Python, by Tim Peters
Beautiful is better than ugly.
Explicit is better than implicit.
Simple is better than complex.
Complex is better than complicated.
Flat is better than nested.
Sparse is better than dense.
Readability counts.
Special cases aren't special enough to break the rules.
Although practicality beats purity.
Errors should never pass silently.
Unless explicitly silenced.
In the face of ambiguity, refuse the temptation to guess.
There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it.
Although that way may not be obvious at first unless you're Dutch.
Now is better than never.
Although never is often better than *right* now.
If the implementation is hard to explain, it's a bad idea.
If the implementation is easy to explain, it may be a good idea.
Namespaces are one honking great idea -- let's do more of those!
===
what is AAR?
dupe post... see thread at http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=141019&p id=11814796 for your answer.
do you have any authoritative source for your claim that it uses iTunes on the back end? there was protection on the stream... and it was broken by DVD Jon.
maybe not for long?
from the FAQ (http://www.rogueamoeba.com/airfoil/faq.php):
Is there a version for Windows?
There are no current plans for porting Airfoil to Windows. However, this is the most logical of all our products to be ported, so stay tuned.
ok... so if they are using RTSP to stream the bits, they're still using a proprietary method to encode those bits :) so we're both right? or both wrong? ;)
2. It still uses iTunes. The backend uses the iTunes API to add a local stream to the library and send it to the Airport Express.
huh? can you back that up? the FAQ says that the stream is sent directly to the airport express, which is quite believable since DVD Jon cracked the algorithm and posted it publicly ages ago...
huh? do you have any URL's to back up your claim? afaik, apple purposefully used a proprietary algorithm. Jon Lech Johansen (yes... DVD Jon) was the one to reverse-engineer it:
http://nanocrew.net/blog/apple/revairtunes.html
they're the first high-profile implementation of the algorithm that Jon Lech Johansen reverse-engineered:
:D
(http://nanocrew.net/blog/apple/revairtunes.html)
and yes... this is THAT Jon... the one that got yanked into court for reverse-engineering the DVD encryption. all hail Jon!
what we need now is for mplayer and VLC and the others to implement airport express streaming directly in the media player...
the same company that makes the laser in the ebay auction makes another that has a significantly higher power output. check out this 5.2 kW model.
the people that originally brought the suit are not at all happy with the settlement and are trying to fight it. the diebold press release about the supposedly court-approved settlement came out of the blue and caught them off guard.
b oard.cgi?az=show_thread&omm=0&om=50&forum=DCForumI D4408):
there was a judge looking into the settlement... let's see what happens.
this is from a 12/14 post from the lawyer involved (http://www.blackboxvoting.org/cgi-bin/dcforum/dc
===
From: JimMarch
"Heads up, y'all: the Alameda lawsuit has developments!"
To catch y'all up:
Last October elections lawyer Lowell Finley came to me with the idea of making Diebold give a refund for junk voting machines based on laws regarding defrauding the gov't when making sales. Electronic voting law is new and poorly developed; contractor fraud law is MUCH older and much stronger.
I said I'd do it as long as Bev was a plaintiff too.
We filed the suit "under seal" (per the rules) in Alameda County Superior Court in November of '03. The California Attorney General (AG)'s office extended the seal several times while deciding whether or not to "join in", finally doing so Sept. of '04.
About a month ago, the AG's office announced a "proposed settlement" with Diebold, for peanuts. They claimed total damages of $2.6mil and offered Bev and I $76k a piece so long as we didn't complain about this "sweetheart deal", the announcement of which caused Diebold's stock to bump up by over $42mil the next day alone. We were told that any attempt to derail the "proposed settlement" would lead to the AG's office arguing that Bev and I should get nada.
We had already decided to fight this thing regardless, even if it meant colliding with the state's top lawyer. We don't have "veto power" over the proposed settlement, but we do get the right to speak against it before the judge. We assumed that would be a brutal fight with long odds.
But then a funny thing happened.
Alameda County assigned an unusual judge. They pulled the former head of the entire county court system out of retirement, a guy name of William McKinstry. Our sources so far say he's good. And with no other cases on his docket, he seems to be paying attention to what's going on...before we even got a chance to file our opposition data, he put out a set of questions to all the lawyers involved that shows...well, he's deep into "smells a rat mode". Check out what he wrote, verbatim:
http://www.equalccw.com/judgesmellsarat.pdf
Note that the "Qui Tams" is basically Latin for "whistleblowers" - Bev and I.
This document is unbelievably good. We not only have a chance here, the judge is already questioning what's up.
Folks, if we can derail this "proposed settlement", Diebold is in deep kimchee. They either have to come up with a lot more money, or face discovery which is gonna be brutal considering they've now admitted ownership of the 15,000 or so internal memos in the Federal case recently won by Indymedia and EFF. Between that and the other bodies buried which Bev and I know about, discovery will be "anal probe level sans lube" }>. They'll do *anything* to avoid that, possibly right up to quitting the elections biz.
Oh yeah. Hell yeah.
Jim March
http://www.equalccw.com/voteprar.html
===
his 12/17 post in the same thread said: "Actions are being taken. Won't have a real report until Monday at the earliest, maybe longer. But yeah, we haven't given up...be stupid to do so with the judge asking those questions."
senior haus weenie! ;)
anybody notice that the new util-linux is missing /bin/mount, umount, swapon, and swapoff?
i was running util-linux-rhcn-2.9h-1 and made the mistake of just uninstalling it and installing the new one. now i can't get past single user mode because i have no mount. what's the easiest way out of this predicament (you can tell i'm no expert)?
tia,
marc