This has nothing to do with DRM. iTunes, the application, introduce Rendezvous music sharing, which works with any music that can be played by the iTunes app, including mp3, wav, aac, etc. Rendezvous initially had very little limits, anyone else with iTunes or a similarly enabled Rendezvous application could stream any music you marked for sharing.
This caused some pause in the Music Industry, but caused an even bigger ruckus in the Educational Market, since many a university bandwidth was being ate up by music streaming. Tons of Universities complained, I know most of the CSC at my campus block it if they have that level of control.
Apple then placed limits on it, very similar to the multi-user limits embedded in FileMaker (also owned by Apple), 5 simultaneous users. Then months ago, that limit was switched to 5 daily users.
Now I see no benefit in 5 daily users, unless they are trying to guarantee personal use vs office level radio station. I still believe 5 simultaneous users was more fair. But in all honesty, automated music streaming was a feature Apple added, not a right of your music.
You can still share and stream your music without the limits if you set up your own music server. Obviously more effort than clicking a checkbox in an application, but the same effort that was required before Apple put the checkbox in the iTunes preferences.
The limit applies to all music that you would use iTunes for, including non-DRM music. But has absolutely nothing to do with DRM, as opposed to application functionality.
Which is why a lot of my cooking also goes in cycles like Asian influence, tons of Italian, etc. Because I have the spices and sauces and just need the meats and veggies.
I didn't say I eat fast food. I do on occasion, like once or twice a year. I said, I eat take out. There's a great Mediterranean, Italian, Indian, and Pizza place near my flat. Plus there a great Comfort food dinner (pot roast, meatloaf, mac & cheese, etc.), nearby as well. Eating good food, from good restaurants rather inexpensively is pretty easy. Not as cheap as buying in bulk or hitting a Trader Joe's. But cheaper than hitting the co-op or fresh food market.
I agree with kamapuaa. I'm a pretty good cook. But cooking for one is expensive. Especially if you prefer fresh meats and vegetables over frozen or pre-packaged. So I eat take out a lot, and cook for myself or myself and friends about once a week or so (not including giving new recipes a whirl. Now that doesn't mean I order out or eat out for 20 meals a week. Typically, I keep lots of fresh fruit and salad supplies around, as well as can soup, cheese, apples, and crackers.
But preparation of a meal, even a simple one can cost between $20-$40 or more (admittedly there's always left over ingredient, but..), whereas a delivery order can be $10-$20.
Obviously, let's just overlook a century or more of blacks passing as white; ignore even the current political ramifications of that history and how it helped foster and mutate internalized racism augmented and supported by class-ism in the African-American community (light skin blacks thinking they're better than dark skin blacks, and middle-class blacks thinking they're better than lower class blacks); all so we can make the non-winning, unintelligent, homophobic argument that "if you can hide, you don't deserve protection".
If meant tons of former heterosexuals. Does that mean your willing to give up your protected status??
The site actually works in Safari, though some of the functions like zooming to the street level and point in click scrolling are missing. That said, I clicked on the Load GoogleMaps anyway link. It was able to scroll around the country fairly clickly. Though using the zoom bar instead of point in click, did take me to North Dakota when I was shooting for Wisconsin.
The Directions worked like a breeze, and I like the one line interface better than the separate boxes for city, state, zip at MapQuest. But I generally prefer it when I'm allowed to write information naturally and have the computer parse it for me, as oppose to having to parse it for the computer.
It will be great once they add full Safari support. But I'm enjoying playing with it even now.
I agree with you. I use to be one of Amazon.com's prime Next Day FedEx shipping when they had it. But when they switched to UPS, I'd pay for the 2nd day shipping and never receive the item (well, receive it 4-5 days out after numerous exception errors--it never made it on the truck--from UPS. Finally, I just decided no more urgent shipping, and to use the Free Shipping whenever possible (for me that's about 75% of my orders). Well, since I've been using Free Shipping almost all of my items arrive within two days. The other day, Thursday or Friday, I order 3 books, and was told delivery was estimated for February 4. I received 2 of the books on Monday. Apparently, paying extra for special handling, just means that UPS will screw-up.
Maybe because your experience isn't the norm. I'd say, if it took over 20 minutes to transfer a 17MB file, most Mac users wouldn't be so in love with their computers. I routinely transfer files over 100MB and up to 5GB, from folder to folder, from folder to secondary hard drive, from folder to server, from folder to remote location using FTP, SSH or Timbuktu or even Apple's Finder. And with the exception of GB files to remote location have never spent 20 minutes on the job. As a test, it just took ~5 sec for my computer to duplicate a 65MB file.
It doesn't happen that often, but it sounds like your Finder is frozen. This can either mean a bad OS install or you could just need more memory. When the Finder is damaged lots of routine tasks can take forever, plus other inconsistencies abound. I've seen brand new systems that just need the OS hosed and re-installed. It happens! Mac and/or PC.
But also memory makes a huge difference. I've seen some people use 256MB RAM with no issues. But I personally can't tolerate OS X with anything less than 512MB. Background tasks can eat up all of your 256MB RAM, leaving you to rely on the hard drive for virtual memory. With the hard drive speed in the Mac mini, I'd say your not doing yourself any favors if that's what your relying on. Sure if you were using Mac OS 8.5 or Mac OS 9, you'd probably be fine, but Mac OS X is a different beast, and has stronger memory requirements.
Try putting Windows 2000 or Windows XP on your wife's old Athlon with 96MB RAM, and see how fast it runs. I'm not even certain if XP would even complete the install process. It helps to make comparisons with comparable items. Running Windows 95 or Win98 on 96MB RAM isn't comparable to running Mac OS X on 256MB RAM. Running Windows 2000 or WinXP is far closer to this.
Practically every venue, I've read about the Mac mini mentions the fact that you should upgrade the RAM to 512MB. I can't think of a single article in exception. Which leads me to believe you deliberately decided not to upgrade (assuming your a regular Slashdot reader, and a tech geek or at least tech addicted). It's silly to shoot yourself in the foot, then complain about the pain. But even still, its probably resolvable by just purchasing a memory upgrade.
It's flamebait, because the PowerBook doesn't come with a mouse. No ragging on the touchpad could get him a nice zero score or maybe even an interesting. But ragging on an item that doesn't even come with the computer, is just some idiot taunting the unfeed masses, or flamebait.
This *IS* a hard issue, and you make some great points, but I still think the argument that, "The stores are building a home-grown "credit"-reporting system, and analyzing your risk as a financial investment." and privacy need to be explored more before people and corporations willing adopt such systems.
For example, information about are day-to-day transactions are recorded almost everywhere. Most people "kind of" know this, but still accept the illusion of privacy. Which basically means, so long as your not using the data to effect policy against them, they could careless if your collecting it. But the issue is, when you deny a return based on a customer's return history, you SHOULD have a massive obligation to inform all your customers about your policies.
I think your example is right, basically corporations are building their own internal credit reporting system, that label the customer as worthy or non-worthy. There's a reason why people have the right to check their credit histories--reasons steeped in abuse, false reports, inaccuracies, etc. But if I shop in store A, and purchase items weekly or even monthly, thinking I'm a good loyal customer. How would I know, if store A considers me a credit risk because I've return 1 item, 2 items, 3 items???
It's like taking an exam but not knowing your being tested. If a store decides to use this aggregate data in ways that benefit them, but may cause harm to their customers, then there should be an obligation to inform the customer. I'd say when the system is implemented and once a year reports, and in the spirit of good will, perhaps little notices when someone is on the brink of falling into an undesirable category.
For example, the lady in the article obviously assumed she was a good customer. She might have even thought herself a GREAT customer. She spends $2,000+ a year at a store consistently. She's "loyal" and obviously prone to random acts of splurging. Without anything informing her that she's not the type of customer the store wants, she's totally misguided in her customer status.
Now, I'm not a returner. Mostly, I just don't care enough to go through the process, so my friends often reap the benefits of misguided purchases. But, I've been in situations where I've learned my customer status isn't as great as I thought. This was primarily due to an ownership change, but notice would have been greatly appreciated.
For years, I shopped a particular catalog company. My mom loves them, I financially support my mom, so hence the account. The entire time, I shopped there the company used to send notice of my "excellent" status. The company had a policy, you could pay for items outright and they took off something like 10-15% or you could make payments. I use to mix this up. Some items I'd buy outright, other items I'd make payments. This allowed me not to break my budget but still get my mom the items she needed.
Well, one day, I went to get her a new vacuum cleaner. No biggie. It wasn't even that expensive, but I decided to take the option for five payments, instead of buying it outright. But they rejected it. I'm like, "what? why?" Well, apparently, their financial division was purchased by a different corporation sometime during the last 4-6 months (then), and the new corporation decided that payment options were "credit" and "credit" require regular monthly payments.
Apparently I got a lower ranking because, I often made 2 or 3 payments at once, and then would make the last payment when it was actually due. [The company was set-up for older shoppers--I believe--and basically if you purchased something on payment option would send a statement with the number of payments, the amount, and due date of each payment pre-printed.] So a if I purchased something in January the final payment wasn't due until May, and there was a coupon for each month. I'd often pay 3 months in February, then the reminder in April or May. Never a problem, had earned me an "excellent" customer rating from the st
I've never been a fan of encrypting my entire home directory. I just use Disk Utility to create encrypted disk images for data I want secure. I don't keep a lot of them, but I have about four or five, one for financial data, a couple for projects that have government or HIPAA related data, and some really personal stuff.
This works well, plus the files get backed up, so if the home directory got corrupted or wiped, I can retrieve everything.
The quote is, "It's great for zeroing in on all those inconsistency..." not great for in-depth critics. The basis of good humor is finding the point, the inconsistency, the gist, etc. quickly and exploit it for laughs. That's what the Daily Show does. If your going to it for in-depth critics then your in the wrong place, even Jon Stewart states that fact.
It's not just Mac applications, PC applications do so as well. Think Microsoft, Adobe, Macromedia, WinZip, etc. On the Mac, most applications call home for update information, though quite a few also call home for verification of serial numbers, and a host of other things. There is also a growing number of applications/mini-apps/widgets that function as internet services, meaning they frequently check the internet for information so you don't have to.
Little Snitch is a great application because it informs you which application is phoning home or calling a different internet address and allows you to decide how you want to handle it. Now ZoneAlarms properly configured does this as well, but since the information it provides is often meaningless to the average user, I'm never quite certain how helpful it is.
For example Little Snitch may say something like "Adobe Acrobat is trying to connect to adobe.com on port 80, do you wish to allow or deny". Admittedly not very meaningful, but with some basic knowledge you could say, port 80's a web port and Adobe doesn't need to use it. Whereas, ZoneAlarm's typically because of how Windows is setup, reports the handler or process not that actual application which means you may get messages like "iexplorer.dll or svhost.exe wants permission" but are much farther away from making an informed decision than you should be.
Most apps don't need to contact their vendor to run. So I typically block traffic to places like Adobe, Microsoft, etc. I'll look for updates and other information on my own (besides their auto-download software sucks). But then I tend to make exceptions for places like BareBones Software and other high productivity tools. I also just have a slew of web services from dictionaries, to movie look-ups, news (rss feeds), weather, etc. Things that I want from the internet without using the web to lookup. I just want to these items to run, and Little Snitch allows that.
>>You can't have it both ways, Jon. Either you make real commentary and open yourself up to critique, or you don't. It's kinda sleazy to expect people to take you seriously one moment, and hide behind the moniker of "satire" the next. FAKE NEWS. It contains satires of current events, totally made up news, random interviews, and a host of other information primarily for comic value.
His point is, his job isn't to serve-up the news, his job is to critique the news that has been served in a humorous way.
I think, the Daily Show, has tremendous pressure right now from people wanting to treat it like a real news show, especially "news" shows who want to take a pot shot at it, but can't because it's fake news.
But even with it being fake news, the Daily Show does more to highlight the disingenuity of current politics, politicians, and the news. Its great for zeroing in on all those inconsistency of news coverage of the war, the elections, and a host of other issues.
You don't mind that Wal-mart is essentially a sweat shop that pays below average wages? That they lower the standard of living in the neighbourhoods they are set up in? That it's up to the government or the spouces benefits package to make up the difference? You may save up front, but at what cost? Every consumer that shops there is contributing to the problem.
Ahem brother!! I consider Walmart a primary and very visible example, but the truth is while Walmart is the agent, the issue is consumers. Most consumers have been taught that price matters more than quality. After years of conditioning of discount stores, people often want the best for the lowest cost.
But let's face it when you have half of the Walmart employees working 40 hours a week, living in weekly rate hotels, trailer homes, or sleeping in their cars. Purchasing food at your corner "alcohol store with minimal food and candy, then you have an economy that is failing. When your work force is the working poor, who are basically individuals that can't afford to buy clothes at Walmart even with employee discounts, then you working class is practically worthless.
A working class so poor they can't afford to purchase the goods or pay the taxes that a middle-class to wealthy society needs to make society function for both its wealthy and its poor eventually creates a society that cannibalizes itself. A "wealthy" society needs a middle-class, but our middle-class is falling farther and farther into poverty and corporations like Walmart are the primary agent but consumers are the cause. Ironically, its the middle-class slowly killing itself.
MPEG4 is a format not a player. QuickTime is a multimedia player, with its own native format.mov. But it also plays a host of other formats including MPEG4. The MOV format is probably just as multi-platform as MPEG4. It can be played on Linux, Mac OS, Mac OS X, Windows 95/98, Windows NT/2k/XP, Unix, BeOS. Though MPEG4 is more "open" though its not technically an "open" standard.
But yes, two OSs does make a player cross-platform. It's the nature of the term.
Quicktime IS the cross-platform option. I hate going to sites like Yahoo Launch or MTV and not being able to see videos because their using Windows Media Player (embedded), because I'm using a Mac.
QuickTime is available for Mac and PC, and MPlayer and a couple other applications will play the.mov files on Linux. I've never had any problems with QuickTime on Windows. I install it on all my clients machines as part of the standard set-up, and walla, it just works.
But as for your complaint, there are movie trailers in formats other than QuickTime, you just can't access them from the Apple site. The issue is that Apple collects and displays movie trailers. Millions of people use these trailers daily because of they are accessible. Searching for trailers elsewhere requires going to many different sites, and using different media players from Windows Media to RealPlayer, this codec here, a different codec elsewhere.
Let's face it people link to Apple because their collection of trailers are easy to navigate, accessible, cross-platform, and in a single location. This just encourages movie studios to create more QuickTime trailers, because studios know people will go to the Apple site to look at what's coming out.
Besides your mixing metaphors. First your comparing hardware, the iPod, to format or software. If you have an iPod, the question is when, where, and why would it make sense to buy wma files. If the files can be converted to mp3 or aac relatively easily, then sure go ahead and purchase. If they can't, then WHY would you purchase then complain.
The iPod plays an impressive, though not extensive, array of musical formats, including: mp3, wav, aac, apple lossless, and audiobook. I think I'm missing something else, but still. The iRiver is more extensive adding ogg, and wma. But if you exclude ogg and other marginal, but up-and-coming formats from the list, you could pretty much say the iPod plays EVERYTHING except WMA.
Microsoft licensed WMA DRM, Apple hasn't licensed FairPlay, but the have essentially licensed the iPod.
While not a fan of the WMA format, I can say sure its an okay format
This answer irks me. You know, people always mention this, but have you ever attempted to do it? Just "sit down and code a web based version in a weekend" type stuff is horribly unrealistic. First, coding a secure and bug free PHP version of some app your coworkers have used forever is a bitch.
I wholeheartedly agree. But I think the problem stems from people not understanding that database programming and development is its own field. Sure you can install and set-up MySQL, FileMaker, or some other database in a matter of minutes. You can also create simple or medium complex table and relational infrastructure in a small amount of time. But when it comes to creating something good or great, with a great user interface, that's flexible, extendible, and functions well under pressure, you need to make a commitment of time and energy, and hopefully some finances as well. And you need to seriously understand relational theory and UI.
FileMaker has been relational for a very long time. I've seen million dollar solutions built in it. I've built solutions that have cost nonprofits between $30-$100,000 (including nonprofit discounts). FileMaker 7 is better, especially about joins, security, and sheer volume of data to be stored. But if FMP wasn't meeting your needs, then the chances are: you selected the wrong database in the first place, or you don't have the programming skill (in FMP) to do what needs to be done.
I say this because, coding something in MySQL with PHP isn't going to make your life any easier. It's fine and a great opportunity, if your also dealing with making your data accessible from anywhere, or if you don't need super complicated reports. But your not going to code a solution in PHP/MySQL that your entire staff will be happy with in a month, any more than you could in FileMaker 7.
Actually, you could probably convert your current solutions to FMP7 within a month, so long as your goal was just to get and retain current functionality, without taking advantage of new features and functions that could streamline, speed-up, and further or better secure your data. FMP7 allows you to convert external tables to FMP7 external tables with external relationships. You'd have to adjust a few scripts, and maybe some calculations, but otherwise the solution will work. It just won't be optimized for FMP7.
Coming from a person who has a large number of database solutions and future projects in the making--FMP7 and MySQL dominate my development world, and more and more stuff is going to the web, but lately (last 6mo-1yr) I've been spending more and more time developing dual solutions: MySQL for all web and occasional desktop use, with FileMaker for reporting or high-end desktop use (anyone who needs to manipulate data in multitudes of ways, that doesn't have the time to learn the ends and outs of SQL.
Your end user is your bottom line, and even if you could program the most beautiful web-base solution and the world, someone will ultimately need to access information that you haven't created a report for. Which means they will need to go through you, or learn SQL and possible PHP on top of it.
That said, I currently have a client that I designed a 10 module solution, with probably 50 plus tables, that I plan on converting to FMP7, and if I can ever get started on it, my current estimate is about 3mo. work, and that includes rewriting security, and at least two modules to take advantage of new features, and making it a single file-multi-table database. Reprogramming the solution in MySQL/PHP would be at least twice as long, and without a number of the features of the current solutions.
I don't want to discourage anyone from PHP/MySQL because they're great tools, but so is FileMaker, so figuring out what your staff is going to be more comfortable with, and that provides them with the most benefits, and the least amount of training is generally a better way to decide.
Obviously, I'm in the minority here at Slashdot, but I've got to say, "So What! Why Should People Secure Their Wireless Network?" Sure corporations should or at least create set-ups where the wireless network is removed from the wired network and of course all that effort to secure the computers, but I've never understood the great push for security on a wireless networks.
For me I'm of the school that you shouldn't depend on your network for security for your computer. This view recently discussed by Jeff Schiller, MIT's Network Manager at Syllabus http://www.syllabus.com/article.asp?id=9193. I think he makes some great arguments.
Recently, it seems that people have just jumped on the bandwagon that YOU MUST secure your network, and I guess for the bevy of Windows users out there, with little options for ever successfully securing their computer, this is probably true and one way to get around it. But I find wireless network security to be the antithesis of what wireless connectivity promotes--freedom. So it makes great sense that people would not secure their networks.
Wired Networks by their nature are someone closed off, insuring their security or closing them off further is no big deal. You would expect to have to handle 2, 3, 5, 10 random clients on a wired network. Sure with laptops it happens more, but typically a wired network is somewhat more static in design. You have switches, ports, hubs--it's all very physical. So sure secure it.
But wireless networks promote freedom--you can use your laptop anywhere (anywhere with wireless). But security warps that message. Freedom has always had its limitations, but now the limitation is that someone else owns the air you need to use. What's the point of going to a coffee shop, an administrative building or even sitting on your neighbors porch with your laptop if you still can't get internet access when wireless connectivity is available.
Sure their should be tools to prevent abuse. I don't want someone to start downloading movies off my wireless network, but WHY WOULD SHOULD I CARE if they just use it. I expect the same reciprocity if I'm in the town square or at a coffee shop or just down the street at a friends.
Securing your network has become synonymous with securing your computer and its not. Someone decided that it was impossible to secure their computer, with all the software with bugs and wholes, with various operating systems working against your efforts. So the rallying cry became secure your network.
So fine. Secure your landline, but leave your wireless alone. Sure change the default settings, after all one neighborhood really shouldn't have 50 linksys access points. I'm all for letting people know whose wireless access point they're using. I'd don't want someone taking over my access point, but with various hacking tools, the effort is the same regardless if I've secured my access point.
But if Sue next door wants to use my wireless, go ahead. Don't ask me. Don't make me add you to an exception list or hand over a password. Just use it dammit and be respectful. It's there, and it doesn't really cost me anything more than what I'm currently paying to have you or 20-30 other guest using it.
Encryption, Authentication, and Authorization, and common sense work well enough for keeping the information I need to be secure, relatively secure. I'd rather have someone distracting by the beauty of playing Doom from their front porch using my access point, then banging on my access point try to hack my setup security so they can get free access, when I could have just offered it.
So I say, "Offer It!" Secure what you need secure and open everything else. It makes life easier, and produces good karma as well.
Slashdot Mirror
This has nothing to do with DRM. iTunes, the application, introduce Rendezvous music sharing, which works with any music that can be played by the iTunes app, including mp3, wav, aac, etc. Rendezvous initially had very little limits, anyone else with iTunes or a similarly enabled Rendezvous application could stream any music you marked for sharing.
This caused some pause in the Music Industry, but caused an even bigger ruckus in the Educational Market, since many a university bandwidth was being ate up by music streaming. Tons of Universities complained, I know most of the CSC at my campus block it if they have that level of control.
Apple then placed limits on it, very similar to the multi-user limits embedded in FileMaker (also owned by Apple), 5 simultaneous users. Then months ago, that limit was switched to 5 daily users.
Now I see no benefit in 5 daily users, unless they are trying to guarantee personal use vs office level radio station. I still believe 5 simultaneous users was more fair. But in all honesty, automated music streaming was a feature Apple added, not a right of your music.
You can still share and stream your music without the limits if you set up your own music server. Obviously more effort than clicking a checkbox in an application, but the same effort that was required before Apple put the checkbox in the iTunes preferences.
The limit applies to all music that you would use iTunes for, including non-DRM music. But has absolutely nothing to do with DRM, as opposed to application functionality.
Which is why a lot of my cooking also goes in cycles like Asian influence, tons of Italian, etc. Because I have the spices and sauces and just need the meats and veggies.
I didn't say I eat fast food. I do on occasion, like once or twice a year. I said, I eat take out. There's a great Mediterranean, Italian, Indian, and Pizza place near my flat. Plus there a great Comfort food dinner (pot roast, meatloaf, mac & cheese, etc.), nearby as well. Eating good food, from good restaurants rather inexpensively is pretty easy. Not as cheap as buying in bulk or hitting a Trader Joe's. But cheaper than hitting the co-op or fresh food market.
Yum, yum and yummy. CC probably my least favorite on the list, and I do like Charisma alot.
I agree with kamapuaa. I'm a pretty good cook. But cooking for one is expensive. Especially if you prefer fresh meats and vegetables over frozen or pre-packaged. So I eat take out a lot, and cook for myself or myself and friends about once a week or so (not including giving new recipes a whirl. Now that doesn't mean I order out or eat out for 20 meals a week. Typically, I keep lots of fresh fruit and salad supplies around, as well as can soup, cheese, apples, and crackers.
But preparation of a meal, even a simple one can cost between $20-$40 or more (admittedly there's always left over ingredient, but..), whereas a delivery order can be $10-$20.
Obviously, let's just overlook a century or more of blacks passing as white; ignore even the current political ramifications of that history and how it helped foster and mutate internalized racism augmented and supported by class-ism in the African-American community (light skin blacks thinking they're better than dark skin blacks, and middle-class blacks thinking they're better than lower class blacks); all so we can make the non-winning, unintelligent, homophobic argument that "if you can hide, you don't deserve protection".
If meant tons of former heterosexuals. Does that mean your willing to give up your protected status??
The site actually works in Safari, though some of the functions like zooming to the street level and point in click scrolling are missing. That said, I clicked on the Load GoogleMaps anyway link. It was able to scroll around the country fairly clickly. Though using the zoom bar instead of point in click, did take me to North Dakota when I was shooting for Wisconsin.
The Directions worked like a breeze, and I like the one line interface better than the separate boxes for city, state, zip at MapQuest. But I generally prefer it when I'm allowed to write information naturally and have the computer parse it for me, as oppose to having to parse it for the computer.
It will be great once they add full Safari support. But I'm enjoying playing with it even now.
I agree with you. I use to be one of Amazon.com's prime Next Day FedEx shipping when they had it. But when they switched to UPS, I'd pay for the 2nd day shipping and never receive the item (well, receive it 4-5 days out after numerous exception errors--it never made it on the truck--from UPS. Finally, I just decided no more urgent shipping, and to use the Free Shipping whenever possible (for me that's about 75% of my orders). Well, since I've been using Free Shipping almost all of my items arrive within two days. The other day, Thursday or Friday, I order 3 books, and was told delivery was estimated for February 4. I received 2 of the books on Monday. Apparently, paying extra for special handling, just means that UPS will screw-up.
Maybe because your experience isn't the norm. I'd say, if it took over 20 minutes to transfer a 17MB file, most Mac users wouldn't be so in love with their computers. I routinely transfer files over 100MB and up to 5GB, from folder to folder, from folder to secondary hard drive, from folder to server, from folder to remote location using FTP, SSH or Timbuktu or even Apple's Finder. And with the exception of GB files to remote location have never spent 20 minutes on the job. As a test, it just took ~5 sec for my computer to duplicate a 65MB file.
It doesn't happen that often, but it sounds like your Finder is frozen. This can either mean a bad OS install or you could just need more memory. When the Finder is damaged lots of routine tasks can take forever, plus other inconsistencies abound. I've seen brand new systems that just need the OS hosed and re-installed. It happens! Mac and/or PC.
But also memory makes a huge difference. I've seen some people use 256MB RAM with no issues. But I personally can't tolerate OS X with anything less than 512MB. Background tasks can eat up all of your 256MB RAM, leaving you to rely on the hard drive for virtual memory. With the hard drive speed in the Mac mini, I'd say your not doing yourself any favors if that's what your relying on. Sure if you were using Mac OS 8.5 or Mac OS 9, you'd probably be fine, but Mac OS X is a different beast, and has stronger memory requirements.
Try putting Windows 2000 or Windows XP on your wife's old Athlon with 96MB RAM, and see how fast it runs. I'm not even certain if XP would even complete the install process. It helps to make comparisons with comparable items. Running Windows 95 or Win98 on 96MB RAM isn't comparable to running Mac OS X on 256MB RAM. Running Windows 2000 or WinXP is far closer to this.
Practically every venue, I've read about the Mac mini mentions the fact that you should upgrade the RAM to 512MB. I can't think of a single article in exception. Which leads me to believe you deliberately decided not to upgrade (assuming your a regular Slashdot reader, and a tech geek or at least tech addicted). It's silly to shoot yourself in the foot, then complain about the pain. But even still, its probably resolvable by just purchasing a memory upgrade.
It's flamebait, because the PowerBook doesn't come with a mouse. No ragging on the touchpad could get him a nice zero score or maybe even an interesting. But ragging on an item that doesn't even come with the computer, is just some idiot taunting the unfeed masses, or flamebait.
She keeps asking when we are to get married :)
This *IS* a hard issue, and you make some great points, but I still think the argument that, "The stores are building a home-grown "credit"-reporting system, and analyzing your risk as a financial investment." and privacy need to be explored more before people and corporations willing adopt such systems.
For example, information about are day-to-day transactions are recorded almost everywhere. Most people "kind of" know this, but still accept the illusion of privacy. Which basically means, so long as your not using the data to effect policy against them, they could careless if your collecting it. But the issue is, when you deny a return based on a customer's return history, you SHOULD have a massive obligation to inform all your customers about your policies.
I think your example is right, basically corporations are building their own internal credit reporting system, that label the customer as worthy or non-worthy. There's a reason why people have the right to check their credit histories--reasons steeped in abuse, false reports, inaccuracies, etc. But if I shop in store A, and purchase items weekly or even monthly, thinking I'm a good loyal customer. How would I know, if store A considers me a credit risk because I've return 1 item, 2 items, 3 items???
It's like taking an exam but not knowing your being tested. If a store decides to use this aggregate data in ways that benefit them, but may cause harm to their customers, then there should be an obligation to inform the customer. I'd say when the system is implemented and once a year reports, and in the spirit of good will, perhaps little notices when someone is on the brink of falling into an undesirable category.
For example, the lady in the article obviously assumed she was a good customer. She might have even thought herself a GREAT customer. She spends $2,000+ a year at a store consistently. She's "loyal" and obviously prone to random acts of splurging. Without anything informing her that she's not the type of customer the store wants, she's totally misguided in her customer status.
Now, I'm not a returner. Mostly, I just don't care enough to go through the process, so my friends often reap the benefits of misguided purchases. But, I've been in situations where I've learned my customer status isn't as great as I thought. This was primarily due to an ownership change, but notice would have been greatly appreciated.
For years, I shopped a particular catalog company. My mom loves them, I financially support my mom, so hence the account. The entire time, I shopped there the company used to send notice of my "excellent" status. The company had a policy, you could pay for items outright and they took off something like 10-15% or you could make payments. I use to mix this up. Some items I'd buy outright, other items I'd make payments. This allowed me not to break my budget but still get my mom the items she needed.
Well, one day, I went to get her a new vacuum cleaner. No biggie. It wasn't even that expensive, but I decided to take the option for five payments, instead of buying it outright. But they rejected it. I'm like, "what? why?" Well, apparently, their financial division was purchased by a different corporation sometime during the last 4-6 months (then), and the new corporation decided that payment options were "credit" and "credit" require regular monthly payments.
Apparently I got a lower ranking because, I often made 2 or 3 payments at once, and then would make the last payment when it was actually due. [The company was set-up for older shoppers--I believe--and basically if you purchased something on payment option would send a statement with the number of payments, the amount, and due date of each payment pre-printed.] So a if I purchased something in January the final payment wasn't due until May, and there was a coupon for each month. I'd often pay 3 months in February, then the reminder in April or May. Never a problem, had earned me an "excellent" customer rating from the st
I've never been a fan of encrypting my entire home directory. I just use Disk Utility to create encrypted disk images for data I want secure. I don't keep a lot of them, but I have about four or five, one for financial data, a couple for projects that have government or HIPAA related data, and some really personal stuff.
This works well, plus the files get backed up, so if the home directory got corrupted or wiped, I can retrieve everything.
The quote is, "It's great for zeroing in on all those inconsistency..." not great for in-depth critics. The basis of good humor is finding the point, the inconsistency, the gist, etc. quickly and exploit it for laughs. That's what the Daily Show does. If your going to it for in-depth critics then your in the wrong place, even Jon Stewart states that fact.
It's not just Mac applications, PC applications do so as well. Think Microsoft, Adobe, Macromedia, WinZip, etc. On the Mac, most applications call home for update information, though quite a few also call home for verification of serial numbers, and a host of other things. There is also a growing number of applications/mini-apps/widgets that function as internet services, meaning they frequently check the internet for information so you don't have to.
Little Snitch is a great application because it informs you which application is phoning home or calling a different internet address and allows you to decide how you want to handle it. Now ZoneAlarms properly configured does this as well, but since the information it provides is often meaningless to the average user, I'm never quite certain how helpful it is.
For example Little Snitch may say something like "Adobe Acrobat is trying to connect to adobe.com on port 80, do you wish to allow or deny". Admittedly not very meaningful, but with some basic knowledge you could say, port 80's a web port and Adobe doesn't need to use it. Whereas, ZoneAlarm's typically because of how Windows is setup, reports the handler or process not that actual application which means you may get messages like "iexplorer.dll or svhost.exe wants permission" but are much farther away from making an informed decision than you should be.
Most apps don't need to contact their vendor to run. So I typically block traffic to places like Adobe, Microsoft, etc. I'll look for updates and other information on my own (besides their auto-download software sucks). But then I tend to make exceptions for places like BareBones Software and other high productivity tools. I also just have a slew of web services from dictionaries, to movie look-ups, news (rss feeds), weather, etc. Things that I want from the internet without using the web to lookup. I just want to these items to run, and Little Snitch allows that.
>>You can't have it both ways, Jon. Either you make real commentary and open yourself up to critique, or you don't. It's kinda sleazy to expect people to take you seriously one moment, and hide behind the moniker of "satire" the next. FAKE NEWS. It contains satires of current events, totally made up news, random interviews, and a host of other information primarily for comic value.
His point is, his job isn't to serve-up the news, his job is to critique the news that has been served in a humorous way.
I think, the Daily Show, has tremendous pressure right now from people wanting to treat it like a real news show, especially "news" shows who want to take a pot shot at it, but can't because it's fake news.
But even with it being fake news, the Daily Show does more to highlight the disingenuity of current politics, politicians, and the news. Its great for zeroing in on all those inconsistency of news coverage of the war, the elections, and a host of other issues.
Ahem brother!! I consider Walmart a primary and very visible example, but the truth is while Walmart is the agent, the issue is consumers. Most consumers have been taught that price matters more than quality. After years of conditioning of discount stores, people often want the best for the lowest cost.
But let's face it when you have half of the Walmart employees working 40 hours a week, living in weekly rate hotels, trailer homes, or sleeping in their cars. Purchasing food at your corner "alcohol store with minimal food and candy, then you have an economy that is failing. When your work force is the working poor, who are basically individuals that can't afford to buy clothes at Walmart even with employee discounts, then you working class is practically worthless.
A working class so poor they can't afford to purchase the goods or pay the taxes that a middle-class to wealthy society needs to make society function for both its wealthy and its poor eventually creates a society that cannibalizes itself. A "wealthy" society needs a middle-class, but our middle-class is falling farther and farther into poverty and corporations like Walmart are the primary agent but consumers are the cause. Ironically, its the middle-class slowly killing itself.
MPEG4 is a format not a player. QuickTime is a multimedia player, with its own native format .mov. But it also plays a host of other formats including MPEG4. The MOV format is probably just as multi-platform as MPEG4. It can be played on Linux, Mac OS, Mac OS X, Windows 95/98, Windows NT/2k/XP, Unix, BeOS. Though MPEG4 is more "open" though its not technically an "open" standard.
But yes, two OSs does make a player cross-platform. It's the nature of the term.
you beat me to it. :) I'd mod if I could.
Quicktime IS the cross-platform option. I hate going to sites like Yahoo Launch or MTV and not being able to see videos because their using Windows Media Player (embedded), because I'm using a Mac.
.mov files on Linux. I've never had any problems with QuickTime on Windows. I install it on all my clients machines as part of the standard set-up, and walla, it just works.
QuickTime is available for Mac and PC, and MPlayer and a couple other applications will play the
But as for your complaint, there are movie trailers in formats other than QuickTime, you just can't access them from the Apple site. The issue is that Apple collects and displays movie trailers. Millions of people use these trailers daily because of they are accessible. Searching for trailers elsewhere requires going to many different sites, and using different media players from Windows Media to RealPlayer, this codec here, a different codec elsewhere.
Let's face it people link to Apple because their collection of trailers are easy to navigate, accessible, cross-platform, and in a single location. This just encourages movie studios to create more QuickTime trailers, because studios know people will go to the Apple site to look at what's coming out.
Ughh...my bad 22 security flaws, only 10 security bulletins.
Actually CNET News.com is reporting 22 not 10. That's quite the grouping.
Sure. Magnatude http://www.magnatune.com/, GarageBand.com http://www.garageband.com/, emusic http://www.emusic.com/, and others. Just because sites with over 300,000 songs don't sell mp3s doesn't mean no one is.
Besides your mixing metaphors. First your comparing hardware, the iPod, to format or software. If you have an iPod, the question is when, where, and why would it make sense to buy wma files. If the files can be converted to mp3 or aac relatively easily, then sure go ahead and purchase. If they can't, then WHY would you purchase then complain.
The iPod plays an impressive, though not extensive, array of musical formats, including: mp3, wav, aac, apple lossless, and audiobook. I think I'm missing something else, but still. The iRiver is more extensive adding ogg, and wma. But if you exclude ogg and other marginal, but up-and-coming formats from the list, you could pretty much say the iPod plays EVERYTHING except WMA.
Microsoft licensed WMA DRM, Apple hasn't licensed FairPlay, but the have essentially licensed the iPod.
While not a fan of the WMA format, I can say sure its an okay format
I wholeheartedly agree. But I think the problem stems from people not understanding that database programming and development is its own field. Sure you can install and set-up MySQL, FileMaker, or some other database in a matter of minutes. You can also create simple or medium complex table and relational infrastructure in a small amount of time. But when it comes to creating something good or great, with a great user interface, that's flexible, extendible, and functions well under pressure, you need to make a commitment of time and energy, and hopefully some finances as well. And you need to seriously understand relational theory and UI.
FileMaker has been relational for a very long time. I've seen million dollar solutions built in it. I've built solutions that have cost nonprofits between $30-$100,000 (including nonprofit discounts). FileMaker 7 is better, especially about joins, security, and sheer volume of data to be stored. But if FMP wasn't meeting your needs, then the chances are: you selected the wrong database in the first place, or you don't have the programming skill (in FMP) to do what needs to be done.
I say this because, coding something in MySQL with PHP isn't going to make your life any easier. It's fine and a great opportunity, if your also dealing with making your data accessible from anywhere, or if you don't need super complicated reports. But your not going to code a solution in PHP/MySQL that your entire staff will be happy with in a month, any more than you could in FileMaker 7.
Actually, you could probably convert your current solutions to FMP7 within a month, so long as your goal was just to get and retain current functionality, without taking advantage of new features and functions that could streamline, speed-up, and further or better secure your data. FMP7 allows you to convert external tables to FMP7 external tables with external relationships. You'd have to adjust a few scripts, and maybe some calculations, but otherwise the solution will work. It just won't be optimized for FMP7.
Coming from a person who has a large number of database solutions and future projects in the making--FMP7 and MySQL dominate my development world, and more and more stuff is going to the web, but lately (last 6mo-1yr) I've been spending more and more time developing dual solutions: MySQL for all web and occasional desktop use, with FileMaker for reporting or high-end desktop use (anyone who needs to manipulate data in multitudes of ways, that doesn't have the time to learn the ends and outs of SQL.
Your end user is your bottom line, and even if you could program the most beautiful web-base solution and the world, someone will ultimately need to access information that you haven't created a report for. Which means they will need to go through you, or learn SQL and possible PHP on top of it.
That said, I currently have a client that I designed a 10 module solution, with probably 50 plus tables, that I plan on converting to FMP7, and if I can ever get started on it, my current estimate is about 3mo. work, and that includes rewriting security, and at least two modules to take advantage of new features, and making it a single file-multi-table database. Reprogramming the solution in MySQL/PHP would be at least twice as long, and without a number of the features of the current solutions.
I don't want to discourage anyone from PHP/MySQL because they're great tools, but so is FileMaker, so figuring out what your staff is going to be more comfortable with, and that provides them with the most benefits, and the least amount of training is generally a better way to decide.
Obviously, I'm in the minority here at Slashdot, but I've got to say, "So What! Why Should People Secure Their Wireless Network?" Sure corporations should or at least create set-ups where the wireless network is removed from the wired network and of course all that effort to secure the computers, but I've never understood the great push for security on a wireless networks.
For me I'm of the school that you shouldn't depend on your network for security for your computer. This view recently discussed by Jeff Schiller, MIT's Network Manager at Syllabus http://www.syllabus.com/article.asp?id=9193. I think he makes some great arguments.
Recently, it seems that people have just jumped on the bandwagon that YOU MUST secure your network, and I guess for the bevy of Windows users out there, with little options for ever successfully securing their computer, this is probably true and one way to get around it. But I find wireless network security to be the antithesis of what wireless connectivity promotes--freedom. So it makes great sense that people would not secure their networks.
Wired Networks by their nature are someone closed off, insuring their security or closing them off further is no big deal. You would expect to have to handle 2, 3, 5, 10 random clients on a wired network. Sure with laptops it happens more, but typically a wired network is somewhat more static in design. You have switches, ports, hubs--it's all very physical. So sure secure it.
But wireless networks promote freedom--you can use your laptop anywhere (anywhere with wireless). But security warps that message. Freedom has always had its limitations, but now the limitation is that someone else owns the air you need to use. What's the point of going to a coffee shop, an administrative building or even sitting on your neighbors porch with your laptop if you still can't get internet access when wireless connectivity is available.
Sure their should be tools to prevent abuse. I don't want someone to start downloading movies off my wireless network, but WHY WOULD SHOULD I CARE if they just use it. I expect the same reciprocity if I'm in the town square or at a coffee shop or just down the street at a friends.
Securing your network has become synonymous with securing your computer and its not. Someone decided that it was impossible to secure their computer, with all the software with bugs and wholes, with various operating systems working against your efforts. So the rallying cry became secure your network.
So fine. Secure your landline, but leave your wireless alone. Sure change the default settings, after all one neighborhood really shouldn't have 50 linksys access points. I'm all for letting people know whose wireless access point they're using. I'd don't want someone taking over my access point, but with various hacking tools, the effort is the same regardless if I've secured my access point.
But if Sue next door wants to use my wireless, go ahead. Don't ask me. Don't make me add you to an exception list or hand over a password. Just use it dammit and be respectful. It's there, and it doesn't really cost me anything more than what I'm currently paying to have you or 20-30 other guest using it.
Encryption, Authentication, and Authorization, and common sense work well enough for keeping the information I need to be secure, relatively secure. I'd rather have someone distracting by the beauty of playing Doom from their front porch using my access point, then banging on my access point try to hack my setup security so they can get free access, when I could have just offered it.
So I say, "Offer It!" Secure what you need secure and open everything else. It makes life easier, and produces good karma as well.