Could someone tell me why Apple is so upset about Real being able to its music work in the iPod?
Well, one reason is that the iPod/iTunes combo for Windows is an excellent way to get more 'switchers'. iTMS may not in and of itself be a big revenue maker, but it certainly helps shape other Apple markets. Take away the iTMS interface, you've just taken a slice of Apple pie off some user's Windows box.
Another big thing is that Apple is all about integration. There are few computer companies out there that do such an excellent job of tying everything together, and it's something that Apple is (rightly) proud of and likes to tout. Real has, to put it lightly, a questionable history in the 'user friendliness' department; while they've been making progress lately, there are still a whole bunch of annoyances with their player (especially on Windows.) Once users start associating Real with the iPod, they start associating Real with Apple--and when Real starts mucking things up, it bounces right back on Apple. (Jeez, there's something seriously messed up with my iPod--it keeps crashing RealPlayer every time I try to add songs!)
Apple has little reason to team up with Real, and plenty of reasons to want Real to stay the hell away.
All he did was change a little text in the virus. The damage he caused was no worse than if he had simply been infected himself. They just want to make an example of someone.
That's one way to look at it.
One could also argue that this kid modified and released a piece of software that he knew for a fact would run rampant and infect countless systems worldwide. He'd already seen it in action, and he knew exactly what it did to an infected system. He can't even run the Morris defense of 'it was released accidentally and I had no idea it would be this bad'.
This punk got his hands on a very nasty computer virus, made changes to it, and released it back into the wild knowing fully well what he was doing and would happen as a result of his actions. That it was a mind-numbingly simple change doesn't make his actions any less malicious or criminal. Throw the book at him.
Comparing this kid to Mitnick is like comparing Burt Ward to Bruce Lee. Seriously--all the kid did was made a few minor changes to an already successful virus. Mitnick was doing something relatively new, and he did a lot of original 'work' in doing so. All this idiot did was make a few changes to somebody else's virus, hit send, and get caught.
(Hint to foolish wannabe kiddiez: stick to posting 'me toooo!!!!111' on the warez channel du jour. They won't send your sorry ass to prison for that.)
Y'know, there are times I hope we are alone in the universe. Consider the two most likely scenarios:
Scenario 1: We find life outside our planet, but that life turns out to be nothing more interesting than slightly-better-tasting cattle.
Scenario 2: We find ourselves on the receiving end of Scenario 1.
Let's face it, if the odds of finding intelligent life outside our solar system are astronomical, then consider the odds of that life being even remotely analagous to us, development-wise. We're either gonna be finding some glorified alien algae or uber-beings who don't even blink when their uber-Cuisinarts routinely vaporize solar systems...
"Yesterday/. ran an article about the book Katie.com. Out of curiosity I just visited the Amazon.com website to see how many more reviews were on the website. Yesterday when I first checked there were over 300 reviews, most of them negative and the book scored only 2 stars total. Today, the book has 81 reviews with an average rating of 3 1/2 stars."
So what? Most of those negative reviews were posted because of the brouhaha with Penguin and the Katie.com domain; they didn't weigh in on the quality of the book itself. Hell, most of the reviews were from people who had never read the book. If Amazon didn't police their reviews for this kind of abuse, any two-bit asshat with a bone to pick could tank a perfectly good book's reputation with a few hours' work.
This is easily fixed by overlapping the zones somewhat. When you spawn in the new zone, have the spawn point be at least two seconds' worth of movement away from the zone border, and make the direction you need to go reasonably obvious.
TIBCO Rendezvous is not a networking protocol. It's an enterprise-scale messaging system. Pretty much the only thing it has in common with Apple's Rendezvous is that they're both software and they both use the network.
To be honest, anybody who is genuinely in the market for TIBCO's Rendezvous is not going to confuse it with Apple's Rendezvous.
Think of Apple Rendezvous as a 4-door luxury sedan and TIBCO Rendezvous as a 150 ton mining truck. Yeah, they're both vehicles with four wheels, but you'd have to be an idiot to confuse the two, even if they share the same name. What's more, it's the mining truck company doing the suing--is it really plausible that customers for such a specialized product are going to confuse the heavy-duty industrial solution with the Joe Everyman one?
I do agree that this poll is bunk--it's a very poor selection criteria for such a sweeping conclusion. I took issue with the 'small percentage' assertion as analysis of such small segments of the population often provide the most revealing insight into poll data...
They ARE Giants.
on
TMBG on DRM
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
TMBG are great. They're a couple of geeks who have managed to 'make it' doing something they love. They're nice, they're humble, they're good people, and they don't try to fuck people out of their money.
America needs more TMBGs. I'm sickened by the greedy, self-important jackholedness that passes as 'American' these days. We used to be people who cared about each other; we used to ask what we could do for our country. Now, we're a bunch of jugular-sucking opportunists who take pride in bending the rules, running through loopholes, and shouting louder than the other guy.
Bring back humility, honesty and generosity! Those are real values! Carry that torch, TMBG!
Well, if the author of the study chose a poor sample-selection method, then this study would be bunk due to bad sample.
If, however, the author used a good, random sample across the board, then I can't see why this wouldn't present a decent representation of any differences between Mac users and PC users. 2-3% of the computing world, while far smaller than the whole, is easily large enough to draw a representative sample.
Consider: Ohio represents roughly 4% of the total population of the United States. The ratio of Ohioans:Americans is statistically comparable to the ratio of Mac Users:all computer users. Can you think of a singleperson who might care about the differences between residents of Ohio and the rest of the nation?
Granted, the stakes in the Mac/PC poll are considerably lower, but they're every bit as statistically valid. The most interesting part of polling is examining the differences that arise between demographic groups. Assuming it was conducted properly, this poll should provide perfectly valid data pertaining to the differeces between Mac users and PC users. Whether or not the results are objectionable is beside the point.
Hey, I know! Let's find motorists with sociopathic tendencies and piss 'em off! What could possibly go worng?
This isn't even a clever hack. 'Take your iPod antenna and put an even bigger antenna on it! Then--get this--find somebody listening to a radio and use your iPod to broadcast on the same station that radio is tuned to! Pwn3d! OMGWTFBBQ!'
1) Put in the water, on pylons. Concrete ice-breaker pylons like they use on bridges.
The trouble is that the ice on the water is constantly shifting from the currents under the water. Over time, this exerts staggering amounts of pressure on fixed objects. Ice-breaking pylons would need to be sturdy enough to withstand thousands of tons of shearing forces from a variety of angles--a pretty tall order.
2) Don't fight the mounting ice. Use a modular, extendable lift system, and build down into the ice. Much like the ice caves they build into glaciers, but with structural reinforcement and climate control + serious bilge pumps. Your computers will love it down there.
Again, it's not just the mounting ice, it's the moving ice. If your base becomes ice-locked, you're at the mercy of the shelf's faults (pardon the pun.) If your station sits atop the ice, it stands a better chance of being able to move with shifting ice.
I'm more interested in writing software for the iPod, not manipulating the existing data files. Your project is cool, but I'm looking for something that will let me write a game that will run on the iPod. I want scroll-wheel listeners, draw routines, etc...
The iPod is a very, very cool toy, and you can do a lot with just a scroll wheel and a button...
Could you give us an SDK for the iPod? We've been very good boys and girls this year, and we promise to be nice with it.
Thank you,
AAiP
P.S.: It'd be really cool if you could make it your "Oh, and one more thing..." We love it when you do that.
Re:How does this differ from other efforts?
on
Linux in Iraq
·
· Score: 1
You didn't even bother to read what I said, did you?
I said that the bulk of aid did not go to U.S. contractors. I didn't say that U.S. contractors got jack squat. I didn't say that U.S. contractors didn't do work in foreign countries.
Do you disagree with me? Do you believe that the bulk of Marshall Plan aid went to American companies working overseas?
Would you kindly do me the courtesy of arguing the points I make, not the points you expect to hear?
Re:How does this differ from other efforts?
on
Linux in Iraq
·
· Score: 1
...your comment pretty much matches what I'm recommending. The army of occupation in Europe considted of military assets, not private corporations. Similarly, the bulk of the Marshall Plan did not go towards paying American companies costs plus profit to do work abroad. Rather, it went directly to the companies and countries that needed the aid. Go read up on it at the Marshall Foundation website.
Though we may not agree on how the situation in Iraq should be handled, I wouldn't mind you granting me a modicum of respect. I'm not some starry-eyed beauty pageant contestant gushing about world peace, here. Don't be an ass and dismiss me as out of touch with reality--stick to substantive rebuttals. You'll get a lot better response from me and others.
HTTP 403.9 - Access Forbidden: Too many users are connected
403.9 is indeed below 500...
Re:How does this differ from other efforts?
on
Linux in Iraq
·
· Score: 1
No, I know they're trying to use the locals--what I'm saying is that we're spending exorbitant amounts of money to ship tens of thousands of private American citizens over there. We're putting American civilians directly in the line of fire, and at great cost--both in lives and in capital. If anything, it's further complicating the security situation on the ground--not only do we need to protect US soldiers, but we need to protect ordinary American citizens, too.
I'm saying that we shouldn't be using American civilians as middlemen--certainly not in the vast numbers we are now. A handful of advisors and the like, yes--but not the tens of thousands of civilians we've got running around Iraq now. Iraqis are perfectly capable of doing things like constructing buildings, repairing oil wells, running power lines, building bridges and the like--they don't need a foreigner to tell them how to do it.
Yes, there's an insurgency on right now, but this insurgency didn't really gain momentum until nearly a year after we took Baghdad. We blew our first and best opportunity to get this thing right by dragging our feet, clinging to old assumptions, and failing to secure the country early--and we're paying for that now. This aside, though, how is the risk of "the mine under your chair" significantly less? We are, after all, still trying to recruit local help, and even with the tens of thousands of American civilians we've shipped over there, we still need rely on the Iraqis to do a great deal of what needs to get done. We're so risk-averse that we're alienating thousands of "good" Iraqis in the name of doing everything possible to stop the "bad" Iraqis from killing American soldiers and civilians. This is good in the short term for protecting Americans in Iraq, but bad in the long term for winning the trust of the Iraqi people.
The message we're sending the Iraqi people is simple: "When it comes right down to it, we don't trust you Iraqis to rebuild your country the way we want you to."
Re:How does this differ from other efforts?
on
Linux in Iraq
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I know that "corporation" is a pseudonym for evil here on/., but just who the hell do you suggest should be doing the work in Iraq instead?
The US government and the local population.
Seriously--does it make sense to rely on private enterprise to tough it out in a war zone? Should taxpayers be footing the bill for security consultants--people who typically cost several times that which a soldier costs? Should taxpayers be footing the bill for multi-billion dollar cost-plus contracts--contracts which stipulate that a contractor is guaranteed a profit? Is it really all that smart for our troops to be dependent on private companies and individuals who can simply up and leave at their discretion?
Iraqis aren't knuckle-dragging cave dwellers, you know. They know how to do things, and even the ones that don't are generally capable of lifting things and following basic directions. Why are we so anxious to throw billions of dollars at American companies while there are millions of unemployed, discontented Iraqi workers already there?
How are we supposed to win hearts and minds when we're not even willing to trust Iraqis with the task of rebuilding their own country?
Lets think about this. This is the guy that saw the Internet (or what became the Internet) and decided that the one thing this wonderful new decentralized network needed was a highly centralized system for mapping host names to IP addresses - thus eventually creating all the problems we are now experiencing with ICANN?
And we should respect his opinion why?
...so lemme get this straight--because the centralized system this guy designed is being abused by unscrupulous individuals (decades after the fact, I might add,) he should be ashamed of himself and derided by the public?
I suppose you'd gouge your eyes out with a plastic fork and bathe in acid if you were Eric Allman--and I perish to think of what you'd do if you were Tim Berners-Lee. After all, these guys are ultimately responsible for creating the systems that are so horribly abused by spammers, scammers, and pornographers, right? What weight could their words possibly carry today?
Heck, why respect Donald Knuth's opinion? After all, many of the topics covered in The Art of Computer Programming are essential to address harvesters, zombie DDoS applications, and every single worm and virus ever written. Or Alan Turing--that man has, like, zero credibility, seeing as if it wasn't for him, we probably wouldn't even have ICANN, k1dd13s, spam, hackers, et cetera!
Slashdot Mirror
Well, one reason is that the iPod/iTunes combo for Windows is an excellent way to get more 'switchers'. iTMS may not in and of itself be a big revenue maker, but it certainly helps shape other Apple markets. Take away the iTMS interface, you've just taken a slice of Apple pie off some user's Windows box.
Another big thing is that Apple is all about integration. There are few computer companies out there that do such an excellent job of tying everything together, and it's something that Apple is (rightly) proud of and likes to tout. Real has, to put it lightly, a questionable history in the 'user friendliness' department; while they've been making progress lately, there are still a whole bunch of annoyances with their player (especially on Windows.) Once users start associating Real with the iPod, they start associating Real with Apple--and when Real starts mucking things up, it bounces right back on Apple. (Jeez, there's something seriously messed up with my iPod--it keeps crashing RealPlayer every time I try to add songs!)
Apple has little reason to team up with Real, and plenty of reasons to want Real to stay the hell away.
Here I was hoping that wired news wasn't going to capitalize "Internet" in the title either, just to spite us.
Next, you're gonna tell us that you can verb a noun so long as it's a registered trademark.
Which would be seriously McDonald's'ed up.
Im looking forward to the day when wired news decides on it's own whats right and whats wrong...
That's one way to look at it.
One could also argue that this kid modified and released a piece of software that he knew for a fact would run rampant and infect countless systems worldwide. He'd already seen it in action, and he knew exactly what it did to an infected system. He can't even run the Morris defense of 'it was released accidentally and I had no idea it would be this bad'.
This punk got his hands on a very nasty computer virus, made changes to it, and released it back into the wild knowing fully well what he was doing and would happen as a result of his actions. That it was a mind-numbingly simple change doesn't make his actions any less malicious or criminal. Throw the book at him.
(Hint to foolish wannabe kiddiez: stick to posting 'me toooo!!!!111' on the warez channel du jour. They won't send your sorry ass to prison for that.)
Scenario 1: We find life outside our planet, but that life turns out to be nothing more interesting than slightly-better-tasting cattle.
Scenario 2: We find ourselves on the receiving end of Scenario 1.
Let's face it, if the odds of finding intelligent life outside our solar system are astronomical, then consider the odds of that life being even remotely analagous to us, development-wise. We're either gonna be finding some glorified alien algae or uber-beings who don't even blink when their uber-Cuisinarts routinely vaporize solar systems...
Point, Phil.
So what? Most of those negative reviews were posted because of the brouhaha with Penguin and the Katie.com domain; they didn't weigh in on the quality of the book itself. Hell, most of the reviews were from people who had never read the book. If Amazon didn't police their reviews for this kind of abuse, any two-bit asshat with a bone to pick could tank a perfectly good book's reputation with a few hours' work.
Of course, the best solution is to take a page from Naughty Dog's playbook and pretty much do away with load times entirely.
To be honest, anybody who is genuinely in the market for TIBCO's Rendezvous is not going to confuse it with Apple's Rendezvous.
Think of Apple Rendezvous as a 4-door luxury sedan and TIBCO Rendezvous as a 150 ton mining truck. Yeah, they're both vehicles with four wheels, but you'd have to be an idiot to confuse the two, even if they share the same name. What's more, it's the mining truck company doing the suing--is it really plausible that customers for such a specialized product are going to confuse the heavy-duty industrial solution with the Joe Everyman one?
I do agree that this poll is bunk--it's a very poor selection criteria for such a sweeping conclusion. I took issue with the 'small percentage' assertion as analysis of such small segments of the population often provide the most revealing insight into poll data...
America needs more TMBGs. I'm sickened by the greedy, self-important jackholedness that passes as 'American' these days. We used to be people who cared about each other; we used to ask what we could do for our country. Now, we're a bunch of jugular-sucking opportunists who take pride in bending the rules, running through loopholes, and shouting louder than the other guy.
Bring back humility, honesty and generosity! Those are real values! Carry that torch, TMBG!
If, however, the author used a good, random sample across the board, then I can't see why this wouldn't present a decent representation of any differences between Mac users and PC users. 2-3% of the computing world, while far smaller than the whole, is easily large enough to draw a representative sample.
Consider: Ohio represents roughly 4% of the total population of the United States. The ratio of Ohioans:Americans is statistically comparable to the ratio of Mac Users:all computer users. Can you think of a single person who might care about the differences between residents of Ohio and the rest of the nation?
Granted, the stakes in the Mac/PC poll are considerably lower, but they're every bit as statistically valid. The most interesting part of polling is examining the differences that arise between demographic groups. Assuming it was conducted properly, this poll should provide perfectly valid data pertaining to the differeces between Mac users and PC users. Whether or not the results are objectionable is beside the point.
This isn't even a clever hack. 'Take your iPod antenna and put an even bigger antenna on it! Then--get this--find somebody listening to a radio and use your iPod to broadcast on the same station that radio is tuned to! Pwn3d! OMGWTFBBQ!'
The trouble is that the ice on the water is constantly shifting from the currents under the water. Over time, this exerts staggering amounts of pressure on fixed objects. Ice-breaking pylons would need to be sturdy enough to withstand thousands of tons of shearing forces from a variety of angles--a pretty tall order.
2) Don't fight the mounting ice. Use a modular, extendable lift system, and build down into the ice. Much like the ice caves they build into glaciers, but with structural reinforcement and climate control + serious bilge pumps. Your computers will love it down there.
Again, it's not just the mounting ice, it's the moving ice. If your base becomes ice-locked, you're at the mercy of the shelf's faults (pardon the pun.) If your station sits atop the ice, it stands a better chance of being able to move with shifting ice.
Funny--I don't remember them having to dig Wilford Brimley out of anything.
They didn't dig up Kurt Russell either, for that matter.
The iPod is a very, very cool toy, and you can do a lot with just a scroll wheel and a button...
Could you give us an SDK for the iPod? We've been very good boys and girls this year, and we promise to be nice with it.
Thank you,
AAiP
P.S.: It'd be really cool if you could make it your "Oh, and one more thing..." We love it when you do that.
I said that the bulk of aid did not go to U.S. contractors. I didn't say that U.S. contractors got jack squat. I didn't say that U.S. contractors didn't do work in foreign countries.
Do you disagree with me? Do you believe that the bulk of Marshall Plan aid went to American companies working overseas?
Would you kindly do me the courtesy of arguing the points I make, not the points you expect to hear?
Though we may not agree on how the situation in Iraq should be handled, I wouldn't mind you granting me a modicum of respect. I'm not some starry-eyed beauty pageant contestant gushing about world peace, here. Don't be an ass and dismiss me as out of touch with reality--stick to substantive rebuttals. You'll get a lot better response from me and others.
HTTP 403.9 - Access Forbidden: Too many users are connected
403.9 is indeed below 500...
I'm saying that we shouldn't be using American civilians as middlemen--certainly not in the vast numbers we are now. A handful of advisors and the like, yes--but not the tens of thousands of civilians we've got running around Iraq now. Iraqis are perfectly capable of doing things like constructing buildings, repairing oil wells, running power lines, building bridges and the like--they don't need a foreigner to tell them how to do it.
Yes, there's an insurgency on right now, but this insurgency didn't really gain momentum until nearly a year after we took Baghdad. We blew our first and best opportunity to get this thing right by dragging our feet, clinging to old assumptions, and failing to secure the country early--and we're paying for that now. This aside, though, how is the risk of "the mine under your chair" significantly less? We are, after all, still trying to recruit local help, and even with the tens of thousands of American civilians we've shipped over there, we still need rely on the Iraqis to do a great deal of what needs to get done. We're so risk-averse that we're alienating thousands of "good" Iraqis in the name of doing everything possible to stop the "bad" Iraqis from killing American soldiers and civilians. This is good in the short term for protecting Americans in Iraq, but bad in the long term for winning the trust of the Iraqi people.
The message we're sending the Iraqi people is simple: "When it comes right down to it, we don't trust you Iraqis to rebuild your country the way we want you to."
The US government and the local population.
Seriously--does it make sense to rely on private enterprise to tough it out in a war zone? Should taxpayers be footing the bill for security consultants--people who typically cost several times that which a soldier costs? Should taxpayers be footing the bill for multi-billion dollar cost-plus contracts--contracts which stipulate that a contractor is guaranteed a profit? Is it really all that smart for our troops to be dependent on private companies and individuals who can simply up and leave at their discretion?
Iraqis aren't knuckle-dragging cave dwellers, you know. They know how to do things, and even the ones that don't are generally capable of lifting things and following basic directions. Why are we so anxious to throw billions of dollars at American companies while there are millions of unemployed, discontented Iraqi workers already there?
How are we supposed to win hearts and minds when we're not even willing to trust Iraqis with the task of rebuilding their own country?
And we should respect his opinion why?
I suppose you'd gouge your eyes out with a plastic fork and bathe in acid if you were Eric Allman--and I perish to think of what you'd do if you were Tim Berners-Lee. After all, these guys are ultimately responsible for creating the systems that are so horribly abused by spammers, scammers, and pornographers, right? What weight could their words possibly carry today?
Heck, why respect Donald Knuth's opinion? After all, many of the topics covered in The Art of Computer Programming are essential to address harvesters, zombie DDoS applications, and every single worm and virus ever written. Or Alan Turing--that man has, like, zero credibility, seeing as if it wasn't for him, we probably wouldn't even have ICANN, k1dd13s, spam, hackers, et cetera!