The iPod works just fine as a mass storage block device. And when you transfer media files to it I assure that it's using that interface.
But if you own more than a few hundred media files you'll quickly find that organization by folder is inefficient if not totally unmanageable, and iTunes is designed to address that issue.
It would be nice if the iPod could work both with unindexed and indexed media files -- certainly the additional flexibility and compatibility would be nice -- but it's folly to pretend that anyone with even a moderately large media collection would want to manage it simply by manually moving files and letting the dumb device build physical-storage-based playlists.
--
Now as to why Apple wants to prevent third-party programs from building indexes I have no idea. It seems like a bad plan all around -- if someone doesn't want to use iTunes after already buying and iPod I don't understand what interest Apple has in stopping them, and I think they're a-holes for even trying.
The most common letter in English is "E". QWERTY puts "E" on the strongest finger, but outside the home row, which requires repositioning essentially every time it is typed.
The most common digraph in English is "th". In QWERTY both those letters are typed with the same finger, which absolutely requires repositioning each time it is typed.
"he", "in", "er", "re", "on", "ha", "es", and "st" are among the next most common digraphs in English. They are all typed with two fingers from the same hand, rather than one finger from each hand. Alternating hands makes typing demonstrably faster and reduces fatigue.
"the" is the most common trigraph in English. In QWERTY this trigraph moves first in toward the center and then back out toward the edge, and uses the same hand for all three characters. Most people find it easier to move strictly outside to inside (try rolling your fingers outside inward vs. inside outward).
I'll grant you that there is no terribly conclusive evidence that DVORAK is substantially superior, but it's quite clear the QWERTY is non-optimal. DVORAK may not be the answer, but QWERTY is only desirable because it's the de facto standard, not because it has a superior design to other keyboard layouts.
It's just to stop third-party interfaces. It has nothing whatever to do with DRM-encumbered media files -- the Apple-provided interface is perfectly happy to let you load media files with our without DRM.
First, morality is not religion. Religion often encourages a certain set of morales, but they are not the same thing.
Second, do you honestly believe that in the past people didn't use the government to enforce morality? Seriously!?!
You remember the 18th amendment, right? That one was actually in the constitution, not just some vague campaign rhetoric.
Or from a religious standpoint, don't you remember how Protestants were worried about electing JFK because he was Roman Catholic?
I agree it would be better not to do such things, but you conception of history is deeply flawed if you believe that this sort of thinking is a recent turn of events.
When configuring shared volumes on OS X Server it's trivial to select any combination of AFP (not AFS, which is the Andrew File System), SMB/CIFS, FTP, and NFS -- they're all on different tabs of the same configuration window.
For certainly classes of users AFP has some advantages of SMB/CIFS -- it natively supports all the extended attributes and multi-fork files of HFS+ and doesn't have the additional restrictions on file names. With some extra hidden files OS X will fake the most of the features on other file systems, but it creates extra junk in the folder that might be annoying when mounted from other OSes, and file names are still restricted. In any case it's not complicated to use SMB/CIFS instead of or in addition to AFP, both on the server and client end of things.
You might not want other people to use your code freely. You may want to retain control over how the code is used after you've published it -- that's what copyright is for, and you're certainly welcome to take advantage of it*. By licensing under something like the GPL you can require people who use your code to follow a certain set of rules, and if you believe those rules are beneficial for you or society you probably should.
But when I publish code I am happy to let people use it however they please. I'm not big on rules, and I'd rather not place restrictions on the use of my code -- that's the "anarchy" of which the parent speaks. I don't believe that the rules described by GPL-like licenses are more beneficial than simply letting people do what they want with my code. I'd be glad to have "a corporation"** use my software in their products, as I do not intend to derive a direct benefit from my publication of the software, even if someone else does. If I did intend to make money from my code I'd likely provide the it only to users that had purchased a license to use it, and under a license that only allows in-house modification and use, which is neither a BSD-like or GPL-like license.
Now I'd certainly appreciate access to improvements that other authors may make on my code, but I'm not going to force them into publishing those improvements. And I'd love the consulting opportunities available if someone was making money from my code, but again, I'm not going to require them to re-license my already-published code just because they don't want to produce an open-source product.
--
*Honestly a software license that makes sophisticated use of copyright law to allow sharing but require certain other behaviors sounds a lot more like something drafted by a corporate lawyer than one that essentially says "do whatever you want, but we still own the original". But maybe that's just me.
**By "a corporation" I assume you mean "another software author or publisher", because otherwise your comment comes off as a rant on anti-corporatism instead of a discussion of software licenses. You're welcome to be anti-corporation, just don't couch it in a discussion about software licenses.
Disks cost something, just not very much. But the analogy is more fundamentally flaw -- you purchased the *right to use* the software, not the software itself. If you purchased the *right to use* a window -- say a license to patented manufacturing process -- you wouldn't need to re-purchase that license when producing a replacement window.
I think if I licensed the use of the window technology for exactly one instance of a window in perpetuity -- a common software license -- that yes, I should be able to create a second one after the first one is destroyed without paying any additional licensing costs.
I wouldn't expect someone to produce the new physical window at no cost -- just as I don't expect someone to produce a backup disk for me at no cost -- but I also wouldn't expect to have to re-purchase licensing rights if my previously existing rights had not expired.
While google has the potential to be just as evil, they at least really mean cross-platform. If their past history of cross-platform compatibility can be used as a guide -- OWA for example -- they mean "Designed for IE, will provide some functionality in other browsers so we can call it cross-platform." Recent versions of OWA have actually *reduced* cross-platform compatibility from what was a pretty usable webmail client to something that won't even let you edit Exchange filtering rules unless you're on MSIE.
Simple doesn't necessarily mean widely adopted. Composting is simple -- you just through things in a bucket and stir them from time to time -- but most people don't do it.
The "simple" part of his plan comes from having the remote access policy be no different than the local access policy -- the local access policy might already be complicated, but making the remote access policy (nearly) identical minimizes any additional complication.
Actually the stated powers of the USSC are the same that of the rest of the judiciary -- to review any case from lower courts. There's certainly no rule that says they can only hear cases concerning the constitutionality of legislation. Heck, even if there were such a rule, they'd be pretty much free to through it out unless it's in the constitution itself.
In fact they kind of made up that judicial review of legislation bit; it's not a bad idea, but it's not a role clearly defined in the constitutional description of the USSC.
Is there really a landfill problem? I'm all for reducing waste -- I really am -- but if you did the math to figure out how much space is actually needed for landfills, even on say a 500-year timescale, you'd quickly see that it's just *not* a problem.
There might well be better things we could do with our trash, and we certainly should see what can be done about producing less of it -- producing and moving all the trash is wasteful in the first place, no matter where it goes in the end -- but landfill use simply should not be high on your list of environmental concerns.
Carbon dioxide generally doesn't come out. Neither do many NOxes. There's no combustion, so the usual burning rules don't apply. Primary output gases are carbon monoxide and hydrogen. Depending on what you put in there are some harmful output gases like HCl, but usually nothing as heavy as C02.
As for producing more energy than it uses, it's simply a question of what goes in. If you shove waterlogged iron wool through it it's not gonna make much energy. If you shove dry plastic through it it makes all sorts of energy. Most of the existing (that's right, they're already in use) plants are producing more energy than they use, even on mostly unfiltered municipal waste. They aren't necessarily making energy more cheaply than coal + a landfill, but they are making energy.
And most of them don't make it into the output gas anyway -- they are emitted as liquid slag. And there's no combustion, so there's no greenhouse gas output.
If there's any "heat pollution" produced by the plant it simply means they need another turbine -- the thing is *supposed* to produce heat, much of which will be converted into electricity. There's no reason to believe the heat capture or heat->electricity conversion in this system would be any worse than other existing electrical plants.
As for "toxic waste", it's not any worse than existing incinerators or hybrid coal/waste systems, and it produces less harmful gases than any form of combustion. The primary gas outputs are carbon monoxide and hydrogen, neither of which is particularly harmful once diluted in the atmosphere.
Depending on what you put in there are some harmful output gases, like HCl (which can be removed with calcium oxide), but most of the heavier elements -- mercury, cadmium, lead -- are output in a liquid slag rather than as a gas.
I agree that parameterized statements are the way to go, but in many cases it *is* pretty easy to filter input that shouldn't be present, and using both techniques together can provide protection from things other than SQL injection.
In many instances you may simply be able to allow only \w or \w\s\.\- without ever destroying valid input. Even if you have wider input requirements it's often possible to drop anything outside the normal printable range and any quoting characters (where "quoting characters" may vary based on your storage and presentation systems).
In general it is a clear-cut case -- contracts signed in other states *are* enforceable. And that's probably the case here too.
But CA law may grant him relief against certain aspects of the agreement -- specifically he may still be able to work for Apple, even if the contract is generally valid, because that particular method of enforcement is not allowed in CA.
I don't disagree per se, but consider this situation:
I know non-competes are unenforceable in my jurisdiction. So does my employer -- but he asks me to sign one anyway. If I know he's trying to scare me into a promise to which we both know I can't be held -- to which society says I shouldn't be held -- what part of honor is served by upholding that "promise"?
And don't think this is an uncommon situation. Most employers have clauses in their employment agreement about not discussing your compensation (strictly unenforceable under federal employment law). And many landlords have whole lists of rules that cannot be enforced for various reasons. At least some of these people *know* their agreements can't be enforced, but require people who do business with them to sign the contract anyway.
I know you're going to say "don't do business with them" but it's naive to assume A) that it's possible to find someone strictly honorable to do business with in their stead, and B) that everyone knows their rights well enough to detect when this is happening and say something about it. That's the very reason that we make such agreements unenforceable in the first place -- society has decided that even if you make such an agreement you should not be held to it because it violates your rights in some way.
One of the basic tenants of a free society is that your rights cannot be taken away under *any circumstance* outside the due process of law, even if you purport to agree. You can debate about whether freedom from non-compete agreements should be one of those rights, but in some jurisdictions it *is*, and no civil agreement can change that fact.
Slashdot Mirror
Solid liquid, eh? Exactly what phases of matter do you have over there?
The iPod works just fine as a mass storage block device. And when you transfer media files to it I assure that it's using that interface.
But if you own more than a few hundred media files you'll quickly find that organization by folder is inefficient if not totally unmanageable, and iTunes is designed to address that issue.
It would be nice if the iPod could work both with unindexed and indexed media files -- certainly the additional flexibility and compatibility would be nice -- but it's folly to pretend that anyone with even a moderately large media collection would want to manage it simply by manually moving files and letting the dumb device build physical-storage-based playlists.
--
Now as to why Apple wants to prevent third-party programs from building indexes I have no idea. It seems like a bad plan all around -- if someone doesn't want to use iTunes after already buying and iPod I don't understand what interest Apple has in stopping them, and I think they're a-holes for even trying.
The most common letter in English is "E". QWERTY puts "E" on the strongest finger, but outside the home row, which requires repositioning essentially every time it is typed.
The most common digraph in English is "th". In QWERTY both those letters are typed with the same finger, which absolutely requires repositioning each time it is typed.
"he", "in", "er", "re", "on", "ha", "es", and "st" are among the next most common digraphs in English. They are all typed with two fingers from the same hand, rather than one finger from each hand. Alternating hands makes typing demonstrably faster and reduces fatigue.
"the" is the most common trigraph in English. In QWERTY this trigraph moves first in toward the center and then back out toward the edge, and uses the same hand for all three characters. Most people find it easier to move strictly outside to inside (try rolling your fingers outside inward vs. inside outward).
I'll grant you that there is no terribly conclusive evidence that DVORAK is substantially superior, but it's quite clear the QWERTY is non-optimal. DVORAK may not be the answer, but QWERTY is only desirable because it's the de facto standard, not because it has a superior design to other keyboard layouts.
It's just to stop third-party interfaces. It has nothing whatever to do with DRM-encumbered media files -- the Apple-provided interface is perfectly happy to let you load media files with our without DRM.
Exactly what does the iPod do to "lockdown" AAC files that it doesn't do to MP3 files?
If Stallman didn't like copyright he'd advocate for public domain software, not the GPL.
First, morality is not religion. Religion often encourages a certain set of morales, but they are not the same thing.
Second, do you honestly believe that in the past people didn't use the government to enforce morality? Seriously!?!
You remember the 18th amendment, right? That one was actually in the constitution, not just some vague campaign rhetoric.
Or from a religious standpoint, don't you remember how Protestants were worried about electing JFK because he was Roman Catholic?
I agree it would be better not to do such things, but you conception of history is deeply flawed if you believe that this sort of thinking is a recent turn of events.
I'm not sure what you mean -- nationalism is hardly a new idea, or unique to America.
When configuring shared volumes on OS X Server it's trivial to select any combination of AFP (not AFS, which is the Andrew File System), SMB/CIFS, FTP, and NFS -- they're all on different tabs of the same configuration window.
For certainly classes of users AFP has some advantages of SMB/CIFS -- it natively supports all the extended attributes and multi-fork files of HFS+ and doesn't have the additional restrictions on file names. With some extra hidden files OS X will fake the most of the features on other file systems, but it creates extra junk in the folder that might be annoying when mounted from other OSes, and file names are still restricted. In any case it's not complicated to use SMB/CIFS instead of or in addition to AFP, both on the server and client end of things.
You might not want other people to use your code freely. You may want to retain control over how the code is used after you've published it -- that's what copyright is for, and you're certainly welcome to take advantage of it*. By licensing under something like the GPL you can require people who use your code to follow a certain set of rules, and if you believe those rules are beneficial for you or society you probably should.
But when I publish code I am happy to let people use it however they please. I'm not big on rules, and I'd rather not place restrictions on the use of my code -- that's the "anarchy" of which the parent speaks. I don't believe that the rules described by GPL-like licenses are more beneficial than simply letting people do what they want with my code. I'd be glad to have "a corporation"** use my software in their products, as I do not intend to derive a direct benefit from my publication of the software, even if someone else does. If I did intend to make money from my code I'd likely provide the it only to users that had purchased a license to use it, and under a license that only allows in-house modification and use, which is neither a BSD-like or GPL-like license.
Now I'd certainly appreciate access to improvements that other authors may make on my code, but I'm not going to force them into publishing those improvements. And I'd love the consulting opportunities available if someone was making money from my code, but again, I'm not going to require them to re-license my already-published code just because they don't want to produce an open-source product.
--
*Honestly a software license that makes sophisticated use of copyright law to allow sharing but require certain other behaviors sounds a lot more like something drafted by a corporate lawyer than one that essentially says "do whatever you want, but we still own the original". But maybe that's just me.
**By "a corporation" I assume you mean "another software author or publisher", because otherwise your comment comes off as a rant on anti-corporatism instead of a discussion of software licenses. You're welcome to be anti-corporation, just don't couch it in a discussion about software licenses.
Disks cost something, just not very much. But the analogy is more fundamentally flaw -- you purchased the *right to use* the software, not the software itself. If you purchased the *right to use* a window -- say a license to patented manufacturing process -- you wouldn't need to re-purchase that license when producing a replacement window.
I think if I licensed the use of the window technology for exactly one instance of a window in perpetuity -- a common software license -- that yes, I should be able to create a second one after the first one is destroyed without paying any additional licensing costs.
I wouldn't expect someone to produce the new physical window at no cost -- just as I don't expect someone to produce a backup disk for me at no cost -- but I also wouldn't expect to have to re-purchase licensing rights if my previously existing rights had not expired.
The state subsidizes roads -- do they have an ownership stake in everything that passes over those roads?
While google has the potential to be just as evil, they at least really mean cross-platform. If their past history of cross-platform compatibility can be used as a guide -- OWA for example -- they mean "Designed for IE, will provide some functionality in other browsers so we can call it cross-platform." Recent versions of OWA have actually *reduced* cross-platform compatibility from what was a pretty usable webmail client to something that won't even let you edit Exchange filtering rules unless you're on MSIE.
Simple doesn't necessarily mean widely adopted. Composting is simple -- you just through things in a bucket and stir them from time to time -- but most people don't do it.
The "simple" part of his plan comes from having the remote access policy be no different than the local access policy -- the local access policy might already be complicated, but making the remote access policy (nearly) identical minimizes any additional complication.
You can want to keep it all you like. That doesn't mean it's important for the continued survival of most other life on Earth.
A quick re-read will also show that he also didn't suggest killing anything. He simply stated that *if* they died things wouldn't be that bad.
Actually the stated powers of the USSC are the same that of the rest of the judiciary -- to review any case from lower courts. There's certainly no rule that says they can only hear cases concerning the constitutionality of legislation. Heck, even if there were such a rule, they'd be pretty much free to through it out unless it's in the constitution itself.
In fact they kind of made up that judicial review of legislation bit; it's not a bad idea, but it's not a role clearly defined in the constitutional description of the USSC.
Is there really a landfill problem? I'm all for reducing waste -- I really am -- but if you did the math to figure out how much space is actually needed for landfills, even on say a 500-year timescale, you'd quickly see that it's just *not* a problem.
There might well be better things we could do with our trash, and we certainly should see what can be done about producing less of it -- producing and moving all the trash is wasteful in the first place, no matter where it goes in the end -- but landfill use simply should not be high on your list of environmental concerns.
Carbon dioxide generally doesn't come out. Neither do many NOxes. There's no combustion, so the usual burning rules don't apply. Primary output gases are carbon monoxide and hydrogen. Depending on what you put in there are some harmful output gases like HCl, but usually nothing as heavy as C02.
As for producing more energy than it uses, it's simply a question of what goes in. If you shove waterlogged iron wool through it it's not gonna make much energy. If you shove dry plastic through it it makes all sorts of energy. Most of the existing (that's right, they're already in use) plants are producing more energy than they use, even on mostly unfiltered municipal waste. They aren't necessarily making energy more cheaply than coal + a landfill, but they are making energy.
And most of them don't make it into the output gas anyway -- they are emitted as liquid slag. And there's no combustion, so there's no greenhouse gas output.
And it avoid combustion, and therefore the dreaded greenhouse gases -- primary gas outputs are hydrogen and carbon monoxide.
If there's any "heat pollution" produced by the plant it simply means they need another turbine -- the thing is *supposed* to produce heat, much of which will be converted into electricity. There's no reason to believe the heat capture or heat->electricity conversion in this system would be any worse than other existing electrical plants.
As for "toxic waste", it's not any worse than existing incinerators or hybrid coal/waste systems, and it produces less harmful gases than any form of combustion. The primary gas outputs are carbon monoxide and hydrogen, neither of which is particularly harmful once diluted in the atmosphere.
Depending on what you put in there are some harmful output gases, like HCl (which can be removed with calcium oxide), but most of the heavier elements -- mercury, cadmium, lead -- are output in a liquid slag rather than as a gas.
I agree that parameterized statements are the way to go, but in many cases it *is* pretty easy to filter input that shouldn't be present, and using both techniques together can provide protection from things other than SQL injection.
In many instances you may simply be able to allow only \w or \w\s\.\- without ever destroying valid input. Even if you have wider input requirements it's often possible to drop anything outside the normal printable range and any quoting characters (where "quoting characters" may vary based on your storage and presentation systems).
In general it is a clear-cut case -- contracts signed in other states *are* enforceable. And that's probably the case here too.
But CA law may grant him relief against certain aspects of the agreement -- specifically he may still be able to work for Apple, even if the contract is generally valid, because that particular method of enforcement is not allowed in CA.
I don't disagree per se, but consider this situation:
I know non-competes are unenforceable in my jurisdiction. So does my employer -- but he asks me to sign one anyway. If I know he's trying to scare me into a promise to which we both know I can't be held -- to which society says I shouldn't be held -- what part of honor is served by upholding that "promise"?
And don't think this is an uncommon situation. Most employers have clauses in their employment agreement about not discussing your compensation (strictly unenforceable under federal employment law). And many landlords have whole lists of rules that cannot be enforced for various reasons. At least some of these people *know* their agreements can't be enforced, but require people who do business with them to sign the contract anyway.
I know you're going to say "don't do business with them" but it's naive to assume A) that it's possible to find someone strictly honorable to do business with in their stead, and B) that everyone knows their rights well enough to detect when this is happening and say something about it. That's the very reason that we make such agreements unenforceable in the first place -- society has decided that even if you make such an agreement you should not be held to it because it violates your rights in some way.
One of the basic tenants of a free society is that your rights cannot be taken away under *any circumstance* outside the due process of law, even if you purport to agree. You can debate about whether freedom from non-compete agreements should be one of those rights, but in some jurisdictions it *is*, and no civil agreement can change that fact.