just one question, why did you rip to wma? seems odd to me when most players on the market are called 'mp3 players' rather than 'wma players', i've never noticed a 'wma player' in the argos catalogue.
Space savings; MP3 encoders weren't free at the time; better range in the higher frequencies; variable encoding.
Well I'm in the UK and I have one; for a few reasons
I hate the iPod interface, the twirling of the fingers is unnatural for me, and with bad carpal tunnel it can hurt.
iTunes bites under Windows (I swear Apple do it on purpose just to nudge people to OSX. That whole "Oh don't use Vista it will kill your iPod" was such FUD it was laughable; it's not like Vista betas weren't available for years). It's fat, bloated, forces QuickTime on you which then steals file extensions even if you tell it not to (the Zune software isn't good either, it's buggy as hell, and if it can't reach the network share your music is on it thinks it's gone and proceeds to clean it from the device. Morons)
My music is in mp3 and wma; I am not prepare to change formats after ripping upwards of 400 CDs, and re-encoding on device load just kills quality.
My creative zen was on it's last legs
Mind you the only other UK person I saw with one was an MS employee.
Because you judge based on the truth of witness statements, which will express the evidence that someone broke the law.
As an aside there's been a update to the story where it's been said that the judge's comments were misreported and he asked for clarification on behalf of the jury.
Except it's not actually true; plusnet's support numbers (at the bottom of every page) have a direct, Sheffield number and an 0845 (local rate) number. Neither are premium rate.
Actually I would; because knowing what a car actually is, and knowing what the law is with regards to speeding are two different things. What is right is decided and codified by the law, not by knowledge of what causes the offence. You don't expect a judge to know the ins and outs of what gun was used in a shooting, and frankly it's not necessary to, it's the shooting that is the offence, not the details of the weapon.
As to this judge, he should recuse himself from the case, but should also be lauded for admitting his limitations.
I have to disagree here. Not on the lauding, but on that he should recuse himself. There are a couple of issues here; certainly in the UK judges are expected to know the law, but not for example the details of technology. The UK legal system provides the idea of expert witnesses, who are officers of the court (although paid for by one side). It is their role to explain issues that a judge or jury may not understand (I've done the role myself). Expecting judge or jury to be fonts of all knowledge, and know everything about the non-legal aspects of every case that comes before them is unrealistic. And how, without having things explain is a judge to learn? By requiring a judge to recuse him or herself every time they do not understand non-legal aspects of a case we'd end up with a judiciary that cannot sit simply because they are unable to gather knowledge in a legal setting./p?
IIS5, unpatched perhaps. IIS6 however has a decent security record; at least according to Secunia with a grand total of 3 vulnerabilities, one of which was in ASP, which is disabled by default, one in WebDAV, disabled by default and a low criticality problem with cookie handling. All are patched. Apache 2.0 has 33, 3 of which are unpatched and 2.2 has 1 out of 3 unpatched.
Well look at the recommendation; "promote the convergence of the ODF and OOXML, in order to avoid having two standards covering the same usage", yet they mandate two different file formats (and PDF does cover the same area mostly, except it's write once and never edit again without having to pay Adobe through the nose). Incredibly confused and stupid decision.
Microsoft Research Cambridge have their SenseCam project aimed at, for example, those in the beginning stages of Alzhimers (sp?) Along with the camera they have MyLifeBits to manage, categorise and search. At the moment SenseCam takes snaps every 30 seconds. A live feed is a much more interesting idea.
Live has worked for months, if not over a year, with Firefox and right clicks, in both browser it looks pretty much the same. Even with the latest version of OWA firefox still isn't supported as a rich interface client.
But this isn't a case of damages; not really, it's a case of obeying the rules set upon you for using the machines. Look I know it's all to easy to bask in how clever you are when you get around a school's firewall, or show up your teacher, but frankly the sooner you realise that sort of geek penis waving just doesn't cut it in the real world the better off you'll be. If you're at work and you agree to a computer use policy and you break it, you'll get fired. Disobeying the rules has consequences. You may not agree with them of course, but that doesn't make them any less applicable.
I notice you think the students went to legal websites. Says who? Bypassing the firewall opens them up to the net at large, with all the nasties that are out there, viruses, bot installers and so on. Who is to say the students couldn't have hit one of those? There's an example of damage. And then, like I already tried to point out there's the damage of liability for the school. Once one student tells his friend how to bypass filters, and that spreads without being checked by punishment you end up with the school networks being able to be used to download porn, "hate literature", etc, things that the school will get sued for by parents. More damage.
You're really hung up on this route analogy. Don't be. I was simply trying to illustrate that even buses, paid for by public money, have rules you must abide by to use them. School computers are no different. They are not yours. If you treat them as yours you're both selfish and deserving of whatever punishment is metered out, it might help ground you in the real world sooner.
How far can we take this before it breaks? The web site visited, by bypassing the proxies, was not on the route at all. In effect, they highjacked the bus, took it downtown, stopped it on the wrong side of the tracks and went out and bought beer using a fake ID. You're insisting that school pupils should be allowed to do what they want with school resources. That's entirely bogus. You'd get punished for abusing the chemistry lab and dissolving a table, or for harassing other pupils, for being a bully, for stealing, for any sort of rule infraction, but why, when it's a computer involved, shouldn't you be punished? Why, because it is electronic, doesn't it matter so much?
And I've heard that argument too. But saying they're public property, bought with public funds isn't enough of an excuse; consider other public paid for materials; you wouldn't get in a public bus, push out the driver, and drive it yourself to your doorstep would you? But if it's a computer suddenly that sort of behaviour is acceptable? I simple can't see that. Because it's a computer you can suddenly ignore the rules of good behaviour? No, I'm sorry, technology doesn't free you from manners or good behaviour and frankly students need to learn that.
It has nothing to do with malicious intent and more to do with liability. I'd bet that the school has to protect its pupils from the darker side of the internet (p0rn, 4chan, RMS's latest rant about how it should be GNU/Linux etc.) And I'd also hope that before using the PCs you had to agree to a terms of conduct. I've had this discussion before with someone I know in the UK who got slapped for trying to bypass his school's filters, and he tried the "malicious intent" argument. It doesn't wash, simply because the computers you are using are not yours, nor should you treat them as such. I'm sure you felt very 3l1t3 with your boot CD, but the fact remains those are your PCs and it was right you were punished for continuing to do something you were told not to do.
What should be interest to slashdot, and will probably be ignored is the announcement that MS will be releasing the DLR (Dynamic Language Runtime) under the BSD license. So IronPython becomes a "first class".net language, and you can build your own on top of the CLR/DLR should you wish it.
Microsoft employees discuss the (im)possibility of creating a cross-platform code and UI framework, years before the.NET project even started!
So what, computers don't move forward? People don't change their minds ever? You're attempting to justify a stance because of discussions years ago? If that is true, shouldn't you be a train driver because that's what you said you were going to be at age 6?
They are not obliged, as you say, to patent trivial things. It is a clear business decision to take advantage of a terrible system
Oh yes they are; as a listed company they are obliged to their shareholders to protect their investment. If they don't patent their "trivial things" they would leave themselves open to being sued by shareholders because they exposed themselves by not doing so.
Not true. They can send; but recipient mail servers which use SPF can check the records and reject accordingly. Unfortunately with SPF, and DomainKeys/DKIM the majority of servers don't bother.
You realise RPC is, in fact, a UNIX feature? That it's there on your Linux/Sun/BSD/OSX box? That like anything running on a known port it's easily blockable at the firewall? Or via IPSEC if you don't run a firewall? And that the Win2003 firewall will block it by default?
Well done; next time I develop code I'll make sure I name my services something like "Sooper secure, non-remote admin interface", because we wouldn't want to make the cracker's job easier with a name now would we?
I think that phrase shows where he's coming from; marketing. Lets face it 99.9% of people don't blog for dialog, they blog about their cats, boys (or girls) and day to day trivia.
Those that do use their blogs for marketing (being it of themselves, or companies) are in trouble. O'Reilly is seen as such a big player that standing up and saying "Piss off" could well be seen as a career limiting move; the blogosphere isn't made up of "free thinkers" as they like to believe they are, in reality it's rather cliquey. The big hitters are attempting to impose mob rule and that's worse than the original "offence".
Wrong. Both AAC and WMA require license fees for decoders as well as encoders. (although MS freely license if your software is aimed at the Windows platform)
This is not true with MP3 and certainly not with Windows Media, which both require us to pay a percentage of the sale price of MP3 or WMA files to the encoder maker.
That is utter bullshit. Having been involved with selling music on-line for 6 years not once did we have to pay Microsoft anything when we used WMA. Heck, even their DRM SDK was free. Can you link to proof of your assertion that every WMA track you deliver has to involve a royalty payment to Microsoft?
Certainly you have to pay to license the decoder and encoder; shock horror, just like MP3 and AAC. Heck, MS even publish the license fees for such usage.
How you got marked "insightful" for FUD and lies is beyond my understanding.
Slashdot Mirror
Well I'm in the UK and I have one; for a few reasons
Mind you the only other UK person I saw with one was an MS employee.
As an aside there's been a update to the story where it's been said that the judge's comments were misreported and he asked for clarification on behalf of the jury.
What stationary? It's on the *website*
Except it's not actually true; plusnet's support numbers (at the bottom of every page) have a direct, Sheffield number and an 0845 (local rate) number. Neither are premium rate.
Actually I would; because knowing what a car actually is, and knowing what the law is with regards to speeding are two different things. What is right is decided and codified by the law, not by knowledge of what causes the offence. You don't expect a judge to know the ins and outs of what gun was used in a shooting, and frankly it's not necessary to, it's the shooting that is the offence, not the details of the weapon.
I have to disagree here. Not on the lauding, but on that he should recuse himself. There are a couple of issues here; certainly in the UK judges are expected to know the law, but not for example the details of technology. The UK legal system provides the idea of expert witnesses, who are officers of the court (although paid for by one side). It is their role to explain issues that a judge or jury may not understand (I've done the role myself). Expecting judge or jury to be fonts of all knowledge, and know everything about the non-legal aspects of every case that comes before them is unrealistic. And how, without having things explain is a judge to learn? By requiring a judge to recuse him or herself every time they do not understand non-legal aspects of a case we'd end up with a judiciary that cannot sit simply because they are unable to gather knowledge in a legal setting./p?
IIS5, unpatched perhaps. IIS6 however has a decent security record; at least according to Secunia with a grand total of 3 vulnerabilities, one of which was in ASP, which is disabled by default, one in WebDAV, disabled by default and a low criticality problem with cookie handling. All are patched. Apache 2.0 has 33, 3 of which are unpatched and 2.2 has 1 out of 3 unpatched.
Well look at the recommendation; "promote the convergence of the ODF and OOXML, in order to avoid having two standards covering the same usage", yet they mandate two different file formats (and PDF does cover the same area mostly, except it's write once and never edit again without having to pay Adobe through the nose). Incredibly confused and stupid decision.
And some people can't.
Microsoft Research Cambridge have their SenseCam project aimed at, for example, those in the beginning stages of Alzhimers (sp?) Along with the camera they have MyLifeBits to manage, categorise and search. At the moment SenseCam takes snaps every 30 seconds. A live feed is a much more interesting idea.
Live has worked for months, if not over a year, with Firefox and right clicks, in both browser it looks pretty much the same. Even with the latest version of OWA firefox still isn't supported as a rich interface client.
I notice you think the students went to legal websites. Says who? Bypassing the firewall opens them up to the net at large, with all the nasties that are out there, viruses, bot installers and so on. Who is to say the students couldn't have hit one of those? There's an example of damage. And then, like I already tried to point out there's the damage of liability for the school. Once one student tells his friend how to bypass filters, and that spreads without being checked by punishment you end up with the school networks being able to be used to download porn, "hate literature", etc, things that the school will get sued for by parents. More damage.
You're really hung up on this route analogy. Don't be. I was simply trying to illustrate that even buses, paid for by public money, have rules you must abide by to use them. School computers are no different. They are not yours. If you treat them as yours you're both selfish and deserving of whatever punishment is metered out, it might help ground you in the real world sooner.
How far can we take this before it breaks? The web site visited, by bypassing the proxies, was not on the route at all. In effect, they highjacked the bus, took it downtown, stopped it on the wrong side of the tracks and went out and bought beer using a fake ID. You're insisting that school pupils should be allowed to do what they want with school resources. That's entirely bogus. You'd get punished for abusing the chemistry lab and dissolving a table, or for harassing other pupils, for being a bully, for stealing, for any sort of rule infraction, but why, when it's a computer involved, shouldn't you be punished? Why, because it is electronic, doesn't it matter so much?
And I've heard that argument too. But saying they're public property, bought with public funds isn't enough of an excuse; consider other public paid for materials; you wouldn't get in a public bus, push out the driver, and drive it yourself to your doorstep would you? But if it's a computer suddenly that sort of behaviour is acceptable? I simple can't see that. Because it's a computer you can suddenly ignore the rules of good behaviour? No, I'm sorry, technology doesn't free you from manners or good behaviour and frankly students need to learn that.
It has nothing to do with malicious intent and more to do with liability. I'd bet that the school has to protect its pupils from the darker side of the internet (p0rn, 4chan, RMS's latest rant about how it should be GNU/Linux etc.) And I'd also hope that before using the PCs you had to agree to a terms of conduct. I've had this discussion before with someone I know in the UK who got slapped for trying to bypass his school's filters, and he tried the "malicious intent" argument. It doesn't wash, simply because the computers you are using are not yours, nor should you treat them as such. I'm sure you felt very 3l1t3 with your boot CD, but the fact remains those are your PCs and it was right you were punished for continuing to do something you were told not to do.
What should be interest to slashdot, and will probably be ignored is the announcement that MS will be releasing the DLR (Dynamic Language Runtime) under the BSD license. So IronPython becomes a "first class" .net language, and you can build your own on top of the CLR/DLR should you wish it.
So what, computers don't move forward? People don't change their minds ever? You're attempting to justify a stance because of discussions years ago? If that is true, shouldn't you be a train driver because that's what you said you were going to be at age 6?
Oh yes they are; as a listed company they are obliged to their shareholders to protect their investment. If they don't patent their "trivial things" they would leave themselves open to being sued by shareholders because they exposed themselves by not doing so.
Not true. They can send; but recipient mail servers which use SPF can check the records and reject accordingly. Unfortunately with SPF, and DomainKeys/DKIM the majority of servers don't bother.
No he doesn't; he didn't break the first rule at all
You realise RPC is, in fact, a UNIX feature? That it's there on your Linux/Sun/BSD/OSX box? That like anything running on a known port it's easily blockable at the firewall? Or via IPSEC if you don't run a firewall? And that the Win2003 firewall will block it by default?
Well done; next time I develop code I'll make sure I name my services something like "Sooper secure, non-remote admin interface", because we wouldn't want to make the cracker's job easier with a name now would we?
I think that phrase shows where he's coming from; marketing. Lets face it 99.9% of people don't blog for dialog, they blog about their cats, boys (or girls) and day to day trivia.
Those that do use their blogs for marketing (being it of themselves, or companies) are in trouble. O'Reilly is seen as such a big player that standing up and saying "Piss off" could well be seen as a career limiting move; the blogosphere isn't made up of "free thinkers" as they like to believe they are, in reality it's rather cliquey. The big hitters are attempting to impose mob rule and that's worse than the original "offence".
Because they are giving away source, not binaries. So they are not distributing an encoder or decoder per se. They even acknowledge this.
Wrong. Both AAC and WMA require license fees for decoders as well as encoders. (although MS freely license if your software is aimed at the Windows platform)
In fact AAC's license fees appear to be higher than Microsoft's.
This is not true with MP3 and certainly not with Windows Media, which both require us to pay a percentage of the sale price of MP3 or WMA files to the encoder maker.
That is utter bullshit. Having been involved with selling music on-line for 6 years not once did we have to pay Microsoft anything when we used WMA. Heck, even their DRM SDK was free. Can you link to proof of your assertion that every WMA track you deliver has to involve a royalty payment to Microsoft?
Certainly you have to pay to license the decoder and encoder; shock horror, just like MP3 and AAC. Heck, MS even publish the license fees for such usage.
How you got marked "insightful" for FUD and lies is beyond my understanding.