I would certainly hope that a music player would support MP3. Any that didnt would be a poor choice. (I dont entirely rule out the possibility that such a device exists)
iPod would/will play music from any source of music that offers music in a standard format (eg, MP3).
I will note that I don't even consider accepting music in *any* sort of proprietary non-standard format, unless it could be trivially *converted* to MP3 format, be it from Apple or MS, therefore vendor lock in for such a case is irrelevant. The only concerns are "Does it play MP3 music", and "Does it offer MP3 music" - any device or service which could not answer 'Yes' to the appropriate question would be of absolutely no interest at all.
I will also add that the only 'digital music playing devices' I currently own include a PC (which does not use any software from *either* MS or Apple), and an old CD player that can play both std CD's and ones containing MP3 - but if I were ever to decide to purchase a new 'digital music player', MP3 would be my only interest (well, Ogg, but I wont hold my breath).
I would have no interest in any capability for, or service providing, any DRM/proprietary format. Any question of *which* of multiple such formats a player did or did not support wouldnt even be remotely relevant.
The argument assumes that the entire point of buying an 'MP3 player' would be to subscribe to some sort of online service - an assumption which is not valid. (Albeit one which I'm sure RIAA and/or the online services would like to help spread)
My point was that it wasnt the iPod that was locking anyone in or out of anything. The Ipod, like anything else, can play the 'standard' format, which is MP3. Any service which offers only *non* MP3 format music is locking itself out of a a large segment of the market.
WMA is the lock-in(out), not the iPod. Afaik, Ipod will happily play MP3 (If not with the stock software, then certainly with alternate software), which is the only 'not locked in' format.
I would never subscribe to any sort of music download service unless I was able to either directly download MP3, or convert whatever it was *to* MP3 (real MP3, not WMA-pretending-to-be-MP3)
I'm perfectly content with my shell/CLI being a *text* terminal. I can't imagine any reason I would desire it to be GUI - this would defeat the entire point, to me.
And given your concern about 'being confused by spaces and newlines' (in df output), I'm not really sure where this confusion would come from. df's output is pretty well defined. As far as what you want to do with grep, that doesnt sound even remotely appropriate for 'grep' - perhaps you need to be writing your own app.
To be honest, not a single one of the 'features' you lament for in a CLI/shell are even remotely of interest to me. My delete/backspace work fine (GnomeTerminal, fyi). My copy/paste work fine. I cant imagine why Id want 'ls' to display anything other than what it does now, certainly not any sort of thumnails (on a *text* terminal??? wtf). If I want previews of graphics I'll fire up xv. The only thing I use colors for is colorls, and its got plenty for that. And to be honest while Ive been using grep and regex's for quite a long time, Ive no idea what you mean by 'structured' grep.
I prefer to run programs from a CLI in a shell window. The only GUI application I use regularly is mozilla (started from a shell); pretty much everything I do, I do from a shell. Rather than trying to manage an entire seperate interface (or using someone else's idea of what a default should be) it seems to much simpler to do it this way.
The CLI is power, the CLI is control. If you are unable to function with a CLI, you are giving up quite a bit of both.
For the record, TripMaster, I'm with you. Anyone that is unable to take the tiny bit of extra effort to ensure that they are using the words they think they are, and that they are spelled correctly, isn't worth listening to.
And you would think a (supposedly) professional publication such as New Scientist would at least ensure that each article was reviewed (and corrected, if need be) by an editor with the appropriate skills, assuming the authors were lacking thereof.
A related anecdote - I drove to a McDonalds the other day, and was told 'sorry we are closed due to some computer problems'. I asked what a computer had to do with them being able to cook and sell food. The reply 'I'll let you answert that one'. I suggested that apparently none of their employes were competent enough to do basic matehematics (eg adding up the prices of some food, figuring tax, making change, and drove off laughing.
The 'business world' needs to be weaned away from Microsoft. The more non-MS-brainwashed students there are coming from the schools, the more chance there is of that happening.
Teaching specific software is moronic. Instead basic skills should be tought (and I dont mean keyboarding), and the general 'concept' of using software, so that graduates actually have some clue, instead of just being drones that have memorized the click-sequences to accomplish specific tasks in specific software.
I have a 4 year old soon who isnt quite ready to have open access to a PC yet, but will eventually, and I would definately be interested in any games/entertainment programs you may have written, if you were willing to share (or if you've already released them somewhere)...
As long as your bank uses https, that isnt a problem. https cannot be proxied or cached. Either their proxy recognizes https requests and lets them go direct, or it uses the tunneling mode of allowing the (encrypted) data to be channeled thru the proxy unmodified (and uninspected)
I'm not sure if you are trying to be funny, sarcastic, or just plain dont have a clue. The "Web" and "The Internet" are entirely different things. One is an application that uses the connectivity provided by the other (But one of many applications, I will note)
Just becuase on your computer, your web browser is labeled "The Internet", doesnt make it so.
Cool information, but what a horridly and awkwardly designed site. Instead of text for the *text*, it has to be embedded in flash, which makes it too small and hard to read.
It boggles me as to exactly what failure of understanding leads to web 'sites' entirely embedded in flash. (Or java, a other closed proprietary and ill-suited platforms)
"Clicking on files" is not a concept I even consider. Files to me are not little pictures to be clicked on to cause the OS to 'automagically' know you want to run some program, and automagically know which one.
It offers the possibility that if you send documents in this format to people who *dont* like to be locked in to MS applications and platforms, they might be able to read them. And you might even be able to exchange documents, templates, etc and both be able to modify them.
I'm not sure who Blast Radius is, but surely you've heard of Sun (Who know, Staroffice, the commercial version of OO?) and IBM (what needs to be said), whose representatives seem to make up a full half of the committee?
"File extensions" are entirely a DOS/Windows concept. Nothing even says you have to use them. A document labelled merely "MyResume" for example (and attached with the appropriate MIME-Type) would be perfectly acceptable.
Since the entire concept of 'extensions' only matters in the DOS/Windows world, where MIME type is ignored in favor of their feeble 'extensions', and that environment is most used to 3-character 'extensions', if they were going to define an 'extension' at all (I wouldnt think it worth bothering) it might as well be 3 characters. The rest of us will use MIME types like we always have, and awkwardly convert for the fools that still live in the DOS/Windows world (since they generally arent aware enough to handle the conversion at their end, or the tools they use only understand the 'extensions' concept and blithely label everything they send as "Application/Octet-Stream" whilst ignoring MIME-types they receive)
While plain text would definateiyl have been preferrable, some authors seem to be aghast at the idea of not being able to control the fonts and margins in what they write. Of the possible formats which support that (as well as those that the office-drone likely to have produced this document is capable of easily producing) PDF seems the least onerous. The PDF format has been documented for quite a while, and there are many tools that are both Open and Free that are capable of interpreting it trivially. Even (GPL-licensed) Ghostscript is capable of interpreting it, and even concerting to PostScript.
Certainly a "DOC" file would have been worse.
Other than ASCII (or HTML), which I certainly would support, what other format would you propose they have used. (And since the new open format was *just* approved, it isnt likely that there is a lot of software yet that understands it, so that wouldnt really be a good choice)
Who is suggesting that anyone be *required* to buy service from either a co-op, *or* a municipal wifi service? Perhaps you are under the mistaken impression that any of these muni projects are being financed by public funds (they are not).
As far as 'looting existing infrastructure', since afaik most such projects are wireless, perhaps you are referring to the existing copper plant buried (or strung) pretty much everywhere. You should take note that while this is considered by the telco's as their 'property', its creation was enabled by lots of government supported exclusive access and permission deals, and I consider it 'public' infrastructure. In fact I think each copper loop should belong not to the telco that owns the CO at one end of it, but by the property owner at the other end, who should have a right to request, no, *demand*, that it be interconnected with any other property owner's copper loop [with that persons permission and cooperation, of course], without any recurring cost, so that the two of them can use it for any purpose they might see fit. The other option I like is the 'structural seperation' (google for it, or try http://www.savecompetition.com/one_step.shtml) option - the telco's hate that of course, because it forces true competition.
Slashdot Mirror
Grr..
SiliCON - think sand, microchips (say 'CONvict')
SiliCONE - think lubricant(oil), bathtub caulk, breast implants (say 'CONEheads')
Two entirely different materials
You've got it backwards - oil floats on top of water. You'd have a hard time feeding those fish, or getting them in or out of the tank.
I would certainly hope that a music player would support MP3. Any that didnt would be a poor choice. (I dont entirely rule out the possibility that such a device exists)
iPod would/will play music from any source of music that offers music in a standard format (eg, MP3).
I will note that I don't even consider accepting music in *any* sort of proprietary non-standard format, unless it could be trivially *converted* to MP3 format, be it from Apple or MS, therefore vendor lock in for such a case is irrelevant. The only concerns are "Does it play MP3 music", and "Does it offer MP3 music" - any device or service which could not answer 'Yes' to the appropriate question would be of absolutely no interest at all.
I will also add that the only 'digital music playing devices' I currently own include a PC (which does not use any software from *either* MS or Apple), and an old CD player that can play both std CD's and ones containing MP3 - but if I were ever to decide to purchase a new 'digital music player', MP3 would be my only interest (well, Ogg, but I wont hold my breath).
I would have no interest in any capability for, or service providing, any DRM/proprietary format. Any question of *which* of multiple such formats a player did or did not support wouldnt even be remotely relevant.
The argument assumes that the entire point of buying an 'MP3 player' would be to subscribe to some sort of online service - an assumption which is not valid. (Albeit one which I'm sure RIAA and/or the online services would like to help spread)
My point was that it wasnt the iPod that was locking anyone in or out of anything. The Ipod, like anything else, can play the 'standard' format, which is MP3. Any service which offers only *non* MP3 format music is locking itself out of a a large segment of the market.
WMA is the lock-in(out), not the iPod. Afaik, Ipod will happily play MP3 (If not with the stock software, then certainly with alternate software), which is the only 'not locked in' format.
I would never subscribe to any sort of music download service unless I was able to either directly download MP3, or convert whatever it was *to* MP3 (real MP3, not WMA-pretending-to-be-MP3)
I'm perfectly content with my shell/CLI being a *text* terminal. I can't imagine any reason I would desire it to be GUI - this would defeat the entire point, to me.
And given your concern about 'being confused by spaces and newlines' (in df output), I'm not really sure where this confusion would come from. df's output is pretty well defined. As far as what you want to do with grep, that doesnt sound even remotely appropriate for 'grep' - perhaps you need to be writing your own app.
To be honest, not a single one of the 'features' you lament for in a CLI/shell are even remotely of interest to me. My delete/backspace work fine (GnomeTerminal, fyi). My copy/paste work fine. I cant imagine why Id want 'ls' to display anything other than what it does now, certainly not any sort of thumnails (on a *text* terminal??? wtf). If I want previews of graphics I'll fire up xv. The only thing I use colors for is colorls, and its got plenty for that. And to be honest while Ive been using grep and regex's for quite a long time, Ive no idea what you mean by 'structured' grep.
I prefer to run programs from a CLI in a shell window. The only GUI application I use regularly is mozilla (started from a shell); pretty much everything I do, I do from a shell. Rather than trying to manage an entire seperate interface (or using someone else's idea of what a default should be) it seems to much simpler to do it this way.
The CLI is power, the CLI is control. If you are unable to function with a CLI, you are giving up quite a bit of both.
For the record, TripMaster, I'm with you. Anyone that is unable to take the tiny bit of extra effort to ensure that they are using the words they think they are, and that they are spelled correctly, isn't worth listening to.
And you would think a (supposedly) professional publication such as New Scientist would at least ensure that each article was reviewed (and corrected, if need be) by an editor with the appropriate skills, assuming the authors were lacking thereof.
A related anecdote - I drove to a McDonalds the other day, and was told 'sorry we are closed due to some computer problems'. I asked what a computer had to do with them being able to cook and sell food. The reply 'I'll let you answert that one'. I suggested that apparently none of their employes were competent enough to do basic matehematics (eg adding up the prices of some food, figuring tax, making change, and drove off laughing.
The 'business world' needs to be weaned away from Microsoft. The more non-MS-brainwashed students there are coming from the schools, the more chance there is of that happening.
Teaching specific software is moronic. Instead basic skills should be tought (and I dont mean keyboarding), and the general 'concept' of using software, so that graduates actually have some clue, instead of just being drones that have memorized the click-sequences to accomplish specific tasks in specific software.
I have a 4 year old soon who isnt quite ready to have open access to a PC yet, but will eventually, and I would definately be interested in any games/entertainment programs you may have written, if you were willing to share (or if you've already released them somewhere)...
As long as your bank uses https, that isnt a problem. https cannot be proxied or cached. Either their proxy recognizes https requests and lets them go direct, or it uses the tunneling mode of allowing the (encrypted) data to be channeled thru the proxy unmodified (and uninspected)
I'm not sure if you are trying to be funny, sarcastic, or just plain dont have a clue. The "Web" and "The Internet" are entirely different things. One is an application that uses the connectivity provided by the other (But one of many applications, I will note)
Just becuase on your computer, your web browser is labeled "The Internet", doesnt make it so.
.. apparently dont include being able to spell and/or use dictionary.com, or ispell.
-=-
def:obstical
No entry found for obstical.
Did you mean obstacle?
-=-
def:obstacle
obstacle
One that opposes, stands in the way of, or holds up progress.
Cool information, but what a horridly and awkwardly designed site. Instead of text for the *text*, it has to be embedded in flash, which makes it too small and hard to read.
It boggles me as to exactly what failure of understanding leads to web 'sites' entirely embedded in flash. (Or java, a other closed proprietary and ill-suited platforms)
"Clicking on files" is not a concept I even consider. Files to me are not little pictures to be clicked on to cause the OS to 'automagically' know you want to run some program, and automagically know which one.
It offers the possibility that if you send documents in this format to people who *dont* like to be locked in to MS applications and platforms, they might be able to read them. And you might even be able to exchange documents, templates, etc and both be able to modify them.
Perhaps becuase there wasnt one, until just now? Hopefully going forward, that will happen (eventually), now that there *is* such a format.
You are making the same point the OP was. It seemed clear to me that when he said "Have you seen how well ..." he meant 'not very'.
I'm not sure who Blast Radius is, but surely you've heard of Sun (Who know, Staroffice, the commercial version of OO?) and IBM (what needs to be said), whose representatives seem to make up a full half of the committee?
"File extensions" are entirely a DOS/Windows concept. Nothing even says you have to use them. A document labelled merely "MyResume" for example (and attached with the appropriate MIME-Type) would be perfectly acceptable.
Since the entire concept of 'extensions' only matters in the DOS/Windows world, where MIME type is ignored in favor of their feeble 'extensions', and that environment is most used to 3-character 'extensions', if they were going to define an 'extension' at all (I wouldnt think it worth bothering) it might as well be 3 characters. The rest of us will use MIME types like we always have, and awkwardly convert for the fools that still live in the DOS/Windows world (since they generally arent aware enough to handle the conversion at their end, or the tools they use only understand the 'extensions' concept and blithely label everything they send as "Application/Octet-Stream" whilst ignoring MIME-types they receive)
While plain text would definateiyl have been preferrable, some authors seem to be aghast at the idea of not being able to control the fonts and margins in what they write. Of the possible formats which support that (as well as those that the office-drone likely to have produced this document is capable of easily producing) PDF seems the least onerous. The PDF format has been documented for quite a while, and there are many tools that are both Open and Free that are capable of interpreting it trivially. Even (GPL-licensed) Ghostscript is capable of interpreting it, and even concerting to PostScript.
Certainly a "DOC" file would have been worse.
Other than ASCII (or HTML), which I certainly would support, what other format would you propose they have used. (And since the new open format was *just* approved, it isnt likely that there is a lot of software yet that understands it, so that wouldnt really be a good choice)
Who is suggesting that anyone be *required* to buy service from either a co-op, *or* a municipal wifi service? Perhaps you are under the mistaken impression that any of these muni projects are being financed by public funds (they are not).
As far as 'looting existing infrastructure', since afaik most such projects are wireless, perhaps you are referring to the existing copper plant buried (or strung) pretty much everywhere. You should take note that while this is considered by the telco's as their 'property', its creation was enabled by lots of government supported exclusive access and permission deals, and I consider it 'public' infrastructure. In fact I think each copper loop should belong not to the telco that owns the CO at one end of it, but by the property owner at the other end, who should have a right to request, no, *demand*, that it be interconnected with any other property owner's copper loop [with that persons permission and cooperation, of course], without any recurring cost, so that the two of them can use it for any purpose they might see fit. The other option I like is the 'structural seperation' (google for it, or try http://www.savecompetition.com/one_step.shtml) option - the telco's hate that of course, because it forces true competition.