Not that this makes it significantly worse, but it is not just AppleScripts. Any OSA script will do, assuming the user has the OSA language installed. Since currently only AppleScript is installed by default...
But just to prove the point, I did this, using the OSAShell language (which allows writing OSA scripts using a basic shell syntax):
$ cd Desktop/ $ cat > foo.txt osascript -e 'tell app "Finder" to activate' ^C $ osacompile -l OSAShell -o foo.shell foo.txt $ osascript foo.shell # test script
And now that I know it works, I go to my current browser, Camino, and try:
As to your Facts 1, 2 and 4: The submission was not incorrect, it merely didn't contain all the information. Instead, we linked to all the information, which is what we do on Slashdot. Sorry if you don't like it (not not really), and boo-hoo that didn't get your name in lights.
And your Fact 4 is not a workaround as you claim, it is a way to disable Help, which causes its own problem.
As to your Fact 3: you missed the point: I was criticizing the publication of the exploit, not stories about the exploit. Perhaps Apple was at fault for not contacting the people who submitted it, I don't know. I don't have enough information to tell. The only thing I do know is that this is the wrong way to do it; whose fault it is, I can't tell.
Because you apparently don't understand, and since I am such a nice, bright, guy, I'll explain: when you find an exploit, you should notify the people who can fix it (i.e., Apple). Apple should get back to you, and keep you apprised of the situation, and if Apple follows through with all this, you should NOT release the information to the public until it has been fixed. Whether Apple received the initial exploit report, or responded, is not clear (though it wouldn't surprise me if they did receive it, and did not respond). But again, clearly, this was not released the way it should have been, and that was my point.
Well, he only misunderstood because the guy he is responding to was incorrect: he is the one that mentioned.help extensions, instead of the help: protocol.
Also, MSIE allows changing it, and it is included with Mac OS X (though yes, lack of real UI access to these prefs is a big problem).
An admin user has privileges to delete files other than those merely in his HOME. And some stupid users (including one of my friends:-) have changed perms to give themselves ownership of every file, in which case this would wipe every file. So the statement is accurate.
Re:Or maybe....
on
G5 in an iMac
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Because they are marketers. You don't ask why, you just laugh and go back to doing something interesting.:-)
Re:Or maybe....
on
G5 in an iMac
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Even if you selected iMac G5, they'd never know it, since it is the same value as Other.
My conclusion is that as long as you have the keys, you can still use playfair. My friend gets the keys from the PC running VLC. I don't know if other techniques may have been broken by the new itunes.
I think you're right, because playfair did not work for me after I upgraded my iPod firmware, but it does continue to work for those who updated iTunes, but not iPod. It looks like the change is that the iPod won't so easily give up the key.
Yes, I need to do some reading. It's not like I've written code, used by many people, to decode MP3 headers.
This isn't hard. 320 kpbs CBR is -- necessarily -- less prone to flaws than any VBR or ABR, or any lower CBR bitrate. They will never be better than the 320 CBR, and will -- necessarily -- sometimes be worse. Meditate on this truth.
Also meditate on the truth that VBR is not as well-supported by most MP3 apps and is less reliable. Also meditate on the truth that converting from VBR to some other bitrate is going to cause more flaws than converting from 320 CBR.
Now meditate on the truth that you don't know what you're talking about.
You're missing the point. The only reason they can give a free song is because it has DRM. The only way the DRM works is if it is tied to an Apple account. The only way you can get an Apple account on iTMS is by having a credit card. Requiring the credit card is pretty indirect. Your mistake is in forgetting that these are DRM'd files, like everything else on iTMS.
I hope apple didnt invest too much time/money in this new fixed drm. Will these media pimps ever learn?
This isn't about DRM, it is about access to the music store, sharing, etc. outside of the iTunes application.
And despite the poster's assertion, there's no real reason to think the authentication scheme was intended to break compatibility; as most developers know, sometimes you need to make changes for other reasons that force a break in compatibility. If this WERE about DRM, I'd say it was likely, but I see no reason to think this separate change was deliberate. It may have been, but no one's given any reason to think it.
you could get almost 50% more music using standard vs 320 with no audible difference.
You are *incorrect*. I already said this in the initial post. There sometimes IS an audible difference. Not always, but sometimes.
there's nothing magic about 320kbps mp3 that gaurantees quality you know. it's likely to have the same flaws as a lower bitrate.
Yes, it may have some flaws, and it is lossy. But what you are failing to realize is the *fact* that the lower bitrates *will have more and greater flaws* over my entire collection. Even the lame manpage states this, when it says "CBR 320kbps" is the "highest quality possible from the --preset switches."
If you're still not getting this, well, then that's just sad.
Why would I waste time using different encoding schemes for each album and evaluating them separately? The time I save in not doing that could buy me several additional hard drives, if needed.
Does anybody date the old testament before 250 BC?
Yes. Everyone. The apocrypha -- the books dating between the Old and New Testaments, including the Maccabees etc. -- happened from about 400 B.C. to 0. The Old Testament (the Hebrew Canon) is all stuff from before 400 B.C.
I think you're saying Lame -aps is lower quality than 320 CBR - my point is that it's not generally, 320 CBR MP3 is just a waste of bits
Sometimes it is not lower quality, but sometimes it certainly is, and it is *never* higher. Even the lame manpages say to use CBR 320 for the "absolute highest quality".
if you want high bitrate lossy you're better considering AAC
Not really. At the highest bitrates, the difference between the two are negligible, so I choose the format that is more well-supported by other tools and devices. That's the same reason I choose 160 kbps over 128 AAC, too. Sure, AAC is smaller, but I don't care.
You either have very few CDs or way too much time on your hands.
Eh, I just have a box here (well over 200, I don't know how many) and I feed them into my laptop throughout the day. It's not like I need to spend much time on it, unless I am modifying the CDDB info (rare) or doing the album art (not sure about this yet... I may try to use one of the third-party utils this time around).
The plain AirPort update gives you the firmware update for the base station. You can upload it from the Airport Admin Utility. Maybe I am odd, but I always run the Admin util after upgrading AirPort, to see if there is a firmware update.
No, it's not fair use. When you buy music from Apple you are buying it under a specific contract and by buying it you are accepting the terms of that contract which limits the use of the music. Don't like the terms, don't get it from Apple.
The question is whether violating the DMCA for the purposes of exercising fair use is legal. So far, the courts have said no, but that doesn't mean they will continue to say no. Your comparison to the GPL is abusrd, because the GPL does not restrict any exercise of fair use, whatsoever. Indeed, the GPL asserts your fair use rights.
You apparently don't know what "fair use" is, hence your confusion. You think it means "do anything I want with it." It doesn't.
Yes, because it misses the point entirely. If you can modify your Ford Escort to go over a rocky mountain pass, would Ford try to stop you? And no one is stealing anything! The music is *already owned by you* (in the same sense as you owning the music you buy on a CD), you are merely circumventing the DRM so you can use it however you see fit (that is, in the same you can use music from your CD). Apple is not even contending that this has anything to do with theft, so why are you?
I get sick of people like you complaining, even though you entered into a business deal and fully understood the terms of use
Terms which likely are not legally enforcable because they restrict existing rights. This is not about the terms of use, this is about the DMCA, which would protect the DRM in FairPlay regardless of any terms of use. If we go by the terms of use, then Apple would really be in trouble, because they are self-contradictory and end up having little if any meaning.
When Apple introduced this service, Steve Jobs said, over and over, "it's your music." Despite the inaccuracy of Apple's CEO's statement, and the accuracy of yours, it is not at all unreasonable for people to assert ownership, at least to the extent of ownership of any other similar media (like CDs), since Apple's CEO characterized it that way first.
Your "complaint" is analogous to me saying that the book publishers are denying me the right to copy my book by putting it in this paper-and-ink format which is not easily copied without a lot of effort....
But your assertion that FairPlay DRM denies you that right is patently absurd.
You're quite wrong. I am not complaining that the "security" technology exists, I am complaining that it is illegal for me to remove it. I am complaining that it is illegal for me to use playfair, under the DMCA, and under the terms of service. It is not FairPlay that denies me the exercise of my rights, it is the legal situation preventing me from removing it. It's true that I sloppily blamed the DRM in the post you replied to, but I quite clearly clarified it later; I thought it was obvious that I was referring to the legal status of the DRM, not the technology itself -- considering the obvious fact that it can be removed with playfair! -- but apparently not.
I know the difference is subtle, and hard to grasp -- even for an Anonymous Coward who touts his logical skillz -- but it's important. Your entire argument against my argument here is missing my actual point.
Slashdot Mirror
But just to prove the point, I did this, using the OSAShell language (which allows writing OSA scripts using a basic shell syntax):And now that I know it works, I go to my current browser, Camino, and try:Of course, it's a silly example, but I just wanted to make sure it wasn't only AppleScript, because that'd be just weird!
As to your Facts 1, 2 and 4: The submission was not incorrect, it merely didn't contain all the information. Instead, we linked to all the information, which is what we do on Slashdot. Sorry if you don't like it (not not really), and boo-hoo that didn't get your name in lights.
And your Fact 4 is not a workaround as you claim, it is a way to disable Help, which causes its own problem.
As to your Fact 3: you missed the point: I was criticizing the publication of the exploit, not stories about the exploit. Perhaps Apple was at fault for not contacting the people who submitted it, I don't know. I don't have enough information to tell. The only thing I do know is that this is the wrong way to do it; whose fault it is, I can't tell.
Because you apparently don't understand, and since I am such a nice, bright, guy, I'll explain: when you find an exploit, you should notify the people who can fix it (i.e., Apple). Apple should get back to you, and keep you apprised of the situation, and if Apple follows through with all this, you should NOT release the information to the public until it has been fixed. Whether Apple received the initial exploit report, or responded, is not clear (though it wouldn't surprise me if they did receive it, and did not respond). But again, clearly, this was not released the way it should have been, and that was my point.
Well, he only misunderstood because the guy he is responding to was incorrect: he is the one that mentioned .help extensions, instead of the help: protocol.
Also, MSIE allows changing it, and it is included with Mac OS X (though yes, lack of real UI access to these prefs is a big problem).
We don't allow help: URLs in Slash. :p
An admin user has privileges to delete files other than those merely in his HOME. And some stupid users (including one of my friends :-) have changed perms to give themselves ownership of every file, in which case this would wipe every file. So the statement is accurate.
Because they are marketers. You don't ask why, you just laugh and go back to doing something interesting. :-)
Even if you selected iMac G5, they'd never know it, since it is the same value as Other.
My conclusion is that as long as you have the keys, you can still use playfair. My friend gets the keys from the PC running VLC. I don't know if other techniques may have been broken by the new itunes.
I think you're right, because playfair did not work for me after I upgraded my iPod firmware, but it does continue to work for those who updated iTunes, but not iPod. It looks like the change is that the iPod won't so easily give up the key.
Yes, I need to do some reading. It's not like I've written code, used by many people, to decode MP3 headers.
This isn't hard. 320 kpbs CBR is -- necessarily -- less prone to flaws than any VBR or ABR, or any lower CBR bitrate. They will never be better than the 320 CBR, and will -- necessarily -- sometimes be worse. Meditate on this truth.
Also meditate on the truth that VBR is not as well-supported by most MP3 apps and is less reliable. Also meditate on the truth that converting from VBR to some other bitrate is going to cause more flaws than converting from 320 CBR.
Now meditate on the truth that you don't know what you're talking about.
You're missing the point. The only reason they can give a free song is because it has DRM. The only way the DRM works is if it is tied to an Apple account. The only way you can get an Apple account on iTMS is by having a credit card. Requiring the credit card is pretty indirect. Your mistake is in forgetting that these are DRM'd files, like everything else on iTMS.
FF was yesterday, Avril today. Check back for something else tomorrow. You missed yesterday's, sorry.
I hope apple didnt invest too much time/money in this new fixed drm. Will these media pimps ever learn?
This isn't about DRM, it is about access to the music store, sharing, etc. outside of the iTunes application.
And despite the poster's assertion, there's no real reason to think the authentication scheme was intended to break compatibility; as most developers know, sometimes you need to make changes for other reasons that force a break in compatibility. If this WERE about DRM, I'd say it was likely, but I see no reason to think this separate change was deliberate. It may have been, but no one's given any reason to think it.
you could get almost 50% more music using standard vs 320 with no audible difference.
You are *incorrect*. I already said this in the initial post. There sometimes IS an audible difference. Not always, but sometimes.
there's nothing magic about 320kbps mp3 that gaurantees quality you know. it's likely to have the same flaws as a lower bitrate.
Yes, it may have some flaws, and it is lossy. But what you are failing to realize is the *fact* that the lower bitrates *will have more and greater flaws* over my entire collection. Even the lame manpage states this, when it says "CBR 320kbps" is the "highest quality possible from the --preset switches."
If you're still not getting this, well, then that's just sad.
Why would I waste time using different encoding schemes for each album and evaluating them separately? The time I save in not doing that could buy me several additional hard drives, if needed.
Yes, Clutter is what I was referring to. I've not used it in some time, though it appears it has improved a bunch since I first tried it.
Does anybody date the old testament before 250 BC?
Yes. Everyone. The apocrypha -- the books dating between the Old and New Testaments, including the Maccabees etc. -- happened from about 400 B.C. to 0. The Old Testament (the Hebrew Canon) is all stuff from before 400 B.C.
I think you're saying Lame -aps is lower quality than 320 CBR - my point is that it's not generally, 320 CBR MP3 is just a waste of bits
Sometimes it is not lower quality, but sometimes it certainly is, and it is *never* higher. Even the lame manpages say to use CBR 320 for the "absolute highest quality".
if you want high bitrate lossy you're better considering AAC
Not really. At the highest bitrates, the difference between the two are negligible, so I choose the format that is more well-supported by other tools and devices. That's the same reason I choose 160 kbps over 128 AAC, too. Sure, AAC is smaller, but I don't care.
I can't do this right now, but if no one contacts you, email me and I will later (if you give me a one-second sine wave, even better :-).
You either have very few CDs or way too much time on your hands.
... I may try to use one of the third-party utils this time around).
Eh, I just have a box here (well over 200, I don't know how many) and I feed them into my laptop throughout the day. It's not like I need to spend much time on it, unless I am modifying the CDDB info (rare) or doing the album art (not sure about this yet
Yes, I could use something that is lower quality or incompatible with my system. What was I thinking??
The plain AirPort update gives you the firmware update for the base station. You can upload it from the Airport Admin Utility. Maybe I am odd, but I always run the Admin util after upgrading AirPort, to see if there is a firmware update.
No, it's not fair use. When you buy music from Apple you are buying it under a specific contract and by buying it you are accepting the terms of that contract which limits the use of the music. Don't like the terms, don't get it from Apple.
The question is whether violating the DMCA for the purposes of exercising fair use is legal. So far, the courts have said no, but that doesn't mean they will continue to say no. Your comparison to the GPL is abusrd, because the GPL does not restrict any exercise of fair use, whatsoever. Indeed, the GPL asserts your fair use rights.
You apparently don't know what "fair use" is, hence your confusion. You think it means "do anything I want with it." It doesn't.
A shitty analogy, to be sure
Yes, because it misses the point entirely. If you can modify your Ford Escort to go over a rocky mountain pass, would Ford try to stop you? And no one is stealing anything! The music is *already owned by you* (in the same sense as you owning the music you buy on a CD), you are merely circumventing the DRM so you can use it however you see fit (that is, in the same you can use music from your CD). Apple is not even contending that this has anything to do with theft, so why are you?
I get sick of people like you complaining, even though you entered into a business deal and fully understood the terms of use
Terms which likely are not legally enforcable because they restrict existing rights. This is not about the terms of use, this is about the DMCA, which would protect the DRM in FairPlay regardless of any terms of use. If we go by the terms of use, then Apple would really be in trouble, because they are self-contradictory and end up having little if any meaning.
When Apple introduced this service, Steve Jobs said, over and over, "it's your music." Despite the inaccuracy of Apple's CEO's statement, and the accuracy of yours, it is not at all unreasonable for people to assert ownership, at least to the extent of ownership of any other similar media (like CDs), since Apple's CEO characterized it that way first.
im reel good with my quoting. oops. Trying again:
...
Your "complaint" is analogous to me saying that the book publishers are denying me the right to copy my book by putting it in this paper-and-ink format which is not easily copied without a lot of effort.
But your assertion that FairPlay DRM denies you that right is patently absurd.
You're quite wrong. I am not complaining that the "security" technology exists, I am complaining that it is illegal for me to remove it. I am complaining that it is illegal for me to use playfair, under the DMCA, and under the terms of service. It is not FairPlay that denies me the exercise of my rights, it is the legal situation preventing me from removing it. It's true that I sloppily blamed the DRM in the post you replied to, but I quite clearly clarified it later; I thought it was obvious that I was referring to the legal status of the DRM, not the technology itself -- considering the obvious fact that it can be removed with playfair! -- but apparently not.
I know the difference is subtle, and hard to grasp -- even for an Anonymous Coward who touts his logical skillz -- but it's important. Your entire argument against my argument here is missing my actual point.