Does it mean Apple will use new Intel CPUs as soon as they'll be available ?
I believe Apple has publicly said if you want to know what kind of Macs they'll be releasing over the next few years, look at Intel's processor roadmap.
That United States spam laws are working really well. I was going to say why bash on the ISP's and just have tough criminal/civil penalties. I seldom get spam I have to sort through.
I'd have to say you've been under a false impression. I run a very small mail server at home for family and friends, and it blocks thousands of spams every week. With my own mailbox, an average of about four spams a day make it through all my filters without getting blocked - certainly better than it used to be, but that's because I've set up more complex filtering, not because of anything the government has done.
Sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about.
Second method is too expensive to implement by ISPs, ie, check all packets pass thru the ISP for known IP addresses of sites they want to block.
Many ISPs use caching proxy servers such as Squid because it makes things CHEAPER for the ISP. Squid cuts down on bandwidth usage, while improving speed - I even use it on my LAN at home. Some ISPs silently redirect all traffic on port 80 through a proxy server transparently, so customers don't have to set anything up; WPAD is a better alternative.
I wrote a redirect script for Squid called BannerFilter, which blocks advertisements. Several ISPs are using it.
Tomahawk Desktop is probably the first desktop Operating System comes with its own DNS server. Therefore, Tomahawk Desktop, does not use your ISP's DNS server. It does its own DNS resolution. Its too expensive to block the Tomahawk Desktop:)
Just because it happens to be the first one you've encountered, doesn't mean it's the first one. Most Linux distributions ship with BIND, although it's not usually enabled by default because it's not normally a good idea on a desktop system (DNS resolution will be faster if you use your ISP's DNS servers, unless your ISP sucks ass).
The problem is that Joker usually doesn't appear concerned about the activities it's customers engage in (AUP notwithstanding), so it might be that someone out there saw one too many popup or phishing scam coming out of a Joker domain and got no satisfaction at the abuse desk.
So, when you find that the spammy domains are registered through Joker... do you report them to Joker as AUP violations? If so, what kind of response do you get? If not, how can they be expected to take action?
The only domains that I've seen Joker as a registrar for are spammy websites and DNS hosts, it serves them right. Joker isn't known as the world's most reputable domain registrar.
And most of the domains that I've seen Joker as a registrar for, including my own, are legitimate sites. They're inexpensive, have good customer service, and don't try to treat their customers like complete morons (Network Solutions used to refer to TLDs as "web extensions" and other such nonsense that actually made it difficult to find what I was looking for on their site).
(Written on an iBook G4 w/10.3, as someone still running a Powermac 6100 with OS 8.6 in my study...but that's because I'm cheap, not because I think it was great.)
Dude, System 7.6 is much faster than 8.6 on a 6100!;-)
Any of those things that were added on later were major hacks to the system. Some, like the non-preemptive MultiFinder (switcher) were ingenious hacks, but hacks nontheless.
One of my favorite hacks, introduced with System 7.1, is the Fonts folder.
Prior to System 7.1, all fonts were resources stored in the System suitcase. Since the System suitcase is always open, its resources are available to all applications, so any application can use any fonts that are in the System suitcase. If you were to use ResEdit to copy a font resource into a text file and open it in SimpleText, the font would be available in SimpleText as long as the document was open, even if the font was not installed in the System.
Prior to System 7, the typical way of managing them was to use the Font/DA Mover application to move font and desk accessory resources between suitcase files; System 7 added support for this in the Finder. A bit of trivia: the only time you'll ever see a "Move" progress bar in the Finder is when moving something into/out of a suitcase, since there's no UI to move a file between volumes (you can only copy, then delete later).
System 7.1 introduced the Fonts folder. All resources in any file placed in the Fonts folder that looks like it should be a font (i.e. a font file or a font suitcase) will be loaded as if they were in the System suitcase, and accessible to all applications. Notice I said all resources, not just all font resources. So, if you were to create an empty font suitcase, and use ResEdit to copy non-font resources (such as icons) to it, then drop the font suitcase in the Fonts folder, all those resources will be loaded as if they were in the System suitcase.
Before OSX, the mac had the reputation of the machine that crashed all the time. By comparison, Windows was actually pretty reliable (this was before all the spyware/malware/crap that affects it recently, remember). Linux was best, of course...
Windows NT/2k/XP are stable, sure. Win95/98/ME were not. When I've had to use Win95/98 for work, I usually had to reboot twice a day (once in the morning, once during my lunch break) because Windows couldn't last through a typical eight-hour workday without crashing. Mac OS 9 was much more stable than Win95/98.
My iMac G3/450 with 768MB RAM is much slower running 10.3 than 9.1. However, it doesn't multitask very nicely under OS9, and of course there's plenty of software it can't run on OS9. There's no question about the speed difference, though. OSX isn't quick.
Right, that's what I was talking about - if your only way of trying to authenticate is via their web site, then it doesn't matter if they encrypt the data on the server or not. Since we're talking about cracking encryption, I was assuming you had access to the encrypted data.
A brute-force crack with only 10,000 possibilities to choose from? Not gonna take very long (assuming you know the hashing algorithm). At ten per second, that's under 17 minutes. If you're running something faster than a 486, you can probably check a hash faster than ten per second.
I got a Motorola V551 from Cingular, and a cheap USB Bluetooth adapter. Works great. I can transfer ringtones as MP3 files to the phone, and transfer photos as JPEGs back. iSync on Mac OS X syncs it with my Address Book and iCal, which kicks ass.
I would not recommend this specific phone to any serious geek, because apparently it cannot run network applications such as an SSH client or a decent web browser. It does include a WAP browser, and it can check e-mail over SSL-encrypted IMAP (or a variety of other things); unfortunately it doesn't like my SSL certificate, but I'll be getting a different one when this one expires anyway.
My point is, you DON'T have to pay somebody for ring tones and downloading pictures, if you get a phone that doesn't completely suck ass.
Otherwise, you all are infringing on an undisclosed thought that I am having
Well, at least patents do have to be disclosed. Apparently you no longer have to disclose how it works, but you do have to disclose what it does, in terms that are vague enough not to let your competitors know what you're up to but specific enough not to apply to obvious prior art.
Patents are supposed to be a trade-off: you tell us how it works, and we won't let anyone else make it for awhile.
First, Apple would close iTMS in France because its contracts require it to distribute music with FairPlay. Second, saying it's illegal to redistribute is one thing. Enforcement is something else entirely.
I didn't see anything saying Apple would no longer be able to distribute music with FairPlay, only that customers who purchased FairPlay-DRM'd music would be able to remove the DRM encryption after making their purchase.
You're misunderstanding Mr. Guez. He is against the law (note his affiliation), and he is arguing that if this law is passed, ordinary people will have the ability to illegally send the non-DRM'd content around the world, and thus Apple would close its French iTunes store. To him, this is a reason why the law should not be passed. In the original story, the previous paragraph explained this.
Alright, yes, if this law passes, it will become easier to remove DRM encryption, because the tools to do so will become legal and therefore the tools will become more readily available. So, sure, it would become easier to illegally redistribute copyrighted materials. I can't see why Apple would close the French iTMS for this reason, though. If France actually made it legal to redistribute the songs, then Apple might have a problem.
Short quotes from wire stories should not be taken out of context to criticize the story's author.
I don't believe I took anything out of context. I did quote the previous paragraph as well.
Fnac is a quite powerfull culture oriented retail group that has setup their own music file format. The point is that FNAC is one of the biggest music product seller in France. It has been proven by testers that Fnac salespersons were "not pushing at all" the Apple products and trying to push the products that were compatible with the online Fnac music store !
The law is just adding more anti-trust principles on digital music, so that corporate trust can not force people to by their own product and can not force the the people to by only at their shop.
Thanks for the background info. The intent here sounds good, but I'm still confused as to what Fnac would be forced to do. Offer non-DRM AAC or MP3 versions of songs customers purchase from Fnac, which the copyright holders won't let them do? Offer FairPlay-encrypted DRM versions, which Apple won't let them do? Link to the iTMS?
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, of course, sorry - I actually meant "Quartz 2D Extreme", not "Quartz Extreme". Description here.
If it needed DX10 there would be about six machines in the world capable of running it right now. Just go try buying a DX10 video card.
;-)
No problem - Vista isn't shipping until 2007, so it doesn't matter what machines can run it today!
I seem to remember seeing that Quartz Extreme essentially requires a graphics card that supports DirectX 9, which all current Macs should have.
Does it mean Apple will use new Intel CPUs as soon as they'll be available ?
I believe Apple has publicly said if you want to know what kind of Macs they'll be releasing over the next few years, look at Intel's processor roadmap.
Whoa, dude, relax. If you took that seriously, maybe you need a vacation.
Are there any photographs of the MSFT Jim Thatcher?
No, like many Microsoft representatives, he cannot be photographed. Also, his reflection does not appear in mirrors.
That United States spam laws are working really well. I was going to say why bash on the ISP's and just have tough criminal/civil penalties. I seldom get spam I have to sort through.
I'd have to say you've been under a false impression. I run a very small mail server at home for family and friends, and it blocks thousands of spams every week. With my own mailbox, an average of about four spams a day make it through all my filters without getting blocked - certainly better than it used to be, but that's because I've set up more complex filtering, not because of anything the government has done.
I think you mean Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing?
Sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about.
:)
Second method is too expensive to implement by ISPs, ie, check all packets pass thru the ISP for known IP addresses of sites they want to block.
Many ISPs use caching proxy servers such as Squid because it makes things CHEAPER for the ISP. Squid cuts down on bandwidth usage, while improving speed - I even use it on my LAN at home. Some ISPs silently redirect all traffic on port 80 through a proxy server transparently, so customers don't have to set anything up; WPAD is a better alternative.
I wrote a redirect script for Squid called BannerFilter, which blocks advertisements. Several ISPs are using it.
Tomahawk Desktop is probably the first desktop Operating System comes with its own DNS server. Therefore, Tomahawk Desktop, does not use your ISP's DNS server. It does its own DNS resolution. Its too expensive to block the Tomahawk Desktop
Just because it happens to be the first one you've encountered, doesn't mean it's the first one. Most Linux distributions ship with BIND, although it's not usually enabled by default because it's not normally a good idea on a desktop system (DNS resolution will be faster if you use your ISP's DNS servers, unless your ISP sucks ass).
The problem is that Joker usually doesn't appear concerned about the activities it's customers engage in (AUP notwithstanding), so it might be that someone out there saw one too many popup or phishing scam coming out of a Joker domain and got no satisfaction at the abuse desk.
So, when you find that the spammy domains are registered through Joker... do you report them to Joker as AUP violations? If so, what kind of response do you get? If not, how can they be expected to take action?
The only domains that I've seen Joker as a registrar for are spammy websites and DNS hosts, it serves them right. Joker isn't known as the world's most reputable domain registrar.
And most of the domains that I've seen Joker as a registrar for, including my own, are legitimate sites. They're inexpensive, have good customer service, and don't try to treat their customers like complete morons (Network Solutions used to refer to TLDs as "web extensions" and other such nonsense that actually made it difficult to find what I was looking for on their site).
(Written on an iBook G4 w/10.3, as someone still running a Powermac 6100 with OS 8.6 in my study...but that's because I'm cheap, not because I think it was great.)
;-)
Dude, System 7.6 is much faster than 8.6 on a 6100!
Any of those things that were added on later were major hacks to the system. Some, like the non-preemptive MultiFinder (switcher) were ingenious hacks, but hacks nontheless.
One of my favorite hacks, introduced with System 7.1, is the Fonts folder.
Prior to System 7.1, all fonts were resources stored in the System suitcase. Since the System suitcase is always open, its resources are available to all applications, so any application can use any fonts that are in the System suitcase. If you were to use ResEdit to copy a font resource into a text file and open it in SimpleText, the font would be available in SimpleText as long as the document was open, even if the font was not installed in the System.
Prior to System 7, the typical way of managing them was to use the Font/DA Mover application to move font and desk accessory resources between suitcase files; System 7 added support for this in the Finder. A bit of trivia: the only time you'll ever see a "Move" progress bar in the Finder is when moving something into/out of a suitcase, since there's no UI to move a file between volumes (you can only copy, then delete later).
System 7.1 introduced the Fonts folder. All resources in any file placed in the Fonts folder that looks like it should be a font (i.e. a font file or a font suitcase) will be loaded as if they were in the System suitcase, and accessible to all applications. Notice I said all resources, not just all font resources. So, if you were to create an empty font suitcase, and use ResEdit to copy non-font resources (such as icons) to it, then drop the font suitcase in the Fonts folder, all those resources will be loaded as if they were in the System suitcase.
Yeah, I'm a Mac nerd.
Before OSX, the mac had the reputation of the machine that crashed all the time. By comparison, Windows was actually pretty reliable (this was before all the spyware/malware/crap that affects it recently, remember). Linux was best, of course...
Windows NT/2k/XP are stable, sure. Win95/98/ME were not. When I've had to use Win95/98 for work, I usually had to reboot twice a day (once in the morning, once during my lunch break) because Windows couldn't last through a typical eight-hour workday without crashing. Mac OS 9 was much more stable than Win95/98.
I don't believe you.
My iMac G3/450 with 768MB RAM is much slower running 10.3 than 9.1. However, it doesn't multitask very nicely under OS9, and of course there's plenty of software it can't run on OS9. There's no question about the speed difference, though. OSX isn't quick.
Right, that's what I was talking about - if your only way of trying to authenticate is via their web site, then it doesn't matter if they encrypt the data on the server or not. Since we're talking about cracking encryption, I was assuming you had access to the encrypted data.
A brute-force crack with only 10,000 possibilities to choose from? Not gonna take very long (assuming you know the hashing algorithm). At ten per second, that's under 17 minutes. If you're running something faster than a 486, you can probably check a hash faster than ten per second.
Amazon is obvious to the customer about it. OTOH, these stores are doing it without the cust knowing.
More specifically, they're doing it without the storesknowing.
I got a Motorola V551 from Cingular, and a cheap USB Bluetooth adapter. Works great. I can transfer ringtones as MP3 files to the phone, and transfer photos as JPEGs back. iSync on Mac OS X syncs it with my Address Book and iCal, which kicks ass.
I would not recommend this specific phone to any serious geek, because apparently it cannot run network applications such as an SSH client or a decent web browser. It does include a WAP browser, and it can check e-mail over SSL-encrypted IMAP (or a variety of other things); unfortunately it doesn't like my SSL certificate, but I'll be getting a different one when this one expires anyway.
My point is, you DON'T have to pay somebody for ring tones and downloading pictures, if you get a phone that doesn't completely suck ass.
Get off my lawn, you damn kids!
Otherwise, you all are infringing on an undisclosed thought that I am having
Well, at least patents do have to be disclosed. Apparently you no longer have to disclose how it works, but you do have to disclose what it does, in terms that are vague enough not to let your competitors know what you're up to but specific enough not to apply to obvious prior art.
Patents are supposed to be a trade-off: you tell us how it works, and we won't let anyone else make it for awhile.
First, Apple would close iTMS in France because its contracts require it to distribute music with FairPlay. Second, saying it's illegal to redistribute is one thing. Enforcement is something else entirely.
I didn't see anything saying Apple would no longer be able to distribute music with FairPlay, only that customers who purchased FairPlay-DRM'd music would be able to remove the DRM encryption after making their purchase.
I would be very amused if they kept the iTMS open, but used it to sell non-DRM music, only from independent artists who permitted them to do so.
You're misunderstanding Mr. Guez. He is against the law (note his affiliation), and he is arguing that if this law is passed, ordinary people will have the ability to illegally send the non-DRM'd content around the world, and thus Apple would close its French iTunes store. To him, this is a reason why the law should not be passed. In the original story, the previous paragraph explained this.
Alright, yes, if this law passes, it will become easier to remove DRM encryption, because the tools to do so will become legal and therefore the tools will become more readily available. So, sure, it would become easier to illegally redistribute copyrighted materials. I can't see why Apple would close the French iTMS for this reason, though. If France actually made it legal to redistribute the songs, then Apple might have a problem.
Short quotes from wire stories should not be taken out of context to criticize the story's author.
I don't believe I took anything out of context. I did quote the previous paragraph as well.
Fnac is a quite powerfull culture oriented retail group that has setup their own music file format. The point is that FNAC is one of the biggest music product seller in France. It has been proven by testers that Fnac salespersons were "not pushing at all" the Apple products and trying to push the products that were compatible with the online Fnac music store !
The law is just adding more anti-trust principles on digital music, so that corporate trust can not force people to by their own product and can not force the the people to by only at their shop.
Thanks for the background info. The intent here sounds good, but I'm still confused as to what Fnac would be forced to do. Offer non-DRM AAC or MP3 versions of songs customers purchase from Fnac, which the copyright holders won't let them do? Offer FairPlay-encrypted DRM versions, which Apple won't let them do? Link to the iTMS?