More iPod units out, but possibly less iPod brand recognition? It says it's similar, but I'm curious how the iPod and hpPod differ. I guess it's good for Apple, as hpPod users will probably use the iTMS.
As far as I know, the only difference is the addition of an HP logo next to the Apple logo on the back. And HP already ships iTunes pre-installed on new PCs.
You will be able to print your own skin for the ipod. I think its funny that people would normaly download skins for their software mp3 players like winamp. Now you will be downloading and printing new skins for your hardware mp3 player.
I wonder if anyone will print an iPod skin that looks like the default WinAmp skin....
The HP model will come with 1 year of free phone support where I believe Apple's is 90 days.
Apple recently changed their iPod phone support from 90 days to one free incident, so this is indeed a legitimate reason to choose HP.
Note that one free incident may be better than 90 days free support, if the incident occurs after 90 days. (I'm assuming it's one free incident within the first year, not during the first 90 days; I could be mistaken). Also note that one incident doesn't mean one phone call.
Price the same, looks the same, functionality the same, brand - uncool. Most people buy iPod because it's The iPod, not some obscure unknown mp3 player. (yes, there are cheaper, lighter, more robust, better players. It's just the great marketing hype and iTunes that make iPod "cool".) Why would anyone choose the "iPod copy" if they can get "iPod original" from the "cool" Apple at the same cost?
This isn't an iPod copy, this is an iPod. It just happens to be sold by HP, and they added an HP logo to the back, right underneath the Apple logo.
Well, can you do a USB RAID on x86 hardware? I've read about a five-USB-floppy OS X (IIRC, it might have been OS 9) RAID, but never anything on x86.
It was OSX, using the included software RAID tools. Windows XP should be able to do it, but refused to do it with floppies; I don't know if it would handle USB hard drives. Linux would have no problem. Remember the whole point of software RAID is that it's all done in software; being x86 or not has absolutely no relevance. It just depends on whether your OS can do it. Linux can.
This makes me wonder, is it possible to do this sort of thing off an iPod? think of the possibilities.
I don't see why not. Macs can do it, booting from FireWire. I'd expect any PC that can boot from USB or FireWire should be able to boot from an iPod with no trouble. As someone else pointed out, the included bootable CD that makes it work on PCs that can't boot directly from USB is really the key, and of course it shouldn't be hard to make one of those.
The.com and.net TLDs were originally created by the US government,
Nope.
Alright, fill me in. I didn't mean that they were created by the Commerce Department or that Congress was directly involved, but ARPANET was a USDOD project originally, yes? I consider that to be part of the government. Who created the.com and.net TLDs?
Tangentially. Congress is responsibe, it's delegated to the DoC.
Ah, sorry. My mistake.
They wouldn't know how.
Precisely.
NSI was doing this years before the DoC got their grubby paws on it.
Hmm. Ohhhh, it was NSF before DoC, right? And NSF contracted with NSI?
Aye carumba. I give up. Please learn what really happened.
Yeah, I think I was pretty tired when I wrote that last bit. Sorry. Perhaps you could post a more accurate account?
Maybe someone can fill me in, I have been following this, but I still don't get how one company can control all the.com and.net domains....Isn't that illegal?
There has to be one central Registry for each TLD, to make sure different people can't register the same domain, and to operate the authoritative nameservers for that TLD. The.com and.net TLDs were originally created by the US government, and the US Department of Commerce is the organization ultimately responsible for managing them. Since the Commerce Dept would prefer not to handle this themselves, they contracted with a private company (Network Solutions) to do it for them. Since this wasn't going so well and different organizations were managing different things, a private non-profit company was established (ICANN), and the Commerce Dept handed control over to ICANN. ICANN then contracted with Network Solutions to continue to operate the domain registry for.com and.net domains, but has been making some changes (such as transferring the.edu and.org TLDs to other registries, and introducing new TLDs like.info and.biz).
What VeriSign was originally supposed to do was manage the.com,.net &.org domain extensions. In and of itself, that isn't a monopoly service, all they had to do was make sure registrars didn't double-dip on domain addresses and things like that. It wasn't until VeriSign bought Network Solutions, however, that a conflict of interest came up. *Then* VeriSign became both the manager of the gTLDs and it's own customer.
Sorry, you're a little backwards. Network Solutions operated the Registry for.com and.net (and.org and.edu), in addition to being a registrar (in fact, the only registrar for these TLDs before five years ago) before Verisign bought them in 2000. Over the next three years, the Registry and NSI registrar were separated, and Verisign sold off the Registrar while continuing to operate the Registry themselves.
Makes me glad I use iTunes on a Mac. At least Apple doesn't decide *for me* that I NEED an insecure web browser in EVERY APPLICATION on the operating system.
I realize you're trolling, but I'm bored...
Yes, Apple DOES decide for you that you need a web browser in every application on the operating system. Is it insecure? Well, not that we know of right now, because Apple patches the holes when they're found, just like Microsoft does (but yes, Apple's browser does have fewer security holes than Microsoft's).
Safari is 13MB, 10.1MB of which is localized text (for menus, dialog boxes, etc.) for languages other than English. It would be less than 3MB if you stripped that out (and you can get a program to do that for you, system-wide, if you want). Why? Because it doesn't include the HTML rendering engine.
The fact that OS X has not yet had one critical exploit speaks for itself. (And yes, OS 7-8 *did* have quite a few exploits and viruses.)
In Mac OS X's history--four and a half years--we've had 43 security updates fixing security issues, but only 2% of them were critical. In Windows XP, which has been around for less time, they've had 77 security updates but 66% of them were critical in terms of the industry's nomenclature.
By the way, if you're interested in the HTML rendering engine that Apple includes in Mac OS X and makes available to all applications (just like Microsoft does), the source code is here (it's LGPL). OK, so that's not like Microsoft.;-)
You are aware iTunes installs massive (many MB) services that start at bootup you have no need of don't you?
Some of these are required to make certain features work. If you don't want those features, fine - disable the services.
You're aware it blindly installs the iPod service, whether you have an iPod or not right?
Of course Apple does this to make it easier for iPod owners to use their iPods, and a lot of people are buying iPods. If you don't own one and don't plan to buy one (and don't have friends who own them), disable the service!
If I remember the last time I looked at it ALSO installed Quicktime, which is one of the worst behaved Windows installs of a media utility in well, pretty much ever.
There's a damn good reason why it installs QuickTime. QuickTime is a media layer. Guess what iTunes does? Plays media. Guess how? By using QuickTime. Think of iTunes as simply a shell on top of QuickTime.
Worst behaved in what way? The QuickTime Pro $30 upgrade nag screen? Yeah, that sucks ass. Tip: set your clock forward several years, launch QuickTime Player, click "Later", fix your clock. When you click "Later", it adds a registry entry with tomorrow's date, and won't bug you again until then.
Oh yeah, and I think it drops a "Get QuickTime Pro" movie on your desktop. At least it used to do that. Annoying, but I believe the above trick works with that too.
And Quicktime btw, also installs services you have absolutely no need of.
Click the systray icon, open QuickTime Preferences, choose Browser Plugin from the menu, uncheck the last box. Why it's listed under Browser Plugin, I don't know.
So, to sum up: 1) iTunes installs services needed for features you don't intend to use, such as iPod support and CD burning 2) QuickTime puts an icon in the systray, which is easy to disable 3) QuickTime drops a movie on your desktop and nags about paying $30 when you launch QuickTime Player, which sucks ass, but isn't an issue if all you're using is iTunes.
So yeah, those are some legitimate complaints. Did you have any others?
By the way, on Mac OS X, iTunes doesn't run those extra services (because they're handled by the OS itself), and doesn't install QuickTime (because it's already installed), and QuickTime doesn't put an icon in the systray (because that's... retarded).
...they can't read your propritory file format document. Could you send it as text or XML instead?
Um, nobody asks for XML. They ask for plain text, RTF, or PDF. Of these, RTF is usually the best compromise. It preserves most formatting, and is compatible with everything. PDF is usually harder to make (unless you're using Mac OS X, where it's as easy as printing).
So, no, XML still doesn't matter to typical users.
Bzzt! wrong, sorry. Unless you're using xhtml (which he isn't, and shouldn't be), HTML tags are case-insensitive. And the character set may be provided by an HTTP header rather than a meta tag...
Can you point to a modern case where the congress or even a state legislature has been successful in censuring a judge or reversing the decision?
What about when the FTC announced they would be establishing a national Do Not Call list, the Supreme Court said the FTC didn't have the authority to do so. So Congress clarified the law, and the FTC went ahead. That's an example of the system working the way it's supposed to.
You marked my last post as Flamebait and rejected my last story about the secrecy behind the companies who are doing testing for the touch-screen voting but post a dupe of a previous story so knock yourselves out.
On Slashdot, moderators are just other Slashdot readers; editors are the people who run the site and have the ability to post articles. So, no, the people who mod you down (moderators, i.e. your peers) did not post this dupe. In the case of unfair moderation, meta-moderators (also just regular Slashdot readers) can mark the moderation as unfair, and the moderator loses karma, which makes them less likely to be selected as a moderator in the future.
Daddypants is the e-mail address subscribers are supposed to send e-mail to if we notice a duplicate (or otherwise problematic) article is about to be posted. If the editors aren't going to bother to read Slashdot to see what has already been posted recently, why won't they at least check this e-mail account to see if anyone actually reports problems?
I agree. Notice that Classic apps use the Platinum theme (or whatever other theme you select in the Appearance control panel), rather than trying to make them look like native OSX apps.
(yeah, the Classic menu bar is two pixels taller than it is under native Mac OS 9, but nobody cares.)
What do you mean, "this time"? They fought back the first time, as soon as they knew what was happening.
Right, which is why the fourth plane didn't crash into the White House or wherever it was heading. But, if a plane were to be hijacked like that again, passengers and crew would be more prepared for it than they were the last time. Terrorists know this.
I definitely think they should be and that there should be term limits of say 10 years. This way you would get 3 presidential terms.
If judges were elected, they would run for office, and be susceptible to corporate bribery, just like the Legislature is now.
Judges have become "in control" in this country - changing the law and bastardizing it's interpretations. The majority also are behind the times and understand very little about modern era politics/technology/social issues.
I don't think they're "in control" any more than they're supposed to be. The Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches are supposed to be roughly equal. If a judge misinterprets a law, Congress can clarify the law, the Attorney General can order various agencies not to arrest or prosecute criminals under the misinterpreted law, and the President can pardon those wrongfully convicted.
I'd rather have judges be "behind the times" and apply old laws to new situations, than have them think things are somehow fundamentally different when you add the phrase "on the Internet" to the end of something, or react to the ever-fluctuating will of the uninformed American public while campaigning for reelection. It's not the court system's job to change laws to suit changing times, but to interpret the intentions of the lawmakers. If they're not doing it correctly, the solution is not to change how the Judicial branch operates, but to appoint new judges who will perform their duties more responsibly.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple's Ipod force is brand recognition... ...which is why HP is calling it an iPod, not calling it something lame like "The HP Digital Jukebox".
More iPod units out, but possibly less iPod brand recognition? It says it's similar, but I'm curious how the iPod and hpPod differ. I guess it's good for Apple, as hpPod users will probably use the iTMS.
As far as I know, the only difference is the addition of an HP logo next to the Apple logo on the back. And HP already ships iTunes pre-installed on new PCs.
You will be able to print your own skin for the ipod. I think its funny that people would normaly download skins for their software mp3 players like winamp. Now you will be downloading and printing new skins for your hardware mp3 player.
I wonder if anyone will print an iPod skin that looks like the default WinAmp skin....
it even has the Apple logo instead of an HP one
It has an HP logo next to the Apple logo.
The HP model will come with 1 year of free phone support where I believe Apple's is 90 days.
Apple recently changed their iPod phone support from 90 days to one free incident, so this is indeed a legitimate reason to choose HP.
Note that one free incident may be better than 90 days free support, if the incident occurs after 90 days. (I'm assuming it's one free incident within the first year, not during the first 90 days; I could be mistaken). Also note that one incident doesn't mean one phone call.
Price the same, looks the same, functionality the same, brand - uncool. Most people buy iPod because it's The iPod, not some obscure unknown mp3 player. (yes, there are cheaper, lighter, more robust, better players. It's just the great marketing hype and iTunes that make iPod "cool".) Why would anyone choose the "iPod copy" if they can get "iPod original" from the "cool" Apple at the same cost?
This isn't an iPod copy, this is an iPod. It just happens to be sold by HP, and they added an HP logo to the back, right underneath the Apple logo.
Maybe because everybody was calling it "strangled corpse blue" instead. ;-)
Well, can you do a USB RAID on x86 hardware? I've read about a five-USB-floppy OS X (IIRC, it might have been OS 9) RAID, but never anything on x86.
It was OSX, using the included software RAID tools. Windows XP should be able to do it, but refused to do it with floppies; I don't know if it would handle USB hard drives. Linux would have no problem. Remember the whole point of software RAID is that it's all done in software; being x86 or not has absolutely no relevance. It just depends on whether your OS can do it. Linux can.
This makes me wonder, is it possible to do this sort of thing off an iPod? think of the possibilities.
I don't see why not. Macs can do it, booting from FireWire. I'd expect any PC that can boot from USB or FireWire should be able to boot from an iPod with no trouble. As someone else pointed out, the included bootable CD that makes it work on PCs that can't boot directly from USB is really the key, and of course it shouldn't be hard to make one of those.
The .com and .net TLDs were originally created by the US government,
.com and .net TLDs?
Nope.
Alright, fill me in. I didn't mean that they were created by the Commerce Department or that Congress was directly involved, but ARPANET was a USDOD project originally, yes? I consider that to be part of the government. Who created the
Tangentially. Congress is responsibe, it's delegated to the DoC.
Ah, sorry. My mistake.
They wouldn't know how.
Precisely.
NSI was doing this years before the DoC got their grubby paws on it.
Hmm. Ohhhh, it was NSF before DoC, right? And NSF contracted with NSI?
Aye carumba. I give up. Please learn what really happened.
Yeah, I think I was pretty tired when I wrote that last bit. Sorry. Perhaps you could post a more accurate account?
And: what do you need flash or MNG/APNG for if all you want is a red/green-annoyance? To make really good fakes of Luna GUI elements?
GIF and PNG work fine for me...
And the fact that ICANN is a monopoly doesn't bother you?
No more than the fact that the US government is a monopoly bothers me.
Maybe someone can fill me in, I have been following this, but I still don't get how one company can control all the .com and .net domains....Isn't that illegal?
.com and .net TLDs were originally created by the US government, and the US Department of Commerce is the organization ultimately responsible for managing them. Since the Commerce Dept would prefer not to handle this themselves, they contracted with a private company (Network Solutions) to do it for them. Since this wasn't going so well and different organizations were managing different things, a private non-profit company was established (ICANN), and the Commerce Dept handed control over to ICANN. ICANN then contracted with Network Solutions to continue to operate the domain registry for .com and .net domains, but has been making some changes (such as transferring the .edu and .org TLDs to other registries, and introducing new TLDs like .info and .biz).
There has to be one central Registry for each TLD, to make sure different people can't register the same domain, and to operate the authoritative nameservers for that TLD. The
Does that clear things up at all?
What VeriSign was originally supposed to do was manage the .com, .net & .org domain extensions. In and of itself, that isn't a monopoly service, all they had to do was make sure registrars didn't double-dip on domain addresses and things like that. It wasn't until VeriSign bought Network Solutions, however, that a conflict of interest came up. *Then* VeriSign became both the manager of the gTLDs and it's own customer.
.com and .net (and .org and .edu), in addition to being a registrar (in fact, the only registrar for these TLDs before five years ago) before Verisign bought them in 2000. Over the next three years, the Registry and NSI registrar were separated, and Verisign sold off the Registrar while continuing to operate the Registry themselves.
Sorry, you're a little backwards. Network Solutions operated the Registry for
I realize you're trolling, but I'm bored...
Yes, Apple DOES decide for you that you need a web browser in every application on the operating system. Is it insecure? Well, not that we know of right now, because Apple patches the holes when they're found, just like Microsoft does (but yes, Apple's browser does have fewer security holes than Microsoft's).
Safari is 13MB, 10.1MB of which is localized text (for menus, dialog boxes, etc.) for languages other than English. It would be less than 3MB if you stripped that out (and you can get a program to do that for you, system-wide, if you want). Why? Because it doesn't include the HTML rendering engine.
The fact that OS X has not yet had one critical exploit speaks for itself. (And yes, OS 7-8 *did* have quite a few exploits and viruses.)
Wrong again. According to Steve Jobs:
By the way, if you're interested in the HTML rendering engine that Apple includes in Mac OS X and makes available to all applications (just like Microsoft does), the source code is here (it's LGPL). OK, so that's not like Microsoft.
You are aware iTunes installs massive (many MB) services that start at bootup you have no need of don't you?
Some of these are required to make certain features work. If you don't want those features, fine - disable the services.
You're aware it blindly installs the iPod service, whether you have an iPod or not right?
Of course Apple does this to make it easier for iPod owners to use their iPods, and a lot of people are buying iPods. If you don't own one and don't plan to buy one (and don't have friends who own them), disable the service!
If I remember the last time I looked at it ALSO installed Quicktime, which is one of the worst behaved Windows installs of a media utility in well, pretty much ever.
There's a damn good reason why it installs QuickTime. QuickTime is a media layer. Guess what iTunes does? Plays media. Guess how? By using QuickTime. Think of iTunes as simply a shell on top of QuickTime.
Worst behaved in what way? The QuickTime Pro $30 upgrade nag screen? Yeah, that sucks ass. Tip: set your clock forward several years, launch QuickTime Player, click "Later", fix your clock. When you click "Later", it adds a registry entry with tomorrow's date, and won't bug you again until then.
Oh yeah, and I think it drops a "Get QuickTime Pro" movie on your desktop. At least it used to do that. Annoying, but I believe the above trick works with that too.
And Quicktime btw, also installs services you have absolutely no need of.
Click the systray icon, open QuickTime Preferences, choose Browser Plugin from the menu, uncheck the last box. Why it's listed under Browser Plugin, I don't know.
So, to sum up:
1) iTunes installs services needed for features you don't intend to use, such as iPod support and CD burning
2) QuickTime puts an icon in the systray, which is easy to disable
3) QuickTime drops a movie on your desktop and nags about paying $30 when you launch QuickTime Player, which sucks ass, but isn't an issue if all you're using is iTunes.
So yeah, those are some legitimate complaints. Did you have any others?
By the way, on Mac OS X, iTunes doesn't run those extra services (because they're handled by the OS itself), and doesn't install QuickTime (because it's already installed), and QuickTime doesn't put an icon in the systray (because that's... retarded).
...they can't read your propritory file format document. Could you send it as text or XML instead?
Um, nobody asks for XML. They ask for plain text, RTF, or PDF. Of these, RTF is usually the best compromise. It preserves most formatting, and is compatible with everything. PDF is usually harder to make (unless you're using Mac OS X, where it's as easy as printing).
So, no, XML still doesn't matter to typical users.
you need to lowercase all your tags
Bzzt! wrong, sorry. Unless you're using xhtml (which he isn't, and shouldn't be), HTML tags are case-insensitive. And the character set may be provided by an HTTP header rather than a meta tag...
Can you point to a modern case where the congress or even a state legislature has been successful in censuring a judge or reversing the decision?
What about when the FTC announced they would be establishing a national Do Not Call list, the Supreme Court said the FTC didn't have the authority to do so. So Congress clarified the law, and the FTC went ahead. That's an example of the system working the way it's supposed to.
You marked my last post as Flamebait and rejected my last story about the secrecy behind the companies who are doing testing for the touch-screen voting but post a dupe of a previous story so knock yourselves out.
On Slashdot, moderators are just other Slashdot readers; editors are the people who run the site and have the ability to post articles. So, no, the people who mod you down (moderators, i.e. your peers) did not post this dupe. In the case of unfair moderation, meta-moderators (also just regular Slashdot readers) can mark the moderation as unfair, and the moderator loses karma, which makes them less likely to be selected as a moderator in the future.
Daddypants is the e-mail address subscribers are supposed to send e-mail to if we notice a duplicate (or otherwise problematic) article is about to be posted. If the editors aren't going to bother to read Slashdot to see what has already been posted recently, why won't they at least check this e-mail account to see if anyone actually reports problems?
Well, GNUStep runs on top of x11. I was thinking about a project that would also replace x11 completely with Quartz backend.
Then you're not talking about cloning Cocoa, you're talking about cloning Quartz. Huge difference.
Start with GNUStep and GhostScript, and work from there.
I agree. Notice that Classic apps use the Platinum theme (or whatever other theme you select in the Appearance control panel), rather than trying to make them look like native OSX apps.
(yeah, the Classic menu bar is two pixels taller than it is under native Mac OS 9, but nobody cares.)
What do you mean, "this time"? They fought back the first time, as soon as they knew what was happening.
Right, which is why the fourth plane didn't crash into the White House or wherever it was heading. But, if a plane were to be hijacked like that again, passengers and crew would be more prepared for it than they were the last time. Terrorists know this.
I definitely think they should be and that there should be term limits of say 10 years. This way you would get 3 presidential terms.
If judges were elected, they would run for office, and be susceptible to corporate bribery, just like the Legislature is now.
Judges have become "in control" in this country - changing the law and bastardizing it's interpretations. The majority also are behind the times and understand very little about modern era politics/technology/social issues.
I don't think they're "in control" any more than they're supposed to be. The Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches are supposed to be roughly equal. If a judge misinterprets a law, Congress can clarify the law, the Attorney General can order various agencies not to arrest or prosecute criminals under the misinterpreted law, and the President can pardon those wrongfully convicted.
I'd rather have judges be "behind the times" and apply old laws to new situations, than have them think things are somehow fundamentally different when you add the phrase "on the Internet" to the end of something, or react to the ever-fluctuating will of the uninformed American public while campaigning for reelection. It's not the court system's job to change laws to suit changing times, but to interpret the intentions of the lawmakers. If they're not doing it correctly, the solution is not to change how the Judicial branch operates, but to appoint new judges who will perform their duties more responsibly.