>That said, no matter how it's sampled, my 256Kbit MP3s >(Fraunhofer "Pro" codec) from my own CDs will blow away any >AAC at 128, not matter if they came straight from the master >or not.
Such would be better, yes, but comes at about twice the file size.
That 99c does not include sales tax, the 79p does. That leaves a little over a 20c difference between the two in terms of price.
Considering the volatile nature of currency and that they aren't going to update it based on those conversion rates and that the dollar is at a low right now, this seems reasonable, hardly "price gouging."
I don't know why I am bothering to respond to an AC...
Vim is not *nearly* as elegant, integrated, nor as clean as subethaedit is.
First of all, Vim is still based on vi and requires that you know a variety of interesting things on the keyboard before you can effectively use it (what happens when I hit "d" depends on the mode--when I hit "d" in subethaedit I see a "d").
Second, it is very much not a Cocoa application. Services do not work, it has a nonstandard highlight for a MacOS X program (Carbon or Cocoa).
It neither looks nor feels like a native MacOS X app. Little things, such as the command-keys being listed in the menus, just aren't there. Example: I quit using command-q and Vim gives me an ugly dialogue that reads "Save changes to 'Untitled'?" with the options Yes, No, and Cancel (in that order, yes default). The escape button does nothing.
With SubethaEdit when I close a window I get a standard MacOS X close dialogue, showing the app's icon and saying "Do you want to save the changes you made in the document 'Untitled'? Your changes will be lost if you don't save them" with the options Don't Save, Cancel, and Save, in that order with Save as the default. The escape button cancels.
A thousand little things like that really add up.
The way preferences are handled, color syntax modes, an actual toolbar, indicators as to where the cursor is and basic information about the encoding of the file at my fingertips, the ability to highlight a block of code and indent it all or comment it all, showing line numbers or invisible characters, change how lines are terminated...
The list of differences--both functional and cosmetic, big and small--that make SubethaEdit a better choice than Vim for most Mac developers is enormous.
While I don't use the networking capabilities of SubethaEdit, it has largely replaced BBEdit for me as my "editor of choice" for programming. Sleek, lightweight, and efficient (not to mention free for noncommercial use), it has a lot going for it.
I did have to write a python script that would work like bbedit's command line tool (with a few of the same options, such as -c), but once that was taken care of I started using it as my primary text editor.
First, it makes it look like they are combating piracy. It looks good on paper when they go to tell the RIAA how they have been fighting piracy "we disabled the latest version of Hymn, but a workaround was found quickly." So long as they are doing what they can, the RIAA won't complain.
Second, it prevents someone from the RIAA ascertaining what percentage of tracks shared are the iTunes version nearly as easily.
Think about it. If you leave the ID tag in there, the RIAA can download a bunch of files from P2P networks and very quickly and easily determine what percentage of them were purchased from the iTMS. Apple doesn't want this at all--if that number ever does become significant, they don't want the RIAA coming to them and saying "20% of all songs being shared over P2P networks were originally purchased on the iTMS..."
Unlikely? Sure, especially since m4a files are still relatively rare on p2p networks (though the number of them is growing), but Apple doesn't want it to ever be an issue.
If there is an ID tag that is unique to decrypted files and can be quickly scanned for, they can ascertain this percentage without any difficulty in a selection of downloaded music. Otherwise they have to compare the decrypted stream to the decrypted stream of the original for each individual song, which requires identifying each individual song and then matching it with the original--a much more drawn out process than scanning for the presence of a tag.
Better 4 cents (or 11 cents, which I believe is the more common figure) than 0 cents.
The exact amount is worked out with the music label and their deal with the artist, Apple has nothing to do with it and it varies from label to label. Never mind the number of independent labels on the iTMS.
Except that a lot of the works that they distribute fall out of copyright under Russian law, and so no money goes to the artist for those. I also haven't seen any evidence that the "Russian equivalent of the RIAA" actually gives money to any RIAA bands for those sales either.
It is also questionably legal, at *best*, for use outside of Russia. IANAL, but I seem to recall there being trade laws to prevent exactly this sort of business operation from being legal.
Ogg sounds better than mp3. At the bitrates that matter I haven't seen anything that shows it is better than AAC (I don't encode at 64 kbps, so tests at that level aren't especially important to me) .
They are engineers, not miracle workers. There are finite limits to the technology here. Even assuming that it is doable, would they make enough profit by adding it to offset the development and support costs involved?
You are using a false analogy when you compare Ogg with mp3.
Let me ask a basic question: Why should I use it over AAC? Why should my mother use it over AAC?
Quality comparisons at the bitrates I use for AAC (128 kbps and 192 kbps) seem to tie or exceed Ogg. AAC is Free Enough™--I don't have to pay for it directly and it is supported natively in the player(s) I use.
Ogg is, for 99% of the people out there, completely pointless. MP3s weren't, but people didn't anticipate their market. I don't see anything that Ogg Vorbis can do, however, that as an end user makes it worth using over AAC for most of Apple's target audience.
> althogh I discount points for them turning off the firewall >automagically when the service is turned on....because, of course, most people who turn on printer or file sharing want to only share it with localhost.
It is directional, so it isn't especially suited to laptops and base stations--for those you want something omnidirectional, so that I don't need to know where the base station is and keep my antenna stationary relative to it.
There is no evidence that we are capable of slowing it down.
Now, as I heard the Lord Browne of Madingley (Group Chief Executive of BP) say--we gauge probabilities and act accordingly. So yes, we gauge the probability that we can affect this by an amount that we are even going to notice a hundred years from now (the exact probability here is open to rational discussion) and work out measured responses accordingly.
As Simon points out in his Ultimate Resource, however, these things tend to be self-correcting simply because pollution is inefficient. Example: Diesel and Hybrid cars are more efficient than standard gas cars, they pollute less, and because of elevated gas prices are becoming increasingly popular.
The extremist position of groups such as the Green Party--that the world is going to end tomorrow if we don't do something about it yesterday--is unjustified. People who advocate that point of view have no scientific evidence to back up their position (at least none that I've seen) and are best dismissed until they can procure evidence to this point.
Your last two points are irrelevant in the discussion. I will agree that global warming is happening, and I will not rule out that humans have something to do with it, but on the other hand I will not say that we actually do have anything to do with it either. There just isn't enough evidence and there is good evidence that there is more to this than just what we are putting into it.
Your point on rivers is a complete non sequitur that has nothing to do with this discussion.
Einstein is not an end-all, be-all in terms of intelligence or political philosophy, you do realize.
Both Bertrand Russell and John von Neumann argued that in all likelihood an arms race or a "cold war" would only end in both sides destroying each other and were in favor of a preemptive war with Russia while we had nuclear weapons and they did not.
We squeaked out of the predicted fate, yes, but barely with several close calls.
Then there is always the question of "if not us, then who?"
The technology is neutral, it is what we do with it that matters.
There is no question that global warming is happening. There is a question of whether humans have anything to do with it and whether humans can do anything to stop it.
Slashdot Mirror
You can burn AAC files encoded with FairPlay an unlimited number of times.
Cougar, Lynx, and Leopard. No clue what order they will use, but those seem to be the names for their future releases (through 10.7).
Lion is conspicuously absent.
>That said, no matter how it's sampled, my 256Kbit MP3s
>(Fraunhofer "Pro" codec) from my own CDs will blow away any
>AAC at 128, not matter if they came straight from the master
>or not.
Such would be better, yes, but comes at about twice the file size.
...or just rip them to Apple Lossless, which is comparable to FLAC, and encode them to aac for your devices.
What does this have to do with the article again?
>I didn't RTFPDF...
Obviously.
10 meters = 1 atm.
At 130 meters, you have 14 atmospheres exerted on you.
That 99c does not include sales tax, the 79p does. That leaves a little over a 20c difference between the two in terms of price.
Considering the volatile nature of currency and that they aren't going to update it based on those conversion rates and that the dollar is at a low right now, this seems reasonable, hardly "price gouging."
Evidently they just released one last month.
/ se e.zip
http://www.codingmonkeys.de/subethaedit/goodies
Yeah, it is new with 2.0 :-)
I tried this, but it didn't quite do it for me--it wouldn't let me open a file that didn't already exist (something I do all of the time), for example
I was also very used to the syntax of BBEdit's command line tool, so I wanted to type "subetha -c filename.m"
An alias is a good solution, but wasn't quite enough.
I don't know why I am bothering to respond to an AC...
Vim is not *nearly* as elegant, integrated, nor as clean as subethaedit is.
First of all, Vim is still based on vi and requires that you know a variety of interesting things on the keyboard before you can effectively use it (what happens when I hit "d" depends on the mode--when I hit "d" in subethaedit I see a "d").
Second, it is very much not a Cocoa application. Services do not work, it has a nonstandard highlight for a MacOS X program (Carbon or Cocoa).
It neither looks nor feels like a native MacOS X app. Little things, such as the command-keys being listed in the menus, just aren't there. Example: I quit using command-q and Vim gives me an ugly dialogue that reads "Save changes to 'Untitled'?" with the options Yes, No, and Cancel (in that order, yes default). The escape button does nothing.
With SubethaEdit when I close a window I get a standard MacOS X close dialogue, showing the app's icon and saying "Do you want to save the changes you made in the document 'Untitled'? Your changes will be lost if you don't save them" with the options Don't Save, Cancel, and Save, in that order with Save as the default. The escape button cancels.
A thousand little things like that really add up.
The way preferences are handled, color syntax modes, an actual toolbar, indicators as to where the cursor is and basic information about the encoding of the file at my fingertips, the ability to highlight a block of code and indent it all or comment it all, showing line numbers or invisible characters, change how lines are terminated...
The list of differences--both functional and cosmetic, big and small--that make SubethaEdit a better choice than Vim for most Mac developers is enormous.
While I don't use the networking capabilities of SubethaEdit, it has largely replaced BBEdit for me as my "editor of choice" for programming. Sleek, lightweight, and efficient (not to mention free for noncommercial use), it has a lot going for it.
I did have to write a python script that would work like bbedit's command line tool (with a few of the same options, such as -c), but once that was taken care of I started using it as my primary text editor.
First, it makes it look like they are combating piracy. It looks good on paper when they go to tell the RIAA how they have been fighting piracy "we disabled the latest version of Hymn, but a workaround was found quickly." So long as they are doing what they can, the RIAA won't complain.
Second, it prevents someone from the RIAA ascertaining what percentage of tracks shared are the iTunes version nearly as easily.
Think about it. If you leave the ID tag in there, the RIAA can download a bunch of files from P2P networks and very quickly and easily determine what percentage of them were purchased from the iTMS. Apple doesn't want this at all--if that number ever does become significant, they don't want the RIAA coming to them and saying "20% of all songs being shared over P2P networks were originally purchased on the iTMS..."
Unlikely? Sure, especially since m4a files are still relatively rare on p2p networks (though the number of them is growing), but Apple doesn't want it to ever be an issue.
If there is an ID tag that is unique to decrypted files and can be quickly scanned for, they can ascertain this percentage without any difficulty in a selection of downloaded music. Otherwise they have to compare the decrypted stream to the decrypted stream of the original for each individual song, which requires identifying each individual song and then matching it with the original--a much more drawn out process than scanning for the presence of a tag.
Better 4 cents (or 11 cents, which I believe is the more common figure) than 0 cents.
The exact amount is worked out with the music label and their deal with the artist, Apple has nothing to do with it and it varies from label to label. Never mind the number of independent labels on the iTMS.
Except that a lot of the works that they distribute fall out of copyright under Russian law, and so no money goes to the artist for those. I also haven't seen any evidence that the "Russian equivalent of the RIAA" actually gives money to any RIAA bands for those sales either.
It is also questionably legal, at *best*, for use outside of Russia. IANAL, but I seem to recall there being trade laws to prevent exactly this sort of business operation from being legal.
Ogg sounds better than mp3. At the bitrates that matter I haven't seen anything that shows it is better than AAC (I don't encode at 64 kbps, so tests at that level aren't especially important to me) .
You bet they could manage?
They are engineers, not miracle workers. There are finite limits to the technology here. Even assuming that it is doable, would they make enough profit by adding it to offset the development and support costs involved?
You are using a false analogy when you compare Ogg with mp3.
Let me ask a basic question: Why should I use it over AAC? Why should my mother use it over AAC?
Quality comparisons at the bitrates I use for AAC (128 kbps and 192 kbps) seem to tie or exceed Ogg. AAC is Free Enough™--I don't have to pay for it directly and it is supported natively in the player(s) I use.
Ogg is, for 99% of the people out there, completely pointless. MP3s weren't, but people didn't anticipate their market. I don't see anything that Ogg Vorbis can do, however, that as an end user makes it worth using over AAC for most of Apple's target audience.
"an word"?
It is secured with a *card* and a biometric.
Something you have, something you know, something you are. Two out of three is considered good security.
Biometrics is something that you *are*. There are implementation issues, sure, but people are far too hard on it as a method of authentication.
> althogh I discount points for them turning off the firewall ...because, of course, most people who turn on printer or file sharing want to only share it with localhost.
>automagically when the service is turned on.
It is directional, so it isn't especially suited to laptops and base stations--for those you want something omnidirectional, so that I don't need to know where the base station is and keep my antenna stationary relative to it.
There is no evidence that we are capable of slowing it down.
Now, as I heard the Lord Browne of Madingley (Group Chief Executive of BP) say--we gauge probabilities and act accordingly. So yes, we gauge the probability that we can affect this by an amount that we are even going to notice a hundred years from now (the exact probability here is open to rational discussion) and work out measured responses accordingly.
As Simon points out in his Ultimate Resource, however, these things tend to be self-correcting simply because pollution is inefficient. Example: Diesel and Hybrid cars are more efficient than standard gas cars, they pollute less, and because of elevated gas prices are becoming increasingly popular.
The extremist position of groups such as the Green Party--that the world is going to end tomorrow if we don't do something about it yesterday--is unjustified. People who advocate that point of view have no scientific evidence to back up their position (at least none that I've seen) and are best dismissed until they can procure evidence to this point.
Your last two points are irrelevant in the discussion. I will agree that global warming is happening, and I will not rule out that humans have something to do with it, but on the other hand I will not say that we actually do have anything to do with it either. There just isn't enough evidence and there is good evidence that there is more to this than just what we are putting into it.
Your point on rivers is a complete non sequitur that has nothing to do with this discussion.
Einstein is not an end-all, be-all in terms of intelligence or political philosophy, you do realize.
Both Bertrand Russell and John von Neumann argued that in all likelihood an arms race or a "cold war" would only end in both sides destroying each other and were in favor of a preemptive war with Russia while we had nuclear weapons and they did not.
We squeaked out of the predicted fate, yes, but barely with several close calls.
Then there is always the question of "if not us, then who?"
The technology is neutral, it is what we do with it that matters.
There is no question that global warming is happening. There is a question of whether humans have anything to do with it and whether humans can do anything to stop it.