* i-Installer (with associated TeX packages) * TeXShop * Xcode (and associated applications) * R * Swarm * SubethaEdit * Snapz Pro * Goban * TechTool Pro * Mplayer OS X
Royal PITA....
Apple is taking a bad rap for this...
on
Update on Playfair
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
In truth, however, this is probably a very good move on their part.
Apple knows this technology is completely irrelevant, that it is "no big deal" from a technical standpoint and they expected something like this to be created from the beginning (Steve Jobs said exactly this--that they couldn't protect digital content).
As a *political* move, however, it makes a lot of sense. They aren't actually suing people RIAA style and I doubt it will ever come to that--instead they are just shutting down the servers that host it via C&D letters. If they didn't do this, they would be at risk of the music labels deciding that they aren't doing enough to protect their interests and *backing out*.
If you get this off P2P or FreeNet then good for you, you are an irrelevant statistic as far as Apple is concerned.
The comparisons to DeCSS really miss the point. DeCSS was big in part because there was no way to watch DVDs under Linux and because the MPAA really wasn't expecting it and tried to shut it down completely. With FairPlay there is a way to play it under Linux (though yes, there is a loss of quality) and they did expect it, so what they are doing is protecting their interests with the RIAA by giving a good go at it.
It doesn't matter if they "succeed" so long as they are actively pursuing it to the extent of the law.
You are confusing two fundamentally different issues.
The computer is a *tool*, it is not a substitute for thinking unless it is used as such. Look at the Rosetta Stone language software--it is possible to develop programs to aid students in learning just about any subject. It is when that tool is used *inappropriately* that there is a problem.
When I took Calculus II Honors in college I had a lab associated with it where we learned how to use Mathematica. This was not to be used in lieu of thinking, but to further our learning, as a check to our by-hand work, and so that we could visualize certain key aspects of the subject matter.
Don't throw computers out, figure out how to use them in the context of learning the material.
Too often I see teacher after teacher who treats math with disdain and as something you can just memorize a few techniques and have down cold.
These are the kids I see shake with fear when they have to synthesize to answer a problem... in an Advanced Engineering Mathematics course in college.
Teach it as if it were a language--through immersion; by teaching fundamental concepts and then building on those (rather than our current backwards system); and teach the rules before you teach the exceptions, special cases, and other things of that nature (e.g., how did you learn how to take the determinate of a matrix?). Teach application--teaching them about matrices is pretty much worthless unless you talk to them about systems of linear equations. Force them to apply this language in situations outside of the ones that you have taught.
Deemphasize memorization and emphasize understanding--Don't make them memorize trigonometric rules, teach them Euler's Equation and about imaginary numbers.
Respect the students ability to learn mathematics. E. B. White said the following: "No one can write decently who is distrustful of the reader's intelligence, or whose attitude is patronizing." This is a fundamentally true statement that applies to teaching--if the teachers hate the subject and don't know it all that well themselves, then they aren't going to trust the students ability to learn it.
There are two factors here that keep this from being as true as we would like it to be.
0) That the government helped to turn MS into a monopoly.
1) Positive returns.
IBM, Sun, Apple, etc won't keep Microsoft in check--they can't. A serious blunder on their parts could kill them, but such is unlikely and they've had a good history of competing with products when they have nothing released yet...
I imagine you think this because state monopolies have worked so well in Neomercantalist economies? You do realize that most monopolies, including Microsoft, exist in large part because of the government?
As to the rest of your anti-corporate tripe... that is just what it is, tripe. All you are doing is punishing people for being good and forcing out competition (the government is the biggest game in town, after all).
Sometimes it is enough to know that something is *true* or *false* without having to know the details of the in-between steps.
I'll give some trivial examples to illustrate:
For a famous example, it would provide a great deal of peace of mind if we could prove that P != NP. It wouldn't matter that we understand that proof so much as that it is *provably true*. If, on the other hand, it is proven false that is just as important (if not more so) and while an understanding of the proof might lead more easily to examples of such, we would know (for certain) that trusting public key encryption over the long run would be a Bad Idea(TM) (for example) and that it is just a matter of time before a polynomial time algorithm is developed.
(Not that such will necessarily be fast, mind you, but we would know it would exist).
For another example--there are certain things that can be inferred if Poincare Conjecture is true for N=3. If we can prove the Poincare Conjecture is true (and it is now thought that it might be) it means things to physicists, even if we don't know why it is true.
The bigger question here is "can we trust it if we can't verify it by hand."
You seem to be confusing yourself and the industry. The question is whether it has affected sales [i]overall[/i], not whether you personally have stopped purchasing as a result.
The cracking operation can only be done on songs the user has already has valid licenses for and requires either an iPod or a windows computer for key recovery.
Let's emphasize this part. You still have to go through the trouble of downloading it, compiling it, and using it on your own songs. I don't see many people doing this just to share them over a P2P network.
There would be a problem if this was something that could decrypt other's songs. If you do a search there are people sharing m4p files on filesharing networks (mainly because they just share their music library) and so the ability to then download those files and decrypt them would be more serious. As it stands with this program, I have to go through that for my own files, which I wouldn't go through the trouble of doing unless FairPlay got in my way, which it doesn't.
Even then, however, I suspect it would not be a major concern. Apple expected this kind of thing and has a philosophy that most people will pay for their service regardless of if they can get it free elsewhere--simply because they will pay for quality and service.
Well, speed is a simple, measureable and quantifiable concept.
Speed in computers is not "simple" and it is not easily quantifiable. Case in point, take the Earth Simulator--rated as the fastest computer in the world right now on the Top500. Any computer scientists could write a program where it would perform painfully slowly compared to a computer with a processor from years ago simply because of how it works and the way it is designed: lots of processors that are good at one and only one thing--vector processing.
"Speed" with computer begs the fundamental question of "speed at what? I don't think intel's chips offer an FMADD instruction, for instance, which is part of the reason why the G5 is so impressive--it can field two of them per clock cycle. At integer based DSP the G5 is not going to be nearly as impressive--this isn't exactly a first past the post kind of thing
Slashdot Mirror
If your iPod mini headphone jack goes bad after 2 months then it is under warranty and will be fixed for free.
If you support the Artist, somehow I doubt downloading from this service will accomplish that.
It is a play on the name "S"/"SPlus."
http://www.r-project.org
You must have fewer needs than I do...
* i-Installer (with associated TeX packages)
* TeXShop
* Xcode (and associated applications)
* R
* Swarm
* SubethaEdit
* Snapz Pro
* Goban
* TechTool Pro
* Mplayer OS X
Royal PITA....
In truth, however, this is probably a very good move on their part.
Apple knows this technology is completely irrelevant, that it is "no big deal" from a technical standpoint and they expected something like this to be created from the beginning (Steve Jobs said exactly this--that they couldn't protect digital content).
As a *political* move, however, it makes a lot of sense. They aren't actually suing people RIAA style and I doubt it will ever come to that--instead they are just shutting down the servers that host it via C&D letters. If they didn't do this, they would be at risk of the music labels deciding that they aren't doing enough to protect their interests and *backing out*.
If you get this off P2P or FreeNet then good for you, you are an irrelevant statistic as far as Apple is concerned.
The comparisons to DeCSS really miss the point. DeCSS was big in part because there was no way to watch DVDs under Linux and because the MPAA really wasn't expecting it and tried to shut it down completely. With FairPlay there is a way to play it under Linux (though yes, there is a loss of quality) and they did expect it, so what they are doing is protecting their interests with the RIAA by giving a good go at it.
It doesn't matter if they "succeed" so long as they are actively pursuing it to the extent of the law.
Is there any reason in particular you do not believe that clause is enforceable, or are you just going off at the mouth?
You are confusing two fundamentally different issues.
The computer is a *tool*, it is not a substitute for thinking unless it is used as such. Look at the Rosetta Stone language software--it is possible to develop programs to aid students in learning just about any subject. It is when that tool is used *inappropriately* that there is a problem.
When I took Calculus II Honors in college I had a lab associated with it where we learned how to use Mathematica. This was not to be used in lieu of thinking, but to further our learning, as a check to our by-hand work, and so that we could visualize certain key aspects of the subject matter.
Don't throw computers out, figure out how to use them in the context of learning the material.
Treat it as such.
Too often I see teacher after teacher who treats math with disdain and as something you can just memorize a few techniques and have down cold.
These are the kids I see shake with fear when they have to synthesize to answer a problem... in an Advanced Engineering Mathematics course in college.
Teach it as if it were a language--through immersion; by teaching fundamental concepts and then building on those (rather than our current backwards system); and teach the rules before you teach the exceptions, special cases, and other things of that nature (e.g., how did you learn how to take the determinate of a matrix?). Teach application--teaching them about matrices is pretty much worthless unless you talk to them about systems of linear equations. Force them to apply this language in situations outside of the ones that you have taught.
Deemphasize memorization and emphasize understanding--Don't make them memorize trigonometric rules, teach them Euler's Equation and about imaginary numbers.
Respect the students ability to learn mathematics. E. B. White said the following: "No one can write decently who is distrustful of the reader's intelligence, or whose attitude is patronizing." This is a fundamentally true statement that applies to teaching--if the teachers hate the subject and don't know it all that well themselves, then they aren't going to trust the students ability to learn it.
By your logic, #2 > #1.
If you meant all of them together, what percentage of the market do they make up? Less than 30%?
>(geek tries to impress prospective female)
/. geeks...
I think you overestimate the social skills of
(geek tries to impress prospective female)
Geek: Erm....
Geek: Uh...
(girl walks off)
>It is a Jaguar system
Panther, actually.
There are two factors here that keep this from being as true as we would like it to be.
0) That the government helped to turn MS into a monopoly.
1) Positive returns.
IBM, Sun, Apple, etc won't keep Microsoft in check--they can't. A serious blunder on their parts could kill them, but such is unlikely and they've had a good history of competing with products when they have nothing released yet...
So it is better to have a regulated monopoly.
I imagine you think this because state monopolies have worked so well in Neomercantalist economies? You do realize that most monopolies, including Microsoft, exist in large part because of the government?
As to the rest of your anti-corporate tripe... that is just what it is, tripe. All you are doing is punishing people for being good and forcing out competition (the government is the biggest game in town, after all).
INIT, MDEF, ANTI-A... wow, that's a blast from the past...
I remember wiping some of these off of floppies... back when I even owned floppies.
To use the RUNAS service, just hold down shift and right-click and you'll see an option that says "Run As".
<p>I would like to commend MS for their skill in selecting intuitive methods of doing things that my mother can figure out on her own...</p>
Advertising with the name "firewire," this seems to give a whole new meaning to that.
Sometimes it is enough to know that something is *true* or *false* without having to know the details of the in-between steps.
I'll give some trivial examples to illustrate:
For a famous example, it would provide a great deal of peace of mind if we could prove that P != NP. It wouldn't matter that we understand that proof so much as that it is *provably true*. If, on the other hand, it is proven false that is just as important (if not more so) and while an understanding of the proof might lead more easily to examples of such, we would know (for certain) that trusting public key encryption over the long run would be a Bad Idea(TM) (for example) and that it is just a matter of time before a polynomial time algorithm is developed.
(Not that such will necessarily be fast, mind you, but we would know it would exist).
For another example--there are certain things that can be inferred if Poincare Conjecture is true for N=3. If we can prove the Poincare Conjecture is true (and it is now thought that it might be) it means things to physicists, even if we don't know why it is true.
The bigger question here is "can we trust it if we can't verify it by hand."
Good for you?
You seem to be confusing yourself and the industry. The question is whether it has affected sales [i]overall[/i], not whether you personally have stopped purchasing as a result.
The cracking operation can only be done on songs the user has already has valid licenses for and requires either an iPod or a windows computer for key recovery.
Let's emphasize this part. You still have to go through the trouble of downloading it, compiling it, and using it on your own songs. I don't see many people doing this just to share them over a P2P network.
There would be a problem if this was something that could decrypt other's songs. If you do a search there are people sharing m4p files on filesharing networks (mainly because they just share their music library) and so the ability to then download those files and decrypt them would be more serious. As it stands with this program, I have to go through that for my own files, which I wouldn't go through the trouble of doing unless FairPlay got in my way, which it doesn't.
Even then, however, I suspect it would not be a major concern. Apple expected this kind of thing and has a philosophy that most people will pay for their service regardless of if they can get it free elsewhere--simply because they will pay for quality and service.
"The client will be completely undetectable and unremovable by even the most skilled hacker. "
If you believe that is doable I have some oceanfront property in Colorado I'd love to sell you...
0) Java sucks.
1) HyperCard filled an entirely separate niche, so no.
You've obviously never gotten a joke. It's something to look forward to.
Or they just used the Mac version of Office...
My favorite was intel's ads in Newsweek on how their new Hyper-Threading technology would make your computer more secure.
Well, speed is a simple, measureable and quantifiable concept.
Speed in computers is not "simple" and it is not easily quantifiable. Case in point, take the Earth Simulator--rated as the fastest computer in the world right now on the Top500. Any computer scientists could write a program where it would perform painfully slowly compared to a computer with a processor from years ago simply because of how it works and the way it is designed: lots of processors that are good at one and only one thing--vector processing.
"Speed" with computer begs the fundamental question of "speed at what? I don't think intel's chips offer an FMADD instruction, for instance, which is part of the reason why the G5 is so impressive--it can field two of them per clock cycle. At integer based DSP the G5 is not going to be nearly as impressive--this isn't exactly a first past the post kind of thing