I do however like it as the safe test for an exact match without worrying about null....
That's neat, I didn't know java could do that. But your example demonstrates another thing about Ruby I really like, if a function returns a bool, convention is the function should have a questionmark at the end.
if a.empty? then...
It's very readable, and you know it's testing against empty and not setting it to empty.
Also if a function modifies the object in-place, then convention has it end with a !. So a.capitalize will return a copy of the string, and a.capitalize! will modify a.
Same here. I love Ruby, and I love the fact that there aren't any primitive types at all, everything is an object. You can do weird stuff like: a="Hello".downcase.reverse.capitalize That's just cool.
Mac OS X makes heavy use of hardware accelerated functions: Quartz/Aqua 3D graphics (which unlike Vista's Aero can't be turned off),
Then how am I running it on a G3 iMac from 2000 with a crappy video card? There's no 3D at all on my machine. The little cube rotates you get on install and fast user switching? Not here.
Did you actually read what he said? What he said was more like, "if we license FairPlay, when hackers work out how to strip the DRM we won't be able to release a new version to stop them quickly enough, and the record companies will shut down iTMS."
It wouldn't shut down, the major labels would pull their music and iTMS would have the same music that eMusic currently has.
If Jobs hates DRM so much, and if iTMS really does "just barely break even" as mac users like to claim, then why not just drop the major labels and go with eMusic's indie-only model?
I don't see the motivation of keeping the major label's music on the store.
Apple doesn't force them to take DRM: it's part of the deal, and the labels can take it or leave it.
Nettwerk has already come out and said that they asked Apple to remove the DRM from their artists music, and Apple refused. An Apple lawyer has stated that even if the labels did give the OK, "they would see no reason to remove DRM"
I love how folks are attacking Jobs for not doing the extra work to split out the DRM and non-DRM as a response to his call for removing DRM all together. If the goal is to remove DRM, managing both DRM and non-DRM is wasted man-hours.
I love how mac apologists are scrambling to come up with reasons why Apple can't offer DRM-free music.
What happens when the labels say "ok.. you can sell our music DRM free" and Sony says "not ours"? Will it be OK to keep DRM on everything because running a fucking store is "hard"?
Has this changed? Besides, even if the store sends out an unprotected AAC, there are plenty of methods to hide that AAC in memory and make it next to impossible for anything but iTunes to reconstruct.
Yes, it has changed... and hiding in memory means nothing since TCPFlow and many other packet sniffers can get the file as it's being downloaded.
No.. it is not. We already have the AES keys iTunes uses to talk to the store.. you think we wouldn't be having an anti-DRM party if the store sent out unprotected AACs?!
I'm all for allowing Indie artists access. My question is how would you implement this, and not end up with every American Idol reject?
How do they do it now? 30% of the music on iTunes right now is from indie labels.
The problem isn't indie labels can't sell on iTunes, it's that they can't sell on iTunes without DRM. Apple requires DRM for everyone.. Apple, not the labels.
It would not surprise me in the least to find out that Apple's agreement with at least one of the major labels includes a prohibition on Apple selling any unprotected music.
It would surprise me. It'd be a serious anti-trust violation. Plus, Yahoo is able to sell unprotected music alongside DRMed music from the big 4 labels.
Just a guess but I would think the major labels told Apple they could not sell drm-free music in any form
That would raise some serious anti-trust issues for the labels. That and it's probably not true since Yahoo sells DRM music from the big4 alongside some unprotected music (EMI and Sony have both released mp3 singles for sale on yahoo's store)
[b]Mac OS:[/b] No license key or serial whatsoever. Any install disc will work on any computer.
Not only is this not true for "any computer" (won't work on my Dell).. it's not even true for macs. You know the copy of Tiger you got with your mac? It will only work on macs that are the same model as yours... no others.
Slashdot Mirror
That's neat, I didn't know java could do that. But your example demonstrates another thing about Ruby I really like, if a function returns a bool, convention is the function should have a questionmark at the end.
if a.empty? then
It's very readable, and you know it's testing against empty and not setting it to empty.
Also if a function modifies the object in-place, then convention has it end with a !. So a.capitalize will return a copy of the string, and a.capitalize! will modify a.
Same here. I love Ruby, and I love the fact that there aren't any primitive types at all, everything is an object. You can do weird stuff like: a="Hello".downcase.reverse.capitalize That's just cool.
That's strange, I am 30 and I own the Wii and a 360. I'm too old to be messing around with my PC in order to make it even run games.
Then how am I running it on a G3 iMac from 2000 with a crappy video card? There's no 3D at all on my machine. The little cube rotates you get on install and fast user switching? Not here.
Apple will just say "Sony still wants DRM, so every song will have DRM".
According to iTunes, my eMusic songs were encoded using LAME3.96, and range from 195 kbps (VBR) to 213 kbps (VBR).
It wouldn't shut down, the major labels would pull their music and iTMS would have the same music that eMusic currently has.
If Jobs hates DRM so much, and if iTMS really does "just barely break even" as mac users like to claim, then why not just drop the major labels and go with eMusic's indie-only model?
I don't see the motivation of keeping the major label's music on the store.
I find it ironic that Apple refuses to license fairplay out of fears of piracy.
Not if he lives in Arizona. It's a communal property state.
Nettwerk has already come out and said that they asked Apple to remove the DRM from their artists music, and Apple refused. An Apple lawyer has stated that even if the labels did give the OK, "they would see no reason to remove DRM"
I love how mac apologists are scrambling to come up with reasons why Apple can't offer DRM-free music.
What happens when the labels say "ok.. you can sell our music DRM free" and Sony says "not ours"? Will it be OK to keep DRM on everything because running a fucking store is "hard"?
Yes, it has changed... and hiding in memory means nothing since TCPFlow and many other packet sniffers can get the file as it's being downloaded.
No.. it is not. We already have the AES keys iTunes uses to talk to the store.. you think we wouldn't be having an anti-DRM party if the store sent out unprotected AACs?!
That is not true at all. Otherwise I could get unprotected files by running TCPFlow when I bought a song. The store adds the DRM.
How do they do it now? 30% of the music on iTunes right now is from indie labels.
The problem isn't indie labels can't sell on iTunes, it's that they can't sell on iTunes without DRM. Apple requires DRM for everyone.. Apple, not the labels.
Well, Sony and EMI sell non-DRMed singles on yahoo's store.. but those same singles are DRMed on Apple's store.
It would surprise me. It'd be a serious anti-trust violation. Plus, Yahoo is able to sell unprotected music alongside DRMed music from the big 4 labels.
"The prevailing feeling in and around Boston is summed up by local reporter and talk-show host Howie Carr "
So, Boston is filled with racist jackasses?