All good concerns but you missed one. Since when did the MPAA control the music industry?! I must have missed a lot of Slashdot when I went away this week.
I'm absolutely certain that you're correct. However, why isn't Bush being held to the same level of accountability as Michael Moore? I mean, honestly, who should be held more accountable for their lies, an opinionated filmmaker or THE LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD? When Moore misleads people in his movies, conservatives get their collective panties in a bunch. When Bush misleads people, thousands die. Unacceptable.
I believe that Spotlight just takes advantage of the metadata features in HFS+ that have been there since day one. It works kinda like this: When a file moves onto your HD, if it is a type known by spotlight or one of its modules, it is quickly scanned for content which is then stored as HFS+ metadata. When spotlight searches, it refers to this database maintained by the file system its self. In addition, metadata is preserved across HFS systems, even if they don't have the same set of spotlight stuff, or spotlight at all.
It should be interesting at the types of files Apple will have it recognize out of the box. MP3, AAC, MP4, and mov files seem to be the most obvious. I would love to search my vast media riches of ripped Netfli... legally owned movies that I'll get busy tagging with IMDB data as soon as I find out if it'll be supported.
I always keep different folders in different view modes and it throws me off when they're not the way that I set them (usually because I'm using spring-loaded folders at the time). I keep my root level clean so it's a group of 32x32 size icons in a 2x5 grid. My applications folder is huge so it's in list mode. My system folder and libraries are in column mode because it's much more useful for these cumbersome paths. I love the OS X Finder the way it is. I'd be a lot less productive and was less productive when if didn't remember.
Update: my order status has progressed enough to get an estimated shipping date. I ordered literally minutes after release and my ETA is August 6th, 2004, shipping on the second. That is absolute garbage. Apple, I gave you well over $3000. I WANT IT NOW! Booo!
To answer your obvious questions, RAM from elsewhere and screen from Formac or Apple when the new displays come out. And no, I do not have any more money. This purchase was 5 years in the making.
Sorry to brag but I just had to get one! Here's what I got.
Dual 2.5GHz PowerPC G5 512MB DDR400 SDRAM (PC3200) - 2x256 250GB Serial ATA - 7200rpm 8x SuperDrive (DVD-R/CD-RW) ATI Radeon 9800 XT w/256MB DDR SDRAM 56k V.92 modem Bluetooth Module AirPort Extreme Card Apple Keyboard & Apple Mouse - U.S. English Mac OS X - U.S. English Accessory kit
I was staying at a hotel a few weeks back and I had my laptop with me. For $10, I could get wired broadband in the room for 24 hours. Seemed a bit steep to me so I waited until I came to a point where I absolutely needed the internet. I was sitting at the desk on the other side of the room (near the window) when my laptop, an old G3 Powerbook with a Linksys Wireless-G card, told me that a wireless network was suddenly available, 50% strength. Curiously, I connected to it and it didn't require a password. As soon as iChat signed on, I noticed that someone using the router had a Mac too and was signed on Rendezvous IM. I started up a chat and explained my predicament to him. He said it was great to meet me and I could use his new wireless access point as much as I wanted, as long as I kept my bandwidth use under control.
And that's pretty much how a lot of people feel about wireless broadband. As long as you don't inconvenience them, you're free to use their network. It's that attitude that basically makes paying for wireless access an unsustainable business model. I wonder how long until ISPs band together to make open connection sharing illegal and scare everyone into thinking that sharing their connection is morally wrong.
I agree with your point but it's harder to argue and more difficult to defend, let alone near impossible to write in to law. I accept the 18 year-old line as acceptable for pornography until something better comes along. Oh, and the pedophile line is set at 16 years old in the US (depending on the state) and this seems to be the consensus around the world as well.
Because regulating the internet rarely works, opens a slippery slope (because it doesn't work) and in the end, has the potential to negatively affect us all without hurting the child pornography menace. Many say they'd give up a few freedoms in order to eliminate threats such as this, but because the chaotic and intractable internet is involved, you are giving up something for nothing.
But blocking websites is solving the wrong problem! Child pornographers are dodgy. Blocking websites doesn't stop them from taking photographs and distributing them via websites and proxies or other conduits. What this does do is frustrate the dumb-as-a-brick manager who made the decision to block the sites in the first place and cause him to start blocking proxies and more websites in order to see the results he expected. At that point, the child pornographers just keep finding new conduits and we are inconvenienced or end up blocked ourselves. And the children are still harmed.
The ISP is striking at a cloud of smoke with a sword. They can scatter the cloud and hurt people on the sidelines but they cannot make the cloud go away. You have to cut the problem at the source. The internet does not lend its self well to censorship.
I'm going to side with freedom of speech (and thereby child pornography on the internet.) I in no way approve of or condone child pornography. I think it's disgusting the way that some people get off by exploiting children too young to fully understand the consequences of their actions. However, censorship is a slippery slope. Once we allow the child pornographers to be blocked, what's stopping them from taking the next step and censoring all they deem obscene? What about outlawing anonymous forums because they facilitate obscenity? How long until you have to get your sites white-listed by ISPs to even be viewed in the UK or any other nation that follows this same path?
I'm not insane, just concerned. I say fight the problem of child pornography (etc..) from the other end. Arrest the people, not the websites and protocols.
I think the grandparent is referring to the PortalPlayer software that allows realtime MP3 encoding on that exact ARM7 processor. Sure, Apple decided to write their own firmware starting with version 2.0 and remove features available for 1.0 to 1.3.1 but it's possible.
False. No "lefties" would ever say such a thing. They might, however, say that America could have prevented 9/11 by stepping up intelligence or maybe that America's foreign policy created an atmosphere that facilitated 9/11, but no one could reasonably hold America RESPONSIBLE for the attacks on 9/11.
You can't always get away with straw man logic. I'm glad the mods caught it.
In addition: would you trust APE Framework on your system if you only had this module installed? You can even look at the source or compile it yourself.
Allowing APE modules access to programs is the job of the APE framework, which is the one trusted aspect of the system. Yes, modules could probably get around this by executing under the framework and not using its constructs but SO COULD ANY OTHER PROGRAM.
SECURITY ALERT! All executable files are insecure because when launched they are given access to your files without user intervention, can launch daemons, hijack new executables, and spy on the user!!!
My only argument is that APE framework is simply a way to execute haxie code in a way that is more efficient for the programmer than in a stand-alone daemon. In addition, when the developer uses the features provided by APE framework, the user is allowed to control which apps a module is allowed to touch (and here's the key) through the framework. Saying APE modules are insecure is like saying any executables are insecure; which is also like saying that actually DOING anything physically is dangerous because you could be killed, spied on, etc...
Everything is a matter of trust: from running closed-source applications to going outside each day. There is nothing wrong with the APE framework just like there is nothing wrong with your car. Both have the potential for abuse (hell, a car can kill people) but you have to have some level of trust.
You are free to be wary of all untrusted content but honestly, you sound like a conspiracy theorist. If you don't like the idea of APE modules (I personally don't simply because I don't trust that programmers outside of Apple will be able to guess at how a program works well enough to not cause it to crash) then don't use them but please don't spread FUD about their being inherently insecure. Because they're about as insecure as drinking a glass of orange juice (it can choke you! how ever did they get FDA approval!).
A-fuckin'-men. I want a flying car too. I don't think we have the technology to make a useful and safe flying car. I guess the helicopter is about the closest we have and even it is extremely expensive, uses tons of fuel, is loud, difficult to fly, and subject to tight weight restrictions.
Don't think that APE is a security nightmare on its own. Sure, it provides means by which to inject code into programs that were launched after the code injector became present, but that's not a unique ability. Technically, any daemon can inject code into a program as it is being launched. The APE framework is not doing anything more than calling existing (but undocumented) APIs used in debugging Mac OS X. APE modules cannot poke around into any program they wish, they may only poke around in the applications in which they have been told to reside (something YOU have control over). They may not touch any other program. Sure, you can call APE a bad idea, and yes it can crash applications or spy on the user, but not more than any other piece of malware could, entirely separate from APE.
GPS is already an open standard. It is also a one-way system that cannot be restricted in any way except by satellite coverage. As much as everyone would like to believe that the US is evil incarnate, it is not. We have bad presidents (hint: his name starts with a 'G' and ends in 'eorge W. Bush') from time to time and a lot of uneducated, easily manipulated people (middle America), but they are not inherently evil. The nation is still a republic (well, the 2000 election excluded) and I hope the rest of the world realizes this.
Control over GPS is not a power grab by the US. It is not a strategic tool for way that we will eventually lock our enemies out of. It is simply a service the military created for its self and is now sharing with everyone. The only reason the US controls GPS is because we invented it, we rely on it more than anyone else, and we want to make sure it keeps working and improving as time goes on. THAT'S IT! NO EVIL! NONE! Not in this story at least. As for Europe's new system, it looks as if they want to create a system that cooperates with GPS to expand coverage but does not depend on it. More power to them, though I'm curious about some of the features they're adding...
Look, I'm not some puissant little audiophile that pretends there is a difference in "warmth" amongst optical cables, but if you can't her the difference between 128kbps and 160kbps (and on up), you are either using a terrible testing environment, poor equipment (sub $50 headphones), simply do not have the capacity to compare two sounds well, or any combination of the three. Also, 96kbps is unacceptable for anything other than speech, it sounds like a keychain full of keys is constantly jingling in front of the speaker.
Holy shit that looks really hard to use. I especially liked the menu you had to pop up to change tracks or volume! Sweet Jesus what were they thinking. And if they wanted to go with gestures, why not just use a trackpad instead of 25 buttons? This just all seems too Japanese, even for Japan.
Slashdot Mirror
All good concerns but you missed one. Since when did the MPAA control the music industry?! I must have missed a lot of Slashdot when I went away this week.
I'm absolutely certain that you're correct. However, why isn't Bush being held to the same level of accountability as Michael Moore? I mean, honestly, who should be held more accountable for their lies, an opinionated filmmaker or THE LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD? When Moore misleads people in his movies, conservatives get their collective panties in a bunch. When Bush misleads people, thousands die. Unacceptable.
I believe that Spotlight just takes advantage of the metadata features in HFS+ that have been there since day one. It works kinda like this: When a file moves onto your HD, if it is a type known by spotlight or one of its modules, it is quickly scanned for content which is then stored as HFS+ metadata. When spotlight searches, it refers to this database maintained by the file system its self. In addition, metadata is preserved across HFS systems, even if they don't have the same set of spotlight stuff, or spotlight at all.
It should be interesting at the types of files Apple will have it recognize out of the box. MP3, AAC, MP4, and mov files seem to be the most obvious. I would love to search my vast media riches of ripped Netfli... legally owned movies that I'll get busy tagging with IMDB data as soon as I find out if it'll be supported.
I always keep different folders in different view modes and it throws me off when they're not the way that I set them (usually because I'm using spring-loaded folders at the time). I keep my root level clean so it's a group of 32x32 size icons in a 2x5 grid. My applications folder is huge so it's in list mode. My system folder and libraries are in column mode because it's much more useful for these cumbersome paths. I love the OS X Finder the way it is. I'd be a lot less productive and was less productive when if didn't remember.
Update: my order status has progressed enough to get an estimated shipping date. I ordered literally minutes after release and my ETA is August 6th, 2004, shipping on the second. That is absolute garbage. Apple, I gave you well over $3000. I WANT IT NOW! Booo!
To answer your obvious questions, RAM from elsewhere and screen from Formac or Apple when the new displays come out. And no, I do not have any more money. This purchase was 5 years in the making.
Sorry to brag but I just had to get one! Here's what I got.
Dual 2.5GHz PowerPC G5
512MB DDR400 SDRAM (PC3200) - 2x256
250GB Serial ATA - 7200rpm
8x SuperDrive (DVD-R/CD-RW)
ATI Radeon 9800 XT w/256MB DDR SDRAM
56k V.92 modem
Bluetooth Module
AirPort Extreme Card
Apple Keyboard & Apple Mouse - U.S. English
Mac OS X - U.S. English
Accessory kit
Estimated Total:
$3,384.58
I can't wait!
I was staying at a hotel a few weeks back and I had my laptop with me. For $10, I could get wired broadband in the room for 24 hours. Seemed a bit steep to me so I waited until I came to a point where I absolutely needed the internet. I was sitting at the desk on the other side of the room (near the window) when my laptop, an old G3 Powerbook with a Linksys Wireless-G card, told me that a wireless network was suddenly available, 50% strength. Curiously, I connected to it and it didn't require a password. As soon as iChat signed on, I noticed that someone using the router had a Mac too and was signed on Rendezvous IM. I started up a chat and explained my predicament to him. He said it was great to meet me and I could use his new wireless access point as much as I wanted, as long as I kept my bandwidth use under control.
And that's pretty much how a lot of people feel about wireless broadband. As long as you don't inconvenience them, you're free to use their network. It's that attitude that basically makes paying for wireless access an unsustainable business model. I wonder how long until ISPs band together to make open connection sharing illegal and scare everyone into thinking that sharing their connection is morally wrong.
I agree with your point but it's harder to argue and more difficult to defend, let alone near impossible to write in to law. I accept the 18 year-old line as acceptable for pornography until something better comes along. Oh, and the pedophile line is set at 16 years old in the US (depending on the state) and this seems to be the consensus around the world as well.
Because regulating the internet rarely works, opens a slippery slope (because it doesn't work) and in the end, has the potential to negatively affect us all without hurting the child pornography menace. Many say they'd give up a few freedoms in order to eliminate threats such as this, but because the chaotic and intractable internet is involved, you are giving up something for nothing.
But blocking websites is solving the wrong problem! Child pornographers are dodgy. Blocking websites doesn't stop them from taking photographs and distributing them via websites and proxies or other conduits. What this does do is frustrate the dumb-as-a-brick manager who made the decision to block the sites in the first place and cause him to start blocking proxies and more websites in order to see the results he expected. At that point, the child pornographers just keep finding new conduits and we are inconvenienced or end up blocked ourselves. And the children are still harmed.
The ISP is striking at a cloud of smoke with a sword. They can scatter the cloud and hurt people on the sidelines but they cannot make the cloud go away. You have to cut the problem at the source. The internet does not lend its self well to censorship.
I'm going to side with freedom of speech (and thereby child pornography on the internet.) I in no way approve of or condone child pornography. I think it's disgusting the way that some people get off by exploiting children too young to fully understand the consequences of their actions. However, censorship is a slippery slope. Once we allow the child pornographers to be blocked, what's stopping them from taking the next step and censoring all they deem obscene? What about outlawing anonymous forums because they facilitate obscenity? How long until you have to get your sites white-listed by ISPs to even be viewed in the UK or any other nation that follows this same path?
I'm not insane, just concerned. I say fight the problem of child pornography (etc..) from the other end. Arrest the people, not the websites and protocols.
I think the grandparent is referring to the PortalPlayer software that allows realtime MP3 encoding on that exact ARM7 processor. Sure, Apple decided to write their own firmware starting with version 2.0 and remove features available for 1.0 to 1.3.1 but it's possible.
False. No "lefties" would ever say such a thing. They might, however, say that America could have prevented 9/11 by stepping up intelligence or maybe that America's foreign policy created an atmosphere that facilitated 9/11, but no one could reasonably hold America RESPONSIBLE for the attacks on 9/11.
You can't always get away with straw man logic. I'm glad the mods caught it.
In addition: would you trust APE Framework on your system if you only had this module installed? You can even look at the source or compile it yourself.
Allowing APE modules access to programs is the job of the APE framework, which is the one trusted aspect of the system. Yes, modules could probably get around this by executing under the framework and not using its constructs but SO COULD ANY OTHER PROGRAM.
SECURITY ALERT! All executable files are insecure because when launched they are given access to your files without user intervention, can launch daemons, hijack new executables, and spy on the user!!!
My only argument is that APE framework is simply a way to execute haxie code in a way that is more efficient for the programmer than in a stand-alone daemon. In addition, when the developer uses the features provided by APE framework, the user is allowed to control which apps a module is allowed to touch (and here's the key) through the framework. Saying APE modules are insecure is like saying any executables are insecure; which is also like saying that actually DOING anything physically is dangerous because you could be killed, spied on, etc...
Everything is a matter of trust: from running closed-source applications to going outside each day. There is nothing wrong with the APE framework just like there is nothing wrong with your car. Both have the potential for abuse (hell, a car can kill people) but you have to have some level of trust.
You are free to be wary of all untrusted content but honestly, you sound like a conspiracy theorist. If you don't like the idea of APE modules (I personally don't simply because I don't trust that programmers outside of Apple will be able to guess at how a program works well enough to not cause it to crash) then don't use them but please don't spread FUD about their being inherently insecure. Because they're about as insecure as drinking a glass of orange juice (it can choke you! how ever did they get FDA approval!).
A-fuckin'-men. I want a flying car too. I don't think we have the technology to make a useful and safe flying car. I guess the helicopter is about the closest we have and even it is extremely expensive, uses tons of fuel, is loud, difficult to fly, and subject to tight weight restrictions.
Don't think that APE is a security nightmare on its own. Sure, it provides means by which to inject code into programs that were launched after the code injector became present, but that's not a unique ability. Technically, any daemon can inject code into a program as it is being launched. The APE framework is not doing anything more than calling existing (but undocumented) APIs used in debugging Mac OS X. APE modules cannot poke around into any program they wish, they may only poke around in the applications in which they have been told to reside (something YOU have control over). They may not touch any other program. Sure, you can call APE a bad idea, and yes it can crash applications or spy on the user, but not more than any other piece of malware could, entirely separate from APE.
And you've given yourself a point. Classy!
Microsoft will begin selling a $50 music player that will 'look and feel as good as the iPod' later this year.
AHAHAHAHAHAHA ahahahahahaha ha hah ahhhhh.... No, really.
I now have quite an evil grin on my face. I can't wait to try this out because I know it'll work. Why didn't I think of this?
GPS is already an open standard. It is also a one-way system that cannot be restricted in any way except by satellite coverage. As much as everyone would like to believe that the US is evil incarnate, it is not. We have bad presidents (hint: his name starts with a 'G' and ends in 'eorge W. Bush') from time to time and a lot of uneducated, easily manipulated people (middle America), but they are not inherently evil. The nation is still a republic (well, the 2000 election excluded) and I hope the rest of the world realizes this.
Control over GPS is not a power grab by the US. It is not a strategic tool for way that we will eventually lock our enemies out of. It is simply a service the military created for its self and is now sharing with everyone. The only reason the US controls GPS is because we invented it, we rely on it more than anyone else, and we want to make sure it keeps working and improving as time goes on. THAT'S IT! NO EVIL! NONE! Not in this story at least. As for Europe's new system, it looks as if they want to create a system that cooperates with GPS to expand coverage but does not depend on it. More power to them, though I'm curious about some of the features they're adding...
its [sic] sulphur [sic]
Scroll all the way to the bottom if you need help finding the address of their UK office. Also, work on your grammar and spelling; it's appa(u)lling.
Look, I'm not some puissant little audiophile that pretends there is a difference in "warmth" amongst optical cables, but if you can't her the difference between 128kbps and 160kbps (and on up), you are either using a terrible testing environment, poor equipment (sub $50 headphones), simply do not have the capacity to compare two sounds well, or any combination of the three. Also, 96kbps is unacceptable for anything other than speech, it sounds like a keychain full of keys is constantly jingling in front of the speaker.
Holy shit that looks really hard to use. I especially liked the menu you had to pop up to change tracks or volume! Sweet Jesus what were they thinking. And if they wanted to go with gestures, why not just use a trackpad instead of 25 buttons? This just all seems too Japanese, even for Japan.