iTunes is Apple only, for now. If you like Indie music (CDBaby's market), try emusic.com - they're also on CDBaby's distribution list. They sell MP3's with no DRM, and have download clients for Windows, Mac and Linux. Not many popular (RIAA) artists in their library, but if you're like me you don't listen to those anyways...
A couple of groups you missed. Four: musicians who don't want to get screwed. Five: people who want to listen to high-quality digital music in their home, car, office, portable player or anywhere else they choose; i.e., digital music buffs, as I stated.
iTMS was launched earlier this year. December is a year off. That's a long time. Please, point out to me the part of my original post that said "Apple originally intended to release it at the same time as Mac iTMS". My point was that the later release date may have had more to do with legal issues than choice. These legal/contractual issues can take a long time to sort out, which you would know if you've ever released a product requiring outside licensing. This negotation time may simply have been planned into the Windows release cycle - Apple's not stupid.
Educate yourself and drop the AC before your next flame.
Distribution isn't limited to iTunes. I read the information page on CDBaby, and there are several digital distribution networks they get you into, including EMusic.com, which is straight MP3's with no DRM. That'll work for 100% of people.
Kudos to Apple for their "light" DRM. But I think instead of them throwing the RIAA a bone, it may have been the other way around. The RIAA is supremely unpopular with digital music buffs. What better way to win some back than by allowing iTMS to use minimal DRM? They are limiting their exposure, and consequently their risk, because only 5% of computer users can access the store.
The truly telling moment will be when Apple launches their Windows-compatible iTMS. I have a strong hunch that right now RIAA views iTMS as a boutique shop that gives them positive publicity with minimal risk. I expect a return to more draconian terms for mass-market (read: Windows) music sales. Perhaps this is the real reason that iTMS is taking so long to release on Windows.
RIAA is irrelevant here. The copyright holders of the music are directly authorizing CDBaby to distribute their music. The RIAA is not involved in any way.
Unless you were talking about iTunes, which already has contracts with the RIAA, and consequently cannot be sued by them.
Don't take offense, I don't mean to single you out - but I find comments like this truly depressing. Somehow the RIAA seems to have subliminally brainwashed us - even though of us who are anti-RIAA - into believing that any sort of convenient digital music service must be illegal on some level.
Apple may not accept them, but this also covers a bunch of other distribution channels. Emusic is big with indie music fans, so I would imagine it's a little easier for CDBaby to get artists on there. Plus, they offer more consumer-friendly practices, like selling plain MP3's with no DRM.
load up times seem the same with mozilla 1.4 . What gives?
Do you mean "the same as with mozilla 1.4"? If so, it's because they both use the same rendering engine (Gecko). Firebird just has less clutter around it, which is why the application in general is quicker to load and navigate, even though rendering times are identical. Gecko will be revamped once the main Mozilla branch adopts Firebird as its core.
I think this is a big positive for Mozilla. I've always been worried that AOL's lack of dedication to Mozilla and Netscape would lead to its demise. The creation of an independent organization to manage the project (and own all IP, trademarks and associated domain names - thanks AOL!) is huge.
AOL may be pleased to "dump" it. But I'm pleased they are too. In addition to the autonomy, perhaps other ISPs (Earthlink, etc) may be more willing to adopt Mozilla as their default browser now that it's disassociated with AOL.
It's too popular and useful to die. The foundation will continue to be supported by the major Linux players (with developers, hardware and money) just like Linux itself is.
Several good points. But I disagree with the last sentence. Desktop and browser are not interdependent, despite what MS preaches. Target the manufacturers. They are bundling Sun Java with new Windows PCs - they can also bundle alternative default browsers if they have the motivation. Even though consumers don't care about the gory technical details, hardware manufacturers do. If a browser is more functional, more secure, and just as user-friendly, one of them will bite.
True, the public does not want to deal with the type of versioning we OS-ers are accustomed too. That's why Mozilla needs a public face. A web site that's consumer-oriented, in addition to the existing one that's developer-oriented. It's a very user friendly browser, but the process of obtaining it is intimidating for Joe Average. I would suggest creating a marketing site / online storefront (selling installation CD's for $10?) on www.mozilla.com. It's registered to "Netscape Communications", but there's no site on it.
I submitted a more detailed analysis of this system a while ago. Apparently, here's how it works.
On registration, you're issued a client certificate.
When you come back to vote, SERVE authenticates you based on your client certificate.
So, the question is - why do they feel the need to focus on Windows/IE? Any modern OS and browser combination that supports strong encryption and client certificates (and I can't think of one that doesn't) should be capable of securely using SERVE.
While this system seems like a good step in the right direction, I still end up coming to the conclusion that the designers are either ignorant, lazy, or motivated to favor Microsoft by other influences in the bureaucracy.
If I remember correctly, I think he's the one that introduced the civil union for homosexuals in Vermont. That's not something that a moderate would do, and it's not what independants want.
No, you don't remember correctly then. The way it played out is this:
The Vermont Supreme Court ruled that gay partners should have the same rights as straight partners
The Court told the legislature they better pass a law to enforce that ruling
Dean said he would not sign any bill mentioning "gay marriage"
The legislature created the concept of "civil unions", which give gay couples the same LEGAL rights (insurance, inheritance, taxes, etc) of married couples, but leaves marriage as a church institution, which it should be
Dean signed the bill
It's a very prickly issue, especially with religious people. I think Dean did very well in this sense, by forcing a compromise that protected the institution of marriage (out of respect for the church), without denying gay couples legal rights (out of common human decency).
Yes, Dean is actually a moderate. But he's a moderate that carefully considers the issues before making a decision, without taking a hard-line left, center or right stance. How could that possibly a bad thing in a president?
A noble start. But the vital pieces that would make it useful to business users are closed-source. This doesn't sound like a very complete open-source solution to me. From a business perspective, the hassle of user conversion, combined with reduced functionality and still having to pay money to have existing native clients (Outlook, Evolution) talk to it are more than enough for me to dismiss it without a second thought.
But, I'll keep an eye on it and look forward to new release.
The Federal Voting Assistance Program actually has a system online for this called SERVE. It looks like it will only be used for military and absentee voting in 2004 (and requires legislation in several states to be implemented), but appears to involve issuing cryptographic keys during registration that can later be used to authenticate votes during the election.
Sure, executing attachments is stupid. But Mozilla's response is an error that says "An unknown error occurred. Please save the attachment before opening it." This isn't much of a deterrent to a stupid user who would otherwise execute it directly from Outlook. He wants to view an attachment. He'll think "hmm, that's weird", save it, then "view" (execute) it. Despite the anti-MS mods who saw fit to call my original comment a troll, the fact remains that if a user is dumb enough to execute something, any mail client can be used to spread a virus.
A consistent complaint in this thread seems to be "Outlook isn't secure". This is silly. Besides a few bugs that had to do with scripting vulnerabilities (which are almost always traced back to IE component vulnerabilities - Outlook doesn't have its own HTML rendering engine), generally "Outlook security flaws" are viruses are activated by an ignorant user executing attachments. If the virus writers chose, they could just as easily read Mozilla's address book and email everyone in it to spread itself.
The fact that a useful tool is popular, and could potentially be used to propagate viruses if the user is a moron, does not make it insecure. Unless Mozilla encrypts its address book and does not provide any hooks to allow external applications to send mail, it is just as vulnerable as Outlook.
That being said, I personally dislike Outlook, but that doesn't justify unfounded accusations against it.
Most consumers (especially home users) aren't aware of this lawsuit. With corporate PR being what it is, sometimes we have to help the market take care of itself.
Neither I nor my company have purchased Lexmark products since they brought up this ridiculous lawsuit, and I've written them letters to inform them of the fact. If you've made a decision to use other vendors, please let their management know about it. A boycott has no effect if they can blame it on a bad economy in order to stick with their current "strategy".
Anything can be hacked when you're storing it in the clear. Of course you'll be able to regenerate the template when you already know exactly which points need to match. The solution to this "exploit" is to run a cryptographic algorithm on the facial template before storing it anywhere. Just like/etc/shadow... you can provide an unencrypted facial template, encrypt it, and compare the two results - but you can never regenerate the original from the encrypted record (well, not without more computing power than is realistically available).
You're missing the point. If Microsoft releases a signed bootloader, there is no need to set a jumper, because the XBox security subsystem will recognize it as a valid program.
I think this is a great idea. I don't care if a stranger sees a featureless black and white picture of me naked. Here's my current boarding procedure:
Stand in line behind 20 people digging around in their pockets looking for metal objects
Wait for everyone to dump their crap on the conveyor belt
Get pulled aside and frisked anyways because my shoes have metal rivets in them
Take shoes off at guard's request
Put shoes back on
Pick up metal objects and refill my pockets
I don't know about you, but I'd opt for:
Walk into a checkpoint, turn around once, wait five seconds for a "Go" signal (or "Stop" if something looks suspicious), and walk to your gate.
With a bit of experience and training, screeners will be able to identify suspicious objects on people just as fast as can when they scan my carry-on bags - which I've learned is a very efficient process compared to the pat-downs and hand-scanning I go through when I set off the "dumb" metal detectors.
Slashdot Mirror
iTunes is Apple only, for now. If you like Indie music (CDBaby's market), try emusic.com - they're also on CDBaby's distribution list. They sell MP3's with no DRM, and have download clients for Windows, Mac and Linux. Not many popular (RIAA) artists in their library, but if you're like me you don't listen to those anyways...
-j
A couple of groups you missed. Four: musicians who don't want to get screwed. Five: people who want to listen to high-quality digital music in their home, car, office, portable player or anywhere else they choose; i.e., digital music buffs, as I stated.
iTMS was launched earlier this year. December is a year off. That's a long time. Please, point out to me the part of my original post that said "Apple originally intended to release it at the same time as Mac iTMS". My point was that the later release date may have had more to do with legal issues than choice. These legal/contractual issues can take a long time to sort out, which you would know if you've ever released a product requiring outside licensing. This negotation time may simply have been planned into the Windows release cycle - Apple's not stupid.
Educate yourself and drop the AC before your next flame.
-j
Just 5.
-j
Distribution isn't limited to iTunes. I read the information page on CDBaby, and there are several digital distribution networks they get you into, including EMusic.com, which is straight MP3's with no DRM. That'll work for 100% of people.
-j
Kudos to Apple for their "light" DRM. But I think instead of them throwing the RIAA a bone, it may have been the other way around. The RIAA is supremely unpopular with digital music buffs. What better way to win some back than by allowing iTMS to use minimal DRM? They are limiting their exposure, and consequently their risk, because only 5% of computer users can access the store.
The truly telling moment will be when Apple launches their Windows-compatible iTMS. I have a strong hunch that right now RIAA views iTMS as a boutique shop that gives them positive publicity with minimal risk. I expect a return to more draconian terms for mass-market (read: Windows) music sales. Perhaps this is the real reason that iTMS is taking so long to release on Windows.
-j
RIAA is irrelevant here. The copyright holders of the music are directly authorizing CDBaby to distribute their music. The RIAA is not involved in any way.
Unless you were talking about iTunes, which already has contracts with the RIAA, and consequently cannot be sued by them.
Don't take offense, I don't mean to single you out - but I find comments like this truly depressing. Somehow the RIAA seems to have subliminally brainwashed us - even though of us who are anti-RIAA - into believing that any sort of convenient digital music service must be illegal on some level.
-j
Apple may not accept them, but this also covers a bunch of other distribution channels. Emusic is big with indie music fans, so I would imagine it's a little easier for CDBaby to get artists on there. Plus, they offer more consumer-friendly practices, like selling plain MP3's with no DRM.
-j
load up times seem the same with mozilla 1.4 . What gives?
Do you mean "the same as with mozilla 1.4"? If so, it's because they both use the same rendering engine (Gecko). Firebird just has less clutter around it, which is why the application in general is quicker to load and navigate, even though rendering times are identical. Gecko will be revamped once the main Mozilla branch adopts Firebird as its core.
-j
I think this is a big positive for Mozilla. I've always been worried that AOL's lack of dedication to Mozilla and Netscape would lead to its demise. The creation of an independent organization to manage the project (and own all IP, trademarks and associated domain names - thanks AOL!) is huge.
AOL may be pleased to "dump" it. But I'm pleased they are too. In addition to the autonomy, perhaps other ISPs (Earthlink, etc) may be more willing to adopt Mozilla as their default browser now that it's disassociated with AOL.
It's too popular and useful to die. The foundation will continue to be supported by the major Linux players (with developers, hardware and money) just like Linux itself is.
-j
Support for USB 2.0! Great!
Wait a minute... is that HIGH SPEED, or FULL SPEED?
-j
Several good points. But I disagree with the last sentence. Desktop and browser are not interdependent, despite what MS preaches. Target the manufacturers. They are bundling Sun Java with new Windows PCs - they can also bundle alternative default browsers if they have the motivation. Even though consumers don't care about the gory technical details, hardware manufacturers do. If a browser is more functional, more secure, and just as user-friendly, one of them will bite.
True, the public does not want to deal with the type of versioning we OS-ers are accustomed too. That's why Mozilla needs a public face. A web site that's consumer-oriented, in addition to the existing one that's developer-oriented. It's a very user friendly browser, but the process of obtaining it is intimidating for Joe Average. I would suggest creating a marketing site / online storefront (selling installation CD's for $10?) on www.mozilla.com. It's registered to "Netscape Communications", but there's no site on it.
-j
- On registration, you're issued a client certificate.
- When you come back to vote, SERVE authenticates you based on your client certificate.
So, the question is - why do they feel the need to focus on Windows/IE? Any modern OS and browser combination that supports strong encryption and client certificates (and I can't think of one that doesn't) should be capable of securely using SERVE.While this system seems like a good step in the right direction, I still end up coming to the conclusion that the designers are either ignorant, lazy, or motivated to favor Microsoft by other influences in the bureaucracy.
-j
No, you don't remember correctly then. The way it played out is this:
- The Vermont Supreme Court ruled that gay partners should have the same rights as straight partners
- The Court told the legislature they better pass a law to enforce that ruling
- Dean said he would not sign any bill mentioning "gay marriage"
- The legislature created the concept of "civil unions", which give gay couples the same LEGAL rights (insurance, inheritance, taxes, etc) of married couples, but leaves marriage as a church institution, which it should be
- Dean signed the bill
It's a very prickly issue, especially with religious people. I think Dean did very well in this sense, by forcing a compromise that protected the institution of marriage (out of respect for the church), without denying gay couples legal rights (out of common human decency).Yes, Dean is actually a moderate. But he's a moderate that carefully considers the issues before making a decision, without taking a hard-line left, center or right stance. How could that possibly a bad thing in a president?
-j
A noble start. But the vital pieces that would make it useful to business users are closed-source. This doesn't sound like a very complete open-source solution to me. From a business perspective, the hassle of user conversion, combined with reduced functionality and still having to pay money to have existing native clients (Outlook, Evolution) talk to it are more than enough for me to dismiss it without a second thought.
But, I'll keep an eye on it and look forward to new release.
-j
The Federal Voting Assistance Program actually has a system online for this called SERVE. It looks like it will only be used for military and absentee voting in 2004 (and requires legislation in several states to be implemented), but appears to involve issuing cryptographic keys during registration that can later be used to authenticate votes during the election.
-j
Sure, executing attachments is stupid. But Mozilla's response is an error that says "An unknown error occurred. Please save the attachment before opening it." This isn't much of a deterrent to a stupid user who would otherwise execute it directly from Outlook. He wants to view an attachment. He'll think "hmm, that's weird", save it, then "view" (execute) it. Despite the anti-MS mods who saw fit to call my original comment a troll, the fact remains that if a user is dumb enough to execute something, any mail client can be used to spread a virus.
-j
A consistent complaint in this thread seems to be "Outlook isn't secure". This is silly. Besides a few bugs that had to do with scripting vulnerabilities (which are almost always traced back to IE component vulnerabilities - Outlook doesn't have its own HTML rendering engine), generally "Outlook security flaws" are viruses are activated by an ignorant user executing attachments. If the virus writers chose, they could just as easily read Mozilla's address book and email everyone in it to spread itself.
The fact that a useful tool is popular, and could potentially be used to propagate viruses if the user is a moron, does not make it insecure. Unless Mozilla encrypts its address book and does not provide any hooks to allow external applications to send mail, it is just as vulnerable as Outlook.
That being said, I personally dislike Outlook, but that doesn't justify unfounded accusations against it.
-j
Isn't that the point of Congress?
-j
Most consumers (especially home users) aren't aware of this lawsuit. With corporate PR being what it is, sometimes we have to help the market take care of itself.
Neither I nor my company have purchased Lexmark products since they brought up this ridiculous lawsuit, and I've written them letters to inform them of the fact. If you've made a decision to use other vendors, please let their management know about it. A boycott has no effect if they can blame it on a bad economy in order to stick with their current "strategy".
-j
Wars are also a source of national trauma. We better leave them to the millionaires too.
Front and center, get up there, Lance!
-j
Whoever thinks this is news either has never worked for a web firm, or has never gotten to know their friendly marketing department.
-j
Anything can be hacked when you're storing it in the clear. Of course you'll be able to regenerate the template when you already know exactly which points need to match. The solution to this "exploit" is to run a cryptographic algorithm on the facial template before storing it anywhere. Just like /etc/shadow... you can provide an unencrypted facial template, encrypt it, and compare the two results - but you can never regenerate the original from the encrypted record (well, not without more computing power than is realistically available).
-j
You're missing the point. If Microsoft releases a signed bootloader, there is no need to set a jumper, because the XBox security subsystem will recognize it as a valid program.
-j
I certainly hope I don't end up getting skin cancer or something, but then again, I'm paranoid, right?
Do you go through security more often than you see sunlight? According to the article, the radiation is approximately like being out in the sun.
-j
- Stand in line behind 20 people digging around in their pockets looking for metal objects
- Wait for everyone to dump their crap on the conveyor belt
- Get pulled aside and frisked anyways because my shoes have metal rivets in them
- Take shoes off at guard's request
- Put shoes back on
- Pick up metal objects and refill my pockets
I don't know about you, but I'd opt for:- Walk into a checkpoint, turn around once, wait five seconds for a "Go" signal (or "Stop" if something looks suspicious), and walk to your gate.
With a bit of experience and training, screeners will be able to identify suspicious objects on people just as fast as can when they scan my carry-on bags - which I've learned is a very efficient process compared to the pat-downs and hand-scanning I go through when I set off the "dumb" metal detectors.-j