Right, but that's not what the OP was talking about - the argument was that the iPod was inferior because you couldn't organise your music manually (even though you actually can), and that "files in in a folder" was superior to "letting the iPod handle where the files are and using a database/m3u style method" to address and play them was somehow inferior because Apple.
What you are describing with m3u files *is exactly how the iPod works*. The only difference is that the iPod also copies the music files for you, you don't have to drag them onto the iPod yourself (although you absolutely can manage them on your hard drive yourself, despite what people on slashdot will try to tell you).
I have bought music on Amazon and Google. They both play fine in iTunes. I am wary. however, of buying music in iTunes after finding problems playing stuff I "bought" in iTunes on anything that didn't have a picture of part eaten fruit on it.
So what you're saying is you're blaming Apple because other vendors/programmers don't know how to implement a standard properly?
We have electrochemistry kit that is chugging along on a PC running Dos 6.2 and Win 3.11.
Getting your data off requires a floppy disk as an intermediate step. I have no idea what we'll do if that machine ever craps out - it would be a shame to have to retire the potentiostat because the computers that it was designed to talk to have effectively ascended to godhood in the meantime.
It's certainly not the only piece of analytical kit that is tied to legacy hardware. We have a couple of FTIR machines that look like props from Fallout: New Vegas but work just fine and I'm pretty sure the EPR computer is running Win95.
GPLv3: "code should be open and free, unless we decide that the freedom that a company chose was not the freedom we wanted them to choose!"
So, you think idea that you can do anything you want within the terms of the licence is a "loophole". Mhhmmm.
Oh, and let's not forget the idea that anyone who disagrees with your position is a sociopath.
What next? The test for sociopathic tendencies involves presenting a choice of OSS licences and if the subject picks anything other than GPLv3 they get branded a sociopath?
The version of Bash with the patch is v3, the version Apple uses is v2. They're perfectly happy to ship GPLv2 code (quite a bit of their codebase is GPL), but they have strenuously avoided GPLv3 where possible.
What is hard to understand about this?
That, plus the fact that the patches issued so far are not 100% effective is probably why there is no official patch from Apple yet (you are free to compile your own of course).
They have stated that they are working on it, so it will be forthcoming soon enough.
There is no PIN code weakness. You can set it to wipe the phone after 10 failed attempts, or set it to not do that, allowing infinite attempts, but if it is set this way then it will lock out after a few failed attempts and force you to wait to try again.
The level of security you choose is up to each user.
You can also set a PIN that is longer than 4 digits, and if you do so then you can use letters as well as numbers.
I have no doubt that CFCs are damaging to Ozone. You can easily test this out in a lab.
What I have not seen an explanation for is how CFCs, which are much heavier than air molecules travel from the developed areas and end up in the upper atmosphere above the south pole.
You've never seen an explanation for that? Really? How hard did you look?
Diffusion, convection, mixing. All basic processes that are well understood for fluids.
If you put a sugar cube in water and stir it, why do the heavy sugar molecules end up at the top of the mug, far from the bottom where the cube started?
Also, you seem to be doubting the fact that CFCs are in the stratosphere. You think it's a guess? They can be detected so we know they are there, and unfortunately for those who want to be science deniers, there are no natural sources of CFCs, so whatever is up there was as a result of human factors.
It does not have a integral GPS unit. It requires your iPhone to provide location information.
It does have internal storage for music, apps, and so on, and other sensors that the phone does;t have (like pulse) and some that replicate function (gyro, accelerometers).
You joke, but there is an app on the store that does literally nothing (other then opening) and costs $999.99. The entire purpose is to demonstrate that you are rich.
Your card details are not stored. A hash of your card number is stored. This hash is sent to the bank via the merchant along with a transaction ID and the device ID. The merchant never knows what the card number is, and it's not kept on the phone. Only the bank knows what the number is.
For this to work you have to verify the phone with the bank first (and share the hash with them). From then on, no one else needs to know your card number - including Apple.
The way I believe it works, based on the video today, is that you take an image of your card with your phone and it combines it with a device ID and then creates a hash, then you need to do something with your bank to have it added to the apple pay system. Cue said something like "verify" - but he did not give specifics. I assume that this hash is given to your bank somehow during this step. From then on, payments are made using this hash, and it's a direct transaction between merchant and bank.
They were very clear that the card number is not stored on the phone itself - he said specifically "if your phone is lost or stolen then you can use find my iPhone to disable payments made using it and because your card details are not on the device, the thief doesn't have that either".
The problem is you're not in a position to be able to evaluate the evidence - climate science is difficult and specialised.
Hey, that's the same thing the guy told me who tried selling me magnets to increase my gas mileage... The science is too difficult and specialized. I should "just trust him". Thanks for explaining this to me
Right, someone else tried that argument with a guy doing a seance, but he was at least smart enough to log in first.
The crucial difference between the magnet gas mileage person and science is that the scientist could actually back up their claims - it's just difficult to explain quickly and simply to a non-scientist. Of course, if climate science were a sham like magnet man, then other scientists would be able to demonstrate it.
The fact that you think "an expert in a scientific field can't easily explain it to me" = "he's a lying scammer" demonstrates an enormous lack of understanding about how experts work.
Did you say the same thing to your heart surgeon, or the guy who wrote the Linux kernel, or the guy sequencing your genome, or the guy developing the drugs that make your quality of life better?
If climate scientists are in it for the "hush money" or bribery or whatever you think it is via their salaries then I have a bridge to sell you. There are much easier ways to make much more money with that skill set.
Right, and you can do all that with the climate data if you like - it will just take you a little longer to do because it's not a simple as an ACL tear.
No one is hiding that data, they're just telling you that understanding it is non-trivial. This does not make it incorrect, however.
The problem is you're not in a position to be able to evaluate the evidence - climate science is difficult and specialised.
I don't agree, but what if this is the case? You expect me to believe someone who cannot explain how they reached their conclusion? That is religion, not science. Why should I believe your religion instead of someone else's? Do you believe it because of how it makes you feel? Is it because it makes you feel like you are part of an important mission?
No, you believe them because they're an expert in their field and they agree with 97% of the other experts in their field.
It's a complex system that is not possible to understand without a lot of background in the field - like open heart surgery, or programming the SSL library. At some point down the line in day to day life you're going to have to trust that the person who is an expert knows what they are talking about.
Of course, the expert could explain to you how they reached their conclusion, but you'd quickly get lost because they would assume that you knew various other important building blocks necessary to understand it - like a background in science, for example. Just because he can't explain it to a layperson in a few short sentences doesn't mean that they're lying. It *might*, but at that point you seek assurances from other people who are experts in the field.
This is not about religion - and that fact that you are trying to paint it as so is a huge non-sequitur. Religious beliefs cannot be proved. Scientific evidence can be - but often it is not as trivial as opening a box and saying "here it is". That does not make it wrong, just complicated.
Do you say the same thing to your doctor before they perform major surgery on you, or do you trust that they are a professional in their field and that 97% of other doctors would agree with them on how to perform your operation?
If you want to prove them wrong, the data is available.
Put it this way, do you think that if the data supported those special interests who have paid a lot of money to discredit climate scientists that they wouldn't use it to actually do so?
The beautiful thing about science is that it doesn't care if you don't believe it, it simply is. The data is all there.
I still find it fascinating that people believe that one particular discipline of scientists - not all scientists, specifically one narrow discipline - is involved in a "pseudoreligious political" conspiracy.
What here is more likely? That they're right, or that 97% of all climate scientists on earth in every country, every university, every company, every government, every society are all in lockstep under some grand master plan to... what? Funnel small amounts of money to them?
Even if we take the ludicrous position that every government has decided to work together in perfect unison to run a grand conspiracy to generate tax money/green policy/some other right wing bogeyman de-la-jeure, how on earth are they going to keep all the scientists to go along with it? It sure isn't money - have you seen the salary of a scientist? The easy money is working for ExxonMobil or the Koch brothers. The money on the anti-climate-change side is vastly higher than it is on the "regular science" side. There's no way that 97% of scientists in the field would go along with it - all it would take is for one to be tempted by the dump truck full of cash to blow the conspiracy open, and that hasn't happened - despite all the attempts to discredit climate scientists.
It's not even as if the data they are using is somehow hidden. This is data collected globally from thousands of sources and hundreds and hundreds of people available to anyone who wants to study it.
The fact that you are classifying an entire discipline of science as "pseudoreligious" says it all really. You disagree with 97% of scientists on this issue, but you're not sure why (or you lack the arguments as to why) except that you've been told they are all involved in some conspiracy, so you make it into some political ideology battle.
I guess I should trust the 3% of programmers who say that there are NSA backdoors in the Linux kernel. I mean, some guy on 4chan said it and I believe him. Those pseudoreligious zealots on slashdot are just trying to get me to use Linux so the government can spy on me.
Slashdot Mirror
He also said:
Why on earth would you buy an inferior device for twice the price with no ability to manage its content on your own?!?!?!
Which is so far away from the truth that Glenn Beck has endorsed it as a fact.
Today I learned that fixing exploits in your software is computer tampering, but only if it's someone you don't like doing it I guess.
Right, but that's not what the OP was talking about - the argument was that the iPod was inferior because you couldn't organise your music manually (even though you actually can), and that "files in in a folder" was superior to "letting the iPod handle where the files are and using a database/m3u style method" to address and play them was somehow inferior because Apple.
What you are describing with m3u files *is exactly how the iPod works*. The only difference is that the iPod also copies the music files for you, you don't have to drag them onto the iPod yourself (although you absolutely can manage them on your hard drive yourself, despite what people on slashdot will try to tell you).
You didn't see the really obvious checkbox that says "keep my iTunes media folder organised" and unchecked it?
Maybe the software was too "bloated and buggy" for you to open the options menu.
It's hilarious how much misinformation gets passed off as fact when it comes to talking about Apple stuff in order to bash something you don't like.
I have bought music on Amazon and Google. They both play fine in iTunes. I am wary. however, of buying music in iTunes after finding problems playing stuff I "bought" in iTunes on anything that didn't have a picture of part eaten fruit on it.
So what you're saying is you're blaming Apple because other vendors/programmers don't know how to implement a standard properly?
We have electrochemistry kit that is chugging along on a PC running Dos 6.2 and Win 3.11.
Getting your data off requires a floppy disk as an intermediate step. I have no idea what we'll do if that machine ever craps out - it would be a shame to have to retire the potentiostat because the computers that it was designed to talk to have effectively ascended to godhood in the meantime.
It's certainly not the only piece of analytical kit that is tied to legacy hardware. We have a couple of FTIR machines that look like props from Fallout: New Vegas but work just fine and I'm pretty sure the EPR computer is running Win95.
Bonjour is just Apple's implementation of Zeroconf. It's freeware, with the core components of it under the Apache licence.
Have a look through the code yourself "to be sure". https://developer.apple.com/bo...
Ah, propaganda!
GPLv3: "code should be open and free, unless we decide that the freedom that a company chose was not the freedom we wanted them to choose!"
So, you think idea that you can do anything you want within the terms of the licence is a "loophole". Mhhmmm.
Oh, and let's not forget the idea that anyone who disagrees with your position is a sociopath.
What next? The test for sociopathic tendencies involves presenting a choice of OSS licences and if the subject picks anything other than GPLv3 they get branded a sociopath?
The version of Bash with the patch is v3, the version Apple uses is v2. They're perfectly happy to ship GPLv2 code (quite a bit of their codebase is GPL), but they have strenuously avoided GPLv3 where possible.
What is hard to understand about this?
That, plus the fact that the patches issued so far are not 100% effective is probably why there is no official patch from Apple yet (you are free to compile your own of course).
They have stated that they are working on it, so it will be forthcoming soon enough.
Well, Apple did think of that - large downloads do not download over your data connection, you have to connect to wifi.
Also, auto-download is off by default.
Also this album simply appears in iTunes in the Cloud and doesn't download automatically.
There is no DRM on iTunes music.
They are standard .aac files.
There is no PIN code weakness. You can set it to wipe the phone after 10 failed attempts, or set it to not do that, allowing infinite attempts, but if it is set this way then it will lock out after a few failed attempts and force you to wait to try again.
The level of security you choose is up to each user.
You can also set a PIN that is longer than 4 digits, and if you do so then you can use letters as well as numbers.
I have no doubt that CFCs are damaging to Ozone. You can easily test this out in a lab.
What I have not seen an explanation for is how CFCs, which are much heavier than air molecules travel from the developed areas and end up in the upper atmosphere above the south pole.
You've never seen an explanation for that? Really? How hard did you look?
Diffusion, convection, mixing. All basic processes that are well understood for fluids.
If you put a sugar cube in water and stir it, why do the heavy sugar molecules end up at the top of the mug, far from the bottom where the cube started?
Also, you seem to be doubting the fact that CFCs are in the stratosphere. You think it's a guess? They can be detected so we know they are there, and unfortunately for those who want to be science deniers, there are no natural sources of CFCs, so whatever is up there was as a result of human factors.
No, you were just flat out incorrect.
The science behind how the ozone layer works, how it is formed, why it thins at the poles, and why CFCs are damaging to it is very well understood.
You "common sensing" it out on the back of an envelope doesn't trump the actual science.
It does not have a integral GPS unit. It requires your iPhone to provide location information.
It does have internal storage for music, apps, and so on, and other sensors that the phone does;t have (like pulse) and some that replicate function (gyro, accelerometers).
You joke, but there is an app on the store that does literally nothing (other then opening) and costs $999.99. The entire purpose is to demonstrate that you are rich.
Your card details are not stored. A hash of your card number is stored. This hash is sent to the bank via the merchant along with a transaction ID and the device ID. The merchant never knows what the card number is, and it's not kept on the phone. Only the bank knows what the number is.
For this to work you have to verify the phone with the bank first (and share the hash with them). From then on, no one else needs to know your card number - including Apple.
Flip it over.
It's symmetrical about the x axis.
If you cut his finger off, yes.
The bank has your card number.
The way I believe it works, based on the video today, is that you take an image of your card with your phone and it combines it with a device ID and then creates a hash, then you need to do something with your bank to have it added to the apple pay system. Cue said something like "verify" - but he did not give specifics. I assume that this hash is given to your bank somehow during this step. From then on, payments are made using this hash, and it's a direct transaction between merchant and bank.
They were very clear that the card number is not stored on the phone itself - he said specifically "if your phone is lost or stolen then you can use find my iPhone to disable payments made using it and because your card details are not on the device, the thief doesn't have that either".
The problem is you're not in a position to be able to evaluate the evidence - climate science is difficult and specialised.
Hey, that's the same thing the guy told me who tried selling me magnets to increase my gas mileage... The science is too difficult and specialized. I should "just trust him". Thanks for explaining this to me
Right, someone else tried that argument with a guy doing a seance, but he was at least smart enough to log in first.
The crucial difference between the magnet gas mileage person and science is that the scientist could actually back up their claims - it's just difficult to explain quickly and simply to a non-scientist. Of course, if climate science were a sham like magnet man, then other scientists would be able to demonstrate it.
The fact that you think "an expert in a scientific field can't easily explain it to me" = "he's a lying scammer" demonstrates an enormous lack of understanding about how experts work.
Did you say the same thing to your heart surgeon, or the guy who wrote the Linux kernel, or the guy sequencing your genome, or the guy developing the drugs that make your quality of life better?
Ah, the old "they're being paid off" argument.
If climate scientists are in it for the "hush money" or bribery or whatever you think it is via their salaries then I have a bridge to sell you. There are much easier ways to make much more money with that skill set.
Right, and you can do all that with the climate data if you like - it will just take you a little longer to do because it's not a simple as an ACL tear.
No one is hiding that data, they're just telling you that understanding it is non-trivial. This does not make it incorrect, however.
The problem is you're not in a position to be able to evaluate the evidence - climate science is difficult and specialised.
I don't agree, but what if this is the case? You expect me to believe someone who cannot explain how they reached their conclusion? That is religion, not science. Why should I believe your religion instead of someone else's? Do you believe it because of how it makes you feel? Is it because it makes you feel like you are part of an important mission?
No, you believe them because they're an expert in their field and they agree with 97% of the other experts in their field.
It's a complex system that is not possible to understand without a lot of background in the field - like open heart surgery, or programming the SSL library. At some point down the line in day to day life you're going to have to trust that the person who is an expert knows what they are talking about.
Of course, the expert could explain to you how they reached their conclusion, but you'd quickly get lost because they would assume that you knew various other important building blocks necessary to understand it - like a background in science, for example. Just because he can't explain it to a layperson in a few short sentences doesn't mean that they're lying. It *might*, but at that point you seek assurances from other people who are experts in the field.
This is not about religion - and that fact that you are trying to paint it as so is a huge non-sequitur. Religious beliefs cannot be proved. Scientific evidence can be - but often it is not as trivial as opening a box and saying "here it is". That does not make it wrong, just complicated.
Do you say the same thing to your doctor before they perform major surgery on you, or do you trust that they are a professional in their field and that 97% of other doctors would agree with them on how to perform your operation?
If you want to prove them wrong, the data is available.
Put it this way, do you think that if the data supported those special interests who have paid a lot of money to discredit climate scientists that they wouldn't use it to actually do so?
The beautiful thing about science is that it doesn't care if you don't believe it, it simply is. The data is all there.
I still find it fascinating that people believe that one particular discipline of scientists - not all scientists, specifically one narrow discipline - is involved in a "pseudoreligious political" conspiracy.
What here is more likely? That they're right, or that 97% of all climate scientists on earth in every country, every university, every company, every government, every society are all in lockstep under some grand master plan to... what? Funnel small amounts of money to them?
Even if we take the ludicrous position that every government has decided to work together in perfect unison to run a grand conspiracy to generate tax money/green policy/some other right wing bogeyman de-la-jeure, how on earth are they going to keep all the scientists to go along with it? It sure isn't money - have you seen the salary of a scientist? The easy money is working for ExxonMobil or the Koch brothers. The money on the anti-climate-change side is vastly higher than it is on the "regular science" side. There's no way that 97% of scientists in the field would go along with it - all it would take is for one to be tempted by the dump truck full of cash to blow the conspiracy open, and that hasn't happened - despite all the attempts to discredit climate scientists.
It's not even as if the data they are using is somehow hidden. This is data collected globally from thousands of sources and hundreds and hundreds of people available to anyone who wants to study it.
The fact that you are classifying an entire discipline of science as "pseudoreligious" says it all really. You disagree with 97% of scientists on this issue, but you're not sure why (or you lack the arguments as to why) except that you've been told they are all involved in some conspiracy, so you make it into some political ideology battle.
I guess I should trust the 3% of programmers who say that there are NSA backdoors in the Linux kernel. I mean, some guy on 4chan said it and I believe him. Those pseudoreligious zealots on slashdot are just trying to get me to use Linux so the government can spy on me.