" Another man, who spoke to journalists but chose to remain anonymous to prevent further harassment, says he was stopped more than 25 times by police under a variety of pretences after he had attended a peaceful local protest against duck and pheasant shooting. He finally made a formal complaint after police armed with machine guns pulled him over during an evening out with his wife."
Apart from the invasion of privacy, what a complete waste of resources, maybe some budgets need to be reduced in order to cut down on waste.
"'I'm telling you the whole truth! They stopped me for no reason other than attending a pheasant shooting protest!"
"Can we take your name for the record?"
"No"
"Were you driving with no tax and no insurance again?"
I believe it's because of the proliferation of ANPR and other cameras that I had a major reduction of my motor insurance premium this year. Society pays for the crimes of the minority, so using technology to take the crooks off the road pays dividends to all.
I won't even try and remove the cloud of ignorance hovering all around you that helps you think you're not paying for that entire traffic camera system through the many, many other taxes you pay, but feel free to enjoy the 15% off your motor insurance premiums in exchange for a 50% increase in your medical insurance costs. After all, those traffic cams do a damn good job in keeping track of just how many times you drive to stuff your face with junk food, which they turn around and sell that information to your healthcare provider. Even in socialized medicine, those costs are buried. Enjoy your taxes.
Where's the "-1 hilariously wrong" mod?
The UK spends less that half the GDP per capita on healthcare compared to the USA, which is where I assume you're from.
Those costs may be "buried" but they're still *enormously* cheaper than the alternative. Plus, the bonus effect of not going bankrupt when you get sick, and being able to change jobs without having to worry about losing coverage.
But the police aren't tracking your car 24/7. That's not what the ANPR system is.
ANPR cameras tend to be at petrol stations (where they are mainly installed to catch drive offs), on major motorways (to catch insurance/tax dodgers and any cars flagged as "interest" - this includes criminal flags as well as stolen vehicles) and in some police patrol cars (for the same reasons).
The scaremonger site linked in the article is trying to paint this as some sort of abuse. The cameras are nowhere near as "all encompassing" as these click bait articles like to make out, nor are they overwhelmingly used for the nefarious purposes indicated. The bulk of ANPR flags are for tax, insurance and stolen cars.
They're certainly not able to track an individual vehicle 24/7. At best the police (after pouring through hours of footage) might be able to pin you down to a local area, or say "this car drove up the M1 last week".
When was the last "Massive iOS Mobile Botnet Hijacking SMS Data" headline?
When was the last maximum security prisoner getting run over by a bus headline? Sometimes freedom has its own risks, which includes idiots making poor decisions over where to get their software from. Does that mean everyone should be locked up in a cage to prevent that from happening?
No, not at all, but there are parts of this story that expose one of the weaknesses of the Android permissions model; namely that an app requests a set of permissions (that are overly broad to cut down on the number of permissions groups) and you have to either accept or deny those permissions wholesale. This affects apps from all sources, even reputable ones. On that front, the iOS model is better - it asks for permissions as the app requests them, so you can accept/block an app on a granular basis. So you could allow an app access to your location, for example, but deny it access to your contacts.
Given the flexibility of Android to be able to install apps from all manner of sources, I would have thought this type of security model would be better (or at least an option).
I'm going to call BS. You thought it was Argon, were wrong, got called out, and now you're trying to backtrack. Your argument was that the article's title was wrong because Argon was shown to be non-noble years ago and that you could buy compounds now. Unless you for some reason think that the existence of Xenon difluoride implicates the existance of argon compounds.
I should probably stop you there. I'm a professional chemist.
You can claim I was trying to backtrack, or you can accept that I typed the wrong element because the entire story is about Argon. I personally know a guy who studies argon complexes spectroscopically and he's been doing it for a lot longer than the date of this article.
I am well versed in group 18, and use one of its members (Argon!) pretty much every day (except weekends).
Chemists have known for a long time that the "noble" gasses aren't really noble, hence the reluctance to use that name for them. The only real holdout in group 18 is Neon.
Argon has already been shown to be "non-noble" many years ago - hell, you can buy Argon compounds from chemical suppliers right now (like Argon difluoride).
You'll first have to get them to make sure the story as a whole is correct - this issue has been patched for a while and only affects old versions of Safari that are limited to 10.7 and 10.8 (and an update on those older systems fixed it there too). Safari on 10.9 has never been affected.
This sounds like an awful massive case of "hey, not my responsibility!" justifications.
Hey, only the fucked parts of this rollout are fucked and we aren't going to count those, so shit ain't fucked.
You mean the original article, right?
The headline strongly implies that for $300 million spent, only 44 people were signed up, when actually when you look at the facts, this is simply untrue.
A more accurate headline would be "after spending $300 million dollars, there are still 30,000 people waiting for ACA applications to be approved".
Due to the rewrite of Player X (for all the reasons people have been moaning about for a decade), some of the more esoteric parts were left by the wayside, which is why v7 is still around to this day. I would still consider Quicktime Player X to be almost beta quality software - it's nowhere near as flexible as 7 was. For example, I have no idea why it can't just use any old codec you drop into the library folder.
If you're going to bold the word "rights" there, then can we make a pact here on slashdot to never call it "Digital Restrictions Management" again?
As seen in this thread, the term "DRM" seems to mean "whatever makes Apple/Sony/Microsoft/hated-company-du-jour the bad guy".
I picked a pretty generic place to cite the definition (wikipedia) - that supports my position, but apparently that's not enough. I guess all the wikipedia contributors are in Apple's pocket or something.
How could it not support Apple's Intermediate Codec? - Apple Inter codec is something that was used by Final Cut Pro, which based its entire video handling ability on the Quicktime API.
DRM is Digital Rights Management. Tagging to identify the consumer is exactly one type of DRM.
Man, the Apple haters get crazier every passing day.
Ah yes, the obligatory insult from the paid shill in an attempt to marginalize other points of view. Ever thought of getting a real job and contributing to the community instead of being a parasite?
No argument so you call me a paid shill, and you forgot to log in.
DRM = Digital Rights Management. Apple is using digital watermarking to monitor and control how you use the digital data you purchased. This is the very definition of DRM.
You seem to not understand what DRM is.
Then we need to redefine what it is, since it seems to me you want your cake and to eat it too. There are no restrictions on what you can do with the files you get. There may be *consequences* if you share the file and it is discovered being shared on napster or some dodgy torrent site, but that is not in the definition of what "Digital Rights Management" means as a term.
Up to this point it has been a term that refers to software controls that require a key/authorisation to work.
But no, since we're bashing Apple here, move the goalposts! Anything to ensure they're the bad guy, eh?
From the wiki article on DRM:
Apple Inc. has sold DRM-free music through its iTunes Store since April 2007 and has been labeling all music as "DRM-Free" since January 2009. The music still carries a digital watermark to identify the purchaser. Other works sold on iTunes such as e-books, movies, TV shows, audiobooks and apps continue to be protected by DRM.
Amarok is what I used to play my iTunes music on Ubuntu, back when I was using it on my old Powerbook (main machine runs OS X and is the home of the library). Works pretty well, but I was only using it occasionally.
or maybe 1. software installs shouldn't default to bundling extra bullshit that really shouldn't be there in the first place? 2. software shouldn't have features that mess with source files turned on as start up/initial defaults?
itunes on windows is a piece of shit... hell so is quicktime. What started as a simple directshow/vfw codec turned into a monstrosity that installs tons of bullshit that is not necessary nor asked for.
It doesn't mess with your source files by default.
By default it copies the music you point it at on initial startup into its own folder. The source files are left 100% untouched, other than reading the data off the disk.
Of course, this means that it essentially duplicates your music library on install, so if you're hurting for hard drive space you'll be in a world of hurt (i.e., you get duplicates of everything, thus doubling the size taken up by the music), but once it has read that initial folder of music it never touches it again. To counter this you can tell iTunes to work with the folder system you already have and to not manage it automatically. This is *not* the default option.
The DRM still exists, it's just more subtle - they imbed your personal account info into the tracks you buy, so if you die and bequeath your music collection to your kids, they'll lose your entire music collection at best, and go to jail at worst - or possibly pay an exorbitant fine.
Apple's claims of 'no drm' are bullshit, but most people seem to have bought into it (much like Google's 'do no evil' and look where that's gotten us). This blinkered acceptance comes part and parcel with the creeping surveillance society, apparently.
You seem to not understand what DRM is.
Tagging a file with your Apple ID is not DRM. What Apple is doing there is discouraging you from sharing your music with the entire internet, but not discouraging you from sharing it with your immediate friends and family.
An iTunes file tagged with your Apple ID will play back on any music player capable of reading AAC files.
If you die then your entire music collection isn't lost. It's just there on your hard drive. I wasn't aware that your hard drive got deleted when you die.
Your kids certainly won't be sent to jail or fined for listening to it.
Man, the Apple haters get crazier every passing day.
Slashdot Mirror
" Another man, who spoke to journalists but chose to remain anonymous to prevent further harassment, says he was stopped more than 25 times by police under a variety of pretences after he had attended a peaceful local protest against duck and pheasant shooting. He finally made a formal complaint after police armed with machine guns pulled him over during an evening out with his wife."
Apart from the invasion of privacy, what a complete waste of resources, maybe some budgets need to be reduced in order to cut down on waste.
"'I'm telling you the whole truth! They stopped me for no reason other than attending a pheasant shooting protest!"
"Can we take your name for the record?"
"No"
"Were you driving with no tax and no insurance again?"
"No comment."
I believe it's because of the proliferation of ANPR and other cameras that I had a major reduction of my motor insurance premium this year. Society pays for the crimes of the minority, so using technology to take the crooks off the road pays dividends to all.
I won't even try and remove the cloud of ignorance hovering all around you that helps you think you're not paying for that entire traffic camera system through the many, many other taxes you pay, but feel free to enjoy the 15% off your motor insurance premiums in exchange for a 50% increase in your medical insurance costs. After all, those traffic cams do a damn good job in keeping track of just how many times you drive to stuff your face with junk food, which they turn around and sell that information to your healthcare provider. Even in socialized medicine, those costs are buried. Enjoy your taxes.
Where's the "-1 hilariously wrong" mod?
The UK spends less that half the GDP per capita on healthcare compared to the USA, which is where I assume you're from.
Those costs may be "buried" but they're still *enormously* cheaper than the alternative. Plus, the bonus effect of not going bankrupt when you get sick, and being able to change jobs without having to worry about losing coverage.
I'll take it.
But the police aren't tracking your car 24/7. That's not what the ANPR system is.
ANPR cameras tend to be at petrol stations (where they are mainly installed to catch drive offs), on major motorways (to catch insurance/tax dodgers and any cars flagged as "interest" - this includes criminal flags as well as stolen vehicles) and in some police patrol cars (for the same reasons).
The scaremonger site linked in the article is trying to paint this as some sort of abuse. The cameras are nowhere near as "all encompassing" as these click bait articles like to make out, nor are they overwhelmingly used for the nefarious purposes indicated. The bulk of ANPR flags are for tax, insurance and stolen cars.
They're certainly not able to track an individual vehicle 24/7. At best the police (after pouring through hours of footage) might be able to pin you down to a local area, or say "this car drove up the M1 last week".
It's not Enemy of the State or anything.
I think it's easier to find a plugin than a gas station.
Uh yeah, I doubt that.
You doubt that there are more electrical plug sockets in the USA than gas stations?
This explains why that is:
http://zeropointhub.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/sjH5r.jpg
When was the last "Massive iOS Mobile Botnet Hijacking SMS Data" headline?
When was the last maximum security prisoner getting run over by a bus headline? Sometimes freedom has its own risks, which includes idiots making poor decisions over where to get their software from. Does that mean everyone should be locked up in a cage to prevent that from happening?
No, not at all, but there are parts of this story that expose one of the weaknesses of the Android permissions model; namely that an app requests a set of permissions (that are overly broad to cut down on the number of permissions groups) and you have to either accept or deny those permissions wholesale. This affects apps from all sources, even reputable ones. On that front, the iOS model is better - it asks for permissions as the app requests them, so you can accept/block an app on a granular basis. So you could allow an app access to your location, for example, but deny it access to your contacts.
Given the flexibility of Android to be able to install apps from all manner of sources, I would have thought this type of security model would be better (or at least an option).
Apple's MagSafe connector is the opposite of yank-resistant. It can be yanked out more easily than any other connector I've ever seen.
That's the point. By "yank resistant" the poster means "you can yank on it and it won't pull the laptop off the table so it smashes on the floor".
Most high tech ends up in Apple after the other guys did it first. The mag adapter is one of the few 'innovations' from Apple.
The others being a high-dpi display and a battery that actually lasts as long as they say it does I suppose?
I'm going to call BS. You thought it was Argon, were wrong, got called out, and now you're trying to backtrack. Your argument was that the article's title was wrong because Argon was shown to be non-noble years ago and that you could buy compounds now. Unless you for some reason think that the existence of Xenon difluoride implicates the existance of argon compounds.
I should probably stop you there. I'm a professional chemist.
You can claim I was trying to backtrack, or you can accept that I typed the wrong element because the entire story is about Argon. I personally know a guy who studies argon complexes spectroscopically and he's been doing it for a lot longer than the date of this article.
I am well versed in group 18, and use one of its members (Argon!) pretty much every day (except weekends).
Chemists have known for a long time that the "noble" gasses aren't really noble, hence the reluctance to use that name for them. The only real holdout in group 18 is Neon.
Oh, you also forgot to log in, kid. Silly you!
Yes, I meant to write xenon difluriode (we have some in the lab), not argon.
I do mean XeF2 - I put Ar instead without proofing my comment.
Argon has already been shown to be "non-noble" many years ago - hell, you can buy Argon compounds from chemical suppliers right now (like Argon difluoride).
The title is simply scientific ignorance.
You can't replicate it because Apple fixed this 2 months ago with Safari 6.1 on Lion/ML and with Safari 7 on Mavericks.
It only affects Safari 6.
You'll first have to get them to make sure the story as a whole is correct - this issue has been patched for a while and only affects old versions of Safari that are limited to 10.7 and 10.8 (and an update on those older systems fixed it there too). Safari on 10.9 has never been affected.
This issue was fixed at least 2 months ago.
This sounds like an awful massive case of "hey, not my responsibility!" justifications.
Hey, only the fucked parts of this rollout are fucked and we aren't going to count those, so shit ain't fucked.
You mean the original article, right?
The headline strongly implies that for $300 million spent, only 44 people were signed up, when actually when you look at the facts, this is simply untrue.
A more accurate headline would be "after spending $300 million dollars, there are still 30,000 people waiting for ACA applications to be approved".
Or may, just maybe, he was deliberately misquoted in the troll summary to rile up posters like you.
It worked perfectly!
Clickbait at its finest.
Is that Quicktime Player X or Quicktime Player 7?
Due to the rewrite of Player X (for all the reasons people have been moaning about for a decade), some of the more esoteric parts were left by the wayside, which is why v7 is still around to this day. I would still consider Quicktime Player X to be almost beta quality software - it's nowhere near as flexible as 7 was. For example, I have no idea why it can't just use any old codec you drop into the library folder.
If you're going to bold the word "rights" there, then can we make a pact here on slashdot to never call it "Digital Restrictions Management" again?
As seen in this thread, the term "DRM" seems to mean "whatever makes Apple/Sony/Microsoft/hated-company-du-jour the bad guy".
I picked a pretty generic place to cite the definition (wikipedia) - that supports my position, but apparently that's not enough. I guess all the wikipedia contributors are in Apple's pocket or something.
How could it not support Apple's Intermediate Codec? - Apple Inter codec is something that was used by Final Cut Pro, which based its entire video handling ability on the Quicktime API.
That makes no sense.
Tagging a file with your Apple ID is not DRM.
DRM is Digital Rights Management. Tagging to identify the consumer is exactly one type of DRM.
Man, the Apple haters get crazier every passing day.
Ah yes, the obligatory insult from the paid shill in an attempt to marginalize other points of view. Ever thought of getting a real job and contributing to the community instead of being a parasite?
No argument so you call me a paid shill, and you forgot to log in.
Classic.
1/10.
You seem to not understand what DRM is.
DRM = Digital Rights Management. Apple is using digital watermarking to monitor and control how you use the digital data you purchased. This is the very definition of DRM.
You seem to not understand what DRM is.
Then we need to redefine what it is, since it seems to me you want your cake and to eat it too. There are no restrictions on what you can do with the files you get. There may be *consequences* if you share the file and it is discovered being shared on napster or some dodgy torrent site, but that is not in the definition of what "Digital Rights Management" means as a term.
Up to this point it has been a term that refers to software controls that require a key/authorisation to work.
But no, since we're bashing Apple here, move the goalposts! Anything to ensure they're the bad guy, eh?
From the wiki article on DRM:
Apple Inc. has sold DRM-free music through its iTunes Store since April 2007 and has been labeling all music as "DRM-Free" since January 2009. The music still carries a digital watermark to identify the purchaser. Other works sold on iTunes such as e-books, movies, TV shows, audiobooks and apps continue to be protected by DRM.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management
The OP asks for a free, open music player and you suggest he buys a Mac. Someone else mods you insightful. Well done Slashdot.
It's the flip side of the coin of all those "iTunes music is DRM and your kids will go to jail" posts that are getting insightful mods. ;)
Amarok is what I used to play my iTunes music on Ubuntu, back when I was using it on my old Powerbook (main machine runs OS X and is the home of the library). Works pretty well, but I was only using it occasionally.
or maybe
1. software installs shouldn't default to bundling extra bullshit that really shouldn't be there in the first place?
2. software shouldn't have features that mess with source files turned on as start up/initial defaults?
itunes on windows is a piece of shit... hell so is quicktime. What started as a simple directshow/vfw codec turned into a monstrosity that installs tons of bullshit that is not necessary nor asked for.
It doesn't mess with your source files by default.
By default it copies the music you point it at on initial startup into its own folder. The source files are left 100% untouched, other than reading the data off the disk.
Of course, this means that it essentially duplicates your music library on install, so if you're hurting for hard drive space you'll be in a world of hurt (i.e., you get duplicates of everything, thus doubling the size taken up by the music), but once it has read that initial folder of music it never touches it again. To counter this you can tell iTunes to work with the folder system you already have and to not manage it automatically. This is *not* the default option.
The DRM still exists, it's just more subtle - they imbed your personal account info into the tracks you buy, so if you die and bequeath your music collection to your kids, they'll lose your entire music collection at best, and go to jail at worst - or possibly pay an exorbitant fine.
Apple's claims of 'no drm' are bullshit, but most people seem to have bought into it (much like Google's 'do no evil' and look where that's gotten us). This blinkered acceptance comes part and parcel with the creeping surveillance society, apparently.
You seem to not understand what DRM is.
Tagging a file with your Apple ID is not DRM. What Apple is doing there is discouraging you from sharing your music with the entire internet, but not discouraging you from sharing it with your immediate friends and family.
An iTunes file tagged with your Apple ID will play back on any music player capable of reading AAC files.
If you die then your entire music collection isn't lost. It's just there on your hard drive. I wasn't aware that your hard drive got deleted when you die.
Your kids certainly won't be sent to jail or fined for listening to it.
Man, the Apple haters get crazier every passing day.