If you want Emacs for OS X you should check out Aquamacs. It has some good integration with OS X that can make your life easier.
For example it supports standard OS X keyboard shortcuts (in addition to standard Emacs bindings) and easily assign shortcuts to the iBook / PowerBook Fn key combos. You can access the OS X dictionary from the context menu, and use the services menu... etc. etc.
The parent points at another emacs port that looks pretty stale (it is talking about 10.2 & 10.3).
Debating the merits of Intelligent Design itself may not rate as decent philosophy, but there is definitely room in philosophy for debates which touch on some of its ideas. For example, first year university philosophy will often contain material on the classic debates about the "brain in the vat" (later popularised in the Matrix) and other sceptical arguments about our perceptions of the world (and epistemology).
Versions of Intelligent Design (not all versions I admit) which for example include the rejection of fossil evidence as some sort of trick by the intelligent designer raises many of the same issues - how can we know that our perceptions and measurements can be trusted?
Lets say you have an Apache script and a database backend.
The problem from the article is how do you authenticate the apache script to the database without giving permanent access to database for any programmers who see the code.
One answer is to authenticate the machine running Apache to the DB, rather than just a username/password pair. For example you could use something like IPSec so that the only machines able to connect to the database have the right IP address and certificate.
This way often you will never need to give the programmer access to the production apache machine ever!
If you do give them access to the apache machine, the problem is solved when you revoke their access (unless you were stupid enough to ever give them root access).
Finally, you can use a username/password pair to prevent other applications (and their developers) on the same machine from ever accessing unnecessary information from other projects etc.
On OS X, if you try to pull a trick like funnyPic.jpg.exe it will refuse to hide the extension and so you'll see the.exe
Not that it would run on OS X anyway... but it would protect you from an application bundle you received from a worm in an archive from appearing as an image. e.g. funnyPic.jpg.app
This doesn't fully address your problem though since "funnyPic" with an image icon will still nail most people, and of course most Mac uses probably wouldn't know what a.app extension means anyway.
No it is not possible. Read the grandparent post again, this time with emphasis to make things clearer:
What we really need is a cheap, standalone appliance with an application-level firewall that can determine what application is sending requests by looking at packet contents (I know this is difficult).
Your suggestion was:
How about using an HTTP/SSL Proxy and forcing all outbound connections through the proxy and examining the underlying protocols prior to exiting a perimeter firewall?
How does that help? You still don't know what application is sending requests, you only know what protocol it is speaking. But so what? sure it just looks like standard http/ssl traffic (it is)... so how does your network box know whether it is coming from a web-browser or some ssl speaking malware?
The answer - it can't.
Your handy http/ssl proxy will just merrily forward that traffic on to the companies CGI webserver and they've got through again.
Your comments about "service level attacks" that break the protocol specification are out of place here too. The malware can post totally legitimate http/ssl to a parent company server and communicate all the information it needs to.
What we really need is a cheap, standalone appliance with an application-level firewall that can determine what application is sending requests by looking at packet contents (I know this is difficult).
What you are suggesting is not just difficult - it is impossible (for well designed malware). For example, malware could just talk http with ssl with some server and you'd never know which application was doing it.
You really need applications to not require Admin access to install (e.g. OS X) and than you can feel secure about your firewall. Don't install any dodgy apps that require admin access.
Ripping CDs from the menu interface, and adding it to your collection
If you walk up to the machine to put a CD in you can just pop open iTunes, rip it the once, and be done with it.
Are you seriously suggesting that you should walk over to your machine, put in a CD, and pick up a little remote and navigate through a deep menu hierarchy to find the rip option? Your standing right there - use the mouse
iTunes has a way better interface for doing this stuff than any FrontRow style menu is likely to provide.
Keep FrontRow simple, and targeted at the tasks you need to do across the room on the couch - i.e. finding media, playing it, pausing it, tracking through it.
Then if you need to do something more complicated you've got the whole power of the iLife apps to work with.
Sondvox doesn't seem to be targeting pro-users. It's name is based on the idea of a "Sandbox" after all - somewhere safe and contained for the kids to play
It might be a great app for the average user to throw up a good looking templated site, but it isn't going to be much use to anyone who wants to make complex, original custom designs.
I fully understand the idea of really sitting and listening to a piece of music - really appreciating it, and having a real passion for it. You called for me to be modded up when I explained how that can work: in this post
The reason I think we are arguing here is your limited definition of the word "appreciated", and the special status you give yourself in regard to this term.
There are several dimensions to appreciating music:
1) the meaning of the lyrics
2) associations and memories triggered by the music
3) the connection between rhythm and movement - dance, head-banging, and toe tapping etc.
4) aesthetics of melody, harmony and texture
5) intellectual stimulation of comprehending compositional techniques
6) enjoyment of great musicianship and virtuoso performance
7) immersion and relaxation of the mind
8) a hell of a lot more.
I'm not sure which of these get you going when you listen to music.
Your claim is that to really appreciate music you need the highest quality reproduction possible. However, the quality level of reproduction will only contribute to some of the dimensions of appreciation above -- dimensions which will be more or less significant in various peoples appreciation. More importantly, improving quality suffers from the law of diminishing returns - at some point quality reaches a point where it is no longer noticeably affecting your appreciation along whichever dimensions you are interested in. (Unless, as in your case, you start getting hung up on quality). For most people high bitrate mp3 is already there.
I think that in your case (and with other audiophiles) you actually have begun to appreciate the quality of the reproduction as an end in itself! (which is cool - but that just leaves most people cold).
But if you really sit and listen to a piece of music, and you find yourself really starting to like that piece of music, surely the next thing you're going to try and do is get more out of that experience? Like getting a better copy of that music.
Getting more out of the experience? Depending on what people appreciate about music in the first place they wont necessarily get any more out of it with a higher quality recording. For them, it is good enough already. e.g. They are appreciating the skill of the instrumentalist or meaning of lyrics so much that a small change in the 4-5khz frequency response really isn't going to help.
For them, getting a "better copy" of that music might mean a more inspired performance, or a hissy bootleg from a concert they attended when they had their first kiss. That might be what sends shivers up and down their spine when they close their eyes.
If your appreciation of music is all about - say - really really getting into texture and subtlety in music (which I think it might be) you may want to focus on high quality reproduction. Otherwise it is a waste of time.
It doesn't mean you are "appreciating" it more or less than other people - just that you get something different out of it.
why do so many people spend thousands of pounds/dollars/Euros on pieces of hi-fi they put in rooms optimally designed for music listening?
For a number of reasons:
1) Their appreciation of music is more highly tied in with textural and reproduction of "accurate" sound, rather than other aspects of music.
2) There is something weird going on with men and obsessing over tech specs (I suffer from this too)
3) Expensive equipment like this is a status symbol, which makes the buyer feel good to own it in of itself
4) Everybody needs a hobby
5) It lets them claim that they are better than other people because only they have the privileged position of being able to "truly appreciate" music - through their economic ability to afford such equipment, and how it makes them feel that they are better than others.
Note - this last point is what comes across in your first post, and why so many people will argue with you here, even if they might normally agree that quality of a recording can affect their appreciation of it.
I don't like this term "fully appreciate" the music, since there are many many ways to appreciate music and pandrijeczko (or anyone) is unlikely to appreciate it in all these ways, but there is definitely another way to listen to music which can be quite rewarding.
Try sitting in a dark room with your eyes closed and put on some of your favourite music - either in headphones or a good quality stereo. I tend to lie in bed with good headphones
Now REALLY listen to the music. Focus on the different layers. Listen to the textures of the instruments. Focus on the form of the composition.
Pretty soon you'll be hearing all sorts of little details and layers that the musician has put in there that you never noticed before, and with any luck you'll get a shiver running down your spine occasionally. I'm speaking literally here - listening to music this way can actually get shivers running down your spine, the way you can be moved when you loose yourself at a great concert.
Your milage may vary.... and it might not work like this with all styles of music:D
Nice idea, but between the original captured sound waves and your speakers are at least the following pieces of equipment, all of which modify the sound waves in various ways:
My point is that CDs aren't that great quality and yet you are still able to "appreciate" them, and so your "snobbery" comes off as just sounding ridiculous.
Personally, I absolutely *hate* low bitrate mp3s, but I wouldn't claim that it isn't possible to "appreciate" music with a reasonably high quality mp3 rip.
When bandwidth gets there we'll be downloading far higher quality tracks than you can get on your glorious CDs.
Sorry, I don't see the logic of that statement.
It doesn't matter how much bandwidth you have if an audio signal was sampled at a specific bit-rate. What's your point? And why have you totally ignored mine?
Most digital music is recorded at something like 24bit, 96khz, compared to the 16bit, 44.1khz CD format. Producers cry when they have to downsample to CD quality.
Once distribution is no longer so CD centric (in part due to available bandwidth for people to download albums quickly), we will begin to see higher quality recordings becoming available online for purchase. When this happens, people like you will be posting here that anyone who listens to CD quality audio isn't truly "appreciating" music because they don't have the highest quality possible. That is the logic of my statement - pointing out how contradictory yours sounds.
Your point seemed to be that
1) Downloaded music is generally in lossy compression and hence no good for close listening.
2) You don't consider pure information to be something worth paying for because it isn't tangible
I did address your first point by attempting to showing the illogic of your argument. There is no necessary link between truly appreciating music, and having the highest quality available. If there was than you wouldn't be able to ever appreciate music unless you were at a live performance where there is no quality loss.
I didn't answer your second point.
I can understand how you might not be able to appreciate anything less than CD quality, because you are obviously hung up on quality issues. That doesn't mean that other people can't truly appreciate music that might have some virtually unperceivable encoding artefacts.
That seems a bit disingenuous to claim that is spyware.
That is actually "support" software which most spyware cataloguing sites list as harmless.
Some sites claim that there is a modified spyware version out there too - but not the Vaio version.
The site you have linked to looks like the least professional site of the bunch. Maybe you are right, but it is not so definite from the evidence I've seen.
This elitist audiophile attitude is ridiculous when you are talking about CDs.
Yeah - it's a bunch of ones and zeros
And yeah, it's 16 bit audio... whoopdedo.
If you listen to CDs you obviously don't appreciate music, I only listen to live music where the bit rate is so much higher. And I need something tangible. /sarcasm
When bandwidth gets there we'll be downloading far higher quality tracks than you can get on your glorious CDs. Then people like you will claim that CDs are only for philistines who don't truly appreciate music.
My point is that Type Managers can be very useful if a given activity only uses one application or type of file (e.g., rip/mix/burn/listen with music). But when the activity spans multiple types it drives the user back to using a general file manager. In such situations, existing Type Managers fragment the user's access to files and become a hinderance if the project's files are scattered across an email client, a photo manager, a sound file manager, etc.
A great point, although the article does discuss one partial solution to this:
Type Managers should expose well defined, domain specific interfaces for other applications to use rather then implementing it themselves. In iPhotos when viewing a slideshow I can select a song to play with the slideshow. iPhotos uses iTunes to help me find that perfect song.
"[It] will use innovative power (including wind-up)"
"Kids in the developing world need the newest technology, especially really rugged hardware"
"Desktops are cheaper, but mobility is important, especially with regard to taking the computer home at night."
Installing applications - like Microsoft Office - involves just dragging the application (or the folder it's in) from the CD into the Applications folder on your hard disk. Even things like Real One Player and Windows Media Player work this way.
Actually no, Windows Media Player comes as an installer application that must run with admin privileges, and puts its sticky fingers all through your system. It really put me off installing it until I really wanted to see some wmv content. There isn't even an obvious way to just install it for the local user.
The player is also really sloppy in how it handles dropped frames when streaming, and user feedback on what it is doing. It needs a lot of work.
This is a good example of how many applications break the OS X, drag and drop application install model.
it is common, esp. on the left, to talk about "non-violent direct action" when in fact their actions are either violent, or worse than violence. Take this example of Greenpeace's "non-violent direct action"
Ok - sure there are groups that use protest and more active means to try and achieve their goals. However, The NZ greens are a political party and so are obviously using a different technique to achieve political change - i.e. participating in democracy.
It really does sound like you're ranting here - your original question "What stake do the "non-violent direct violence" Greens have in open source?" doesn't really make any sense in this context. They are not what you call a "non-violent direct violence group"
Also, the implications of using open source in government, rather than the products of a convicted monopolist has obvious appeal to a group who opposes free market capitalism. Your personal problem with radical activist groups and conspiracies theories don't really add up to much in this case.
Slashdot Mirror
If you want Emacs for OS X you should check out Aquamacs. It has some good integration with OS X that can make your life easier.
For example it supports standard OS X keyboard shortcuts (in addition to standard Emacs bindings) and easily assign shortcuts to the iBook / PowerBook Fn key combos. You can access the OS X dictionary from the context menu, and use the services menu... etc. etc.
The parent points at another emacs port that looks pretty stale (it is talking about 10.2 & 10.3).
Versions of Intelligent Design (not all versions I admit) which for example include the rejection of fossil evidence as some sort of trick by the intelligent designer raises many of the same issues - how can we know that our perceptions and measurements can be trusted?
Slashdot seems to do reasonably well without GPG keys.
I don't entirely agree - but that hardly applies to Linux. Try come up with another example, I'm sure there is one out there.
The problem from the article is how do you authenticate the apache script to the database without giving permanent access to database for any programmers who see the code.
One answer is to authenticate the machine running Apache to the DB, rather than just a username/password pair. For example you could use something like IPSec so that the only machines able to connect to the database have the right IP address and certificate.
This way often you will never need to give the programmer access to the production apache machine ever!
If you do give them access to the apache machine, the problem is solved when you revoke their access (unless you were stupid enough to ever give them root access).
Finally, you can use a username/password pair to prevent other applications (and their developers) on the same machine from ever accessing unnecessary information from other projects etc.
Not that it would run on OS X anyway... but it would protect you from an application bundle you received from a worm in an archive from appearing as an image. e.g. funnyPic.jpg.app
This doesn't fully address your problem though since "funnyPic" with an image icon will still nail most people, and of course most Mac uses probably wouldn't know what a .app extension means anyway.
The answer - it can't.
Your handy http/ssl proxy will just merrily forward that traffic on to the companies CGI webserver and they've got through again.
Your comments about "service level attacks" that break the protocol specification are out of place here too. The malware can post totally legitimate http/ssl to a parent company server and communicate all the information it needs to.
You really need applications to not require Admin access to install (e.g. OS X) and than you can feel secure about your firewall. Don't install any dodgy apps that require admin access.
Are you seriously suggesting that you should walk over to your machine, put in a CD, and pick up a little remote and navigate through a deep menu hierarchy to find the rip option? Your standing right there - use the mouse
iTunes has a way better interface for doing this stuff than any FrontRow style menu is likely to provide.
Keep FrontRow simple, and targeted at the tasks you need to do across the room on the couch - i.e. finding media, playing it, pausing it, tracking through it.
Then if you need to do something more complicated you've got the whole power of the iLife apps to work with.
Providing systems along with education and allowing people to learn with them with increase IQ.
It might be a great app for the average user to throw up a good looking templated site, but it isn't going to be much use to anyone who wants to make complex, original custom designs.
Is it ever better than just writing a few lines in some scripts in your ~/bin directory?
The reason I think we are arguing here is your limited definition of the word "appreciated", and the special status you give yourself in regard to this term.
There are several dimensions to appreciating music:
1) the meaning of the lyrics
2) associations and memories triggered by the music
3) the connection between rhythm and movement - dance, head-banging, and toe tapping etc.
4) aesthetics of melody, harmony and texture
5) intellectual stimulation of comprehending compositional techniques
6) enjoyment of great musicianship and virtuoso performance
7) immersion and relaxation of the mind
8) a hell of a lot more.
I'm not sure which of these get you going when you listen to music.
Your claim is that to really appreciate music you need the highest quality reproduction possible. However, the quality level of reproduction will only contribute to some of the dimensions of appreciation above -- dimensions which will be more or less significant in various peoples appreciation. More importantly, improving quality suffers from the law of diminishing returns - at some point quality reaches a point where it is no longer noticeably affecting your appreciation along whichever dimensions you are interested in. (Unless, as in your case, you start getting hung up on quality). For most people high bitrate mp3 is already there.
I think that in your case (and with other audiophiles) you actually have begun to appreciate the quality of the reproduction as an end in itself! (which is cool - but that just leaves most people cold).
Getting more out of the experience? Depending on what people appreciate about music in the first place they wont necessarily get any more out of it with a higher quality recording. For them, it is good enough already. e.g. They are appreciating the skill of the instrumentalist or meaning of lyrics so much that a small change in the 4-5khz frequency response really isn't going to help.For them, getting a "better copy" of that music might mean a more inspired performance, or a hissy bootleg from a concert they attended when they had their first kiss. That might be what sends shivers up and down their spine when they close their eyes.
If your appreciation of music is all about - say - really really getting into texture and subtlety in music (which I think it might be) you may want to focus on high quality reproduction. Otherwise it is a waste of time.
It doesn't mean you are "appreciating" it more or less than other people - just that you get something different out of it.
For a number of reasons:1) Their appreciation of music is more highly tied in with textural and reproduction of "accurate" sound, rather than other aspects of music.
2) There is something weird going on with men and obsessing over tech specs (I suffer from this too)
3) Expensive equipment like this is a status symbol, which makes the buyer feel good to own it in of itself
4) Everybody needs a hobby
5) It lets them claim that they are better than other people because only they have the privileged position of being able to "truly appreciate" music - through their economic ability to afford such equipment, and how it makes them feel that they are better than others.
Note - this last point is what comes across in your first post, and why so many people will argue with you here, even if they might normally agree that quality of a recording can affect their appreciation of it.
Try sitting in a dark room with your eyes closed and put on some of your favourite music - either in headphones or a good quality stereo. I tend to lie in bed with good headphones
Now REALLY listen to the music. Focus on the different layers. Listen to the textures of the instruments. Focus on the form of the composition.
Pretty soon you'll be hearing all sorts of little details and layers that the musician has put in there that you never noticed before, and with any luck you'll get a shiver running down your spine occasionally. I'm speaking literally here - listening to music this way can actually get shivers running down your spine, the way you can be moved when you loose yourself at a great concert.
Your milage may vary.... and it might not work like this with all styles of music :D
Nice idea, but between the original captured sound waves and your speakers are at least the following pieces of equipment, all of which modify the sound waves in various ways:
:D
Microphones
Preamp
EQ
Effects (!!)
Mixing
Mastering - futher EQ etc.
Gold master eching
Duplication pressing
Needle
Preamp
Amp
Speakers
Now tell me that you get a copy of the original sound waves
Personally, I absolutely *hate* low bitrate mp3s, but I wouldn't claim that it isn't possible to "appreciate" music with a reasonably high quality mp3 rip.
Most digital music is recorded at something like 24bit, 96khz, compared to the 16bit, 44.1khz CD format. Producers cry when they have to downsample to CD quality.Once distribution is no longer so CD centric (in part due to available bandwidth for people to download albums quickly), we will begin to see higher quality recordings becoming available online for purchase. When this happens, people like you will be posting here that anyone who listens to CD quality audio isn't truly "appreciating" music because they don't have the highest quality possible. That is the logic of my statement - pointing out how contradictory yours sounds.
Your point seemed to be that
1) Downloaded music is generally in lossy compression and hence no good for close listening.
2) You don't consider pure information to be something worth paying for because it isn't tangible
I did address your first point by attempting to showing the illogic of your argument. There is no necessary link between truly appreciating music, and having the highest quality available. If there was than you wouldn't be able to ever appreciate music unless you were at a live performance where there is no quality loss.
I didn't answer your second point.
I can understand how you might not be able to appreciate anything less than CD quality, because you are obviously hung up on quality issues. That doesn't mean that other people can't truly appreciate music that might have some virtually unperceivable encoding artefacts.
That is actually "support" software which most spyware cataloguing sites list as harmless.
Some sites claim that there is a modified spyware version out there too - but not the Vaio version.
The site you have linked to looks like the least professional site of the bunch. Maybe you are right, but it is not so definite from the evidence I've seen.
Yeah - it's a bunch of ones and zeros
And yeah, it's 16 bit audio... whoopdedo.
If you listen to CDs you obviously don't appreciate music, I only listen to live music where the bit rate is so much higher. And I need something tangible.
/sarcasm
When bandwidth gets there we'll be downloading far higher quality tracks than you can get on your glorious CDs. Then people like you will claim that CDs are only for philistines who don't truly appreciate music.
Some people use next meaning the one after the coming, while some use to refer to the one coming.
I heard someone tell me that the difference stems from which of the major colleges you went to, but I find that hard to believe.
Type Managers should expose well defined, domain specific interfaces for other applications to use rather then implementing it themselves. In iPhotos when viewing a slideshow I can select a song to play with the slideshow. iPhotos uses iTunes to help me find that perfect song.
That might be due to not using the proper installer ;-D
Although there are nicer ways they could have made sure the plugin was installed that didn't require admin access!
Sure, standard laptops can be fragile, but you seem to have completely missed the fact that these are special custom laptops.
In particular - the laptops will have a crank so you can power them without a constant power supply.
Also, referring to the kids as little monkeys? Come on.
From the FAQ:
"[It] will use innovative power (including wind-up)"
"Kids in the developing world need the newest technology, especially really rugged hardware"
"Desktops are cheaper, but mobility is important, especially with regard to taking the computer home at night."
The player is also really sloppy in how it handles dropped frames when streaming, and user feedback on what it is doing. It needs a lot of work.
This is a good example of how many applications break the OS X, drag and drop application install model.
I'd say that you are in a "geek circle" and so you find it hard to find people without multiple OSs.
Most people I know would have just one or more windows machines.
Ok - sure there are groups that use protest and more active means to try and achieve their goals. However, The NZ greens are a political party and so are obviously using a different technique to achieve political change - i.e. participating in democracy.
It really does sound like you're ranting here - your original question "What stake do the "non-violent direct violence" Greens have in open source?" doesn't really make any sense in this context. They are not what you call a "non-violent direct violence group"
Also, the implications of using open source in government, rather than the products of a convicted monopolist has obvious appeal to a group who opposes free market capitalism. Your personal problem with radical activist groups and conspiracies theories don't really add up to much in this case.