You don't need to delve into urban legend. Back in 1998, a dozen wireless heart monitors went offline at a major Dallas-area hospital when WFAA-TV turned on its HDTV transmitter for the first time.
Safari has an extension association that would allow a page to call the command terminal and run any command desired. Oops, you're rooted.
Sounds wrong to me. I'm not up on all the lingo, but doesn't "rooted" mean "gained superuser access?" It's not possible to gain superuser access on an out-of-the-box Mac using that trick.
(If you're using "rooted" in the obvious sense, as a synonym for "fucked," then just excuse me for over-analyzing your post.)
Which Apple staunchly refuses to have anything to do with. Please try to remember, there are two camps in the so-called "open source community." There's the BSD "Here, take our code" came, and the GPL "You are all our slaves" camp.
-Operating systems for the rest of us
Who's "the rest of us?" I guess by "the rest of us" you mean a tiny minority made up of software nerds and soldering-iron hobbyists. Apple's declared mission in creating Macintosh was, of course, to create a computer for the rest of us, specifically meaning people who are not software nerds or soldering-iron hobbyists.
Apple and Open Source belong together
Hmm. Really couldn't disagree with that statement more. Apple and the GPL community, for example, can't get along at all. Apple's not ideologically pure enough for those guys. Apple and the true open source advocates are definitely birds of a feather, but their purposes are orthogonal. They don't belong together; they just get along.
I know it's a bad idea to feed the trolls, but I don't think you understand the situation at all.
You're kidding, right?
There are many thousands, if not millions, of sane, normal people who believe themselves justified in either sacrificing their lives to kill Americans, or in contributing to such actions.
Right. And that's what we're fighting against. Wasn't too long ago there were sane, normal people who thought totalitarian communism was an okay idea. Wasn't too long ago there were sane, normal people who thought fascism was okay. Wasn't too long ago there were sane, normal people who thought racism was okay. Some even went so far as to try to carry out campaigns of mass extermination. Wasn't too long ago, either, that some people thought slavery was all right.
We're fighting a war against the idea of terrorism. It's not okay. No matter what your motivations, no matter what your grievance, no matter what your bitch, no matter what your own personal delusion about the god you worship, terrorism is not okay.
Given the choice between living in a world where sane, normal people think terrorism is okay and waging war, we chose war.
I have a feeling we're gonna win. But even if we don't, we're going to lose fighting.
Maybe if we figure out why these people are so angry and change the root cause behind that anger, we can put an end to this terrorist mennace?
There will always be root causes. No matter what, there will always be causes. We're fighting to ensure that the next generation grows up in a world where people with causes--sane, normal people--don't fly planes into landmarks or blow themselves up in pizza parlors or detonate truck bombs outside government buildings.
You go try to take care of the causes. But until and unless you can invent a magical happy ray that can keep people content no matter how poor they are, or how rich other people are, or how long other people's beards are, or what God I worship if any, you're not going to enjoy much success.
You keep sitting there gazing at your navel. You keep talking about how terrorism is speech. Seriously: I'm glad you live in a place where you can enjoy that kind of sanguine delusion about the world you live in. I hope some day my kids can grow up believing that same thing, that terrorism is just another expression of dissatisfaction, perfectly valid if distasteful. I hope some day my kids have to study terrorism in school. I hope some day my kids have to pass a test about terrorism.
But most of all, I hope they have to study for it. Because I hope they grow up knowing no more about the reality of terrorism than you do. God, please bless them with that level of ignorance.
Hard drives do not `skip'. So there's no need for a skip buffer. However, it's possible that a jolt or something could stop the hard drive from delivering data for a second or two
It could skip, in other words.:-)
But 25 minutes would be silly -- one minute would be far more than enough.
You know why they have a 25-minute buffer? Because a 32 MB DRAM chip was the smallest they could secure at the right price and sufficient quantity.
What happens is your hard drive spins up, the player buffers the next 25 MB of music to play into RAM, and then the hard drive spins down
You hit the nail on the head. That's why 25 minutes is cool. And again, I'm not positive that the Dell doesn't have a buffer. I just didn't see anything obvious about it on their site, and I certainly didn't bother digging for it.
While I prefer the Apple interface, there are no other special features about the iPod that aren't duplicated in the Dell player.
AAC support (including but not limited to FairPlay), contacts and calendars, text notes, on-the-go playlists, auto-sync your whole library or one or more playlists, an alarm clock, FireWire, a 25-minute skip buffer, that cool solitaire game, and a partridge in a pear tree.
(The Dell site didn't say anything obvious about a skip buffer. If it's got one, scratch that one off the list. Neither the Dell nor the iPod include a bird or a tree. That was just for fun.)
You don't get to make up definitions to words. Linguists and dictionary publishers do.
Well, that's not true. The people who compile dictionaries attempt to document what words already mean, not to assign meaning themselves. But aside from that:
propagnda: A way of presenting a belief that seeks to generate acceptance without regard to facts or the right of others to be heard. Propaganda often presents the same argument repeatedly, in the simplest terms and ignores all rebuttal or counter-argument. It is essentially self- interested and often associated with authoritarian regimes. Propaganda is often used to convey official descriptions of reality, when it may be allied with bureaucratic control of media, censorship of opposing opinions and deliberate misinformation.
Sounds like a much better definition than the one you quoted. And, as I understand it, sounds pretty much like what I described.
The same applies to the other person who basically said what you said.
The key point here is that "propaganda" is used as a pejorative term to dismiss messages with which people do not agree. If you stick to your dictionary's definition--which is pitifully shallow--then any message that seeks to persuade can be dismissed as propaganda. That's neither correct nor right. Which is my whole point.
the primary DB System for so long has been MySQL. PHP coders don't have too much for an alternative
Au contraire, there are PHP interfaces for PostgreSQL, Oracle, Sybase, and MSSQL built right in to the source distribution. I seem to recall that back in the Bad Old Days before Mac OS X, when you had to compile things yourself, building PHP with all the necessary libraries was a huge pain, but now it's a trivial thing. Marc Liyanage maintains a PHP module package that snaps right into the built-in Apache web server on your Mac, and it already has most of the necessary bells and whistles built in.
It seems to me that the whole premise behind this so-called vulnerability is wrong. Frames and windows don't have owners, so there's nothing for the browser to verify.
So yeah, I think the "a specified design feature of frames" thing is pretty close to the truth.
Now you see why I specifically avoided the use of any real-world examples. In this case, I would disagree that that was anything like propaganda, because I both understand and accept the links between Iraq and terrorism.
But you've illustrated my point: at worst, the statement you cited is ambiguous. It's not propaganda, and it wrong to label it as such.
We may have killed a load of bad guys, but we might have succeded in turning a load more confused and angry guys into bad guys.
There's a book. I can't remember which one it is, but it's got a passage in it about a particularly gullible people. To them, everything was a sign. If it rained, it was a sign. If it didn't rain, it was a sign. If a goat gave birth to a three-eyed, three-legged kid under the light of a full moon, it was a sign. And if a perfectly normal goat gave birth to a perfectly normal kid during a pleasant and unseasonably warm afternoon, well, that too was a sign.
Same thing is at work here. If the US attacks our enemies, we strengthen the terrorists. If we don't attack our enemies, we strengthen the terrorists. If we support Israel, we strengthen the terrorists. If we withdraw support from Israel, we strengthen the terrorists. If we have corned beef on rye for lunch, we strengthen the terrorists.
At some point you just have to stop for a minute and think that maybe the problem here isn't US foreign policy, but rather terrorism itself.
But what the hell do I know. Surely you're right. Everything that the United States did during the Clinton administration, when networks of terrorists were organizing around the world and preparing to strike, was good. Everything that the Bush administration has done is bad. Silly of me to see it any other way.
Let's clarify something. This meme has gone far enough, I think.
First, there's speech. Any kind of communication is speech. It can be phone sex, it can be trading recipes, it can be the State of the Union address. Speech is the base class, if you prefer.
Then there's persuasive speech. The purpose of persuasive speech is, as the name implies, to persuade people of something. Maybe it's to persuade people to vote for that guy, or to persuade your boss to give you a raise. Whatever. Persuasive speech is a subclass of speech.
Propaganda is a subclass of persuasive speech. It's distinguished from other kinds of persuasive speech by one major characteristic: it's unconcerned with truth.
(There are other defining characteristics of propaganda, like its reliance on mass communication, but these are tangential to my point.)
Not all persuasive speech is propaganda. For example, let's imagine there's a proposition on the ballot in a local election, proposition 251. Proposition 251 will put a big tax on people who drive cars that get less than 30 miles per gallon.
If I take out a billboard that says, "Vote yes on prop. 251 because it's good to use less gas," that's not propaganda. Likewise, if I take out a billboard that says, "Vote no on 251 because the tax will hurt local trucking businesses," that's not propaganda either. Both of those arguments are based on valid premises, you see. Both of those arguments are true. And furthermore, it's clear from the message that the intent was to be truthful. So those aren't propaganda.
Contrariwise, if I posted a billboard that says, "Vote yes on 251 to beat the terrorists," that could be considered propaganda. Because it's an argument that's completely unconcerned with truth, you see. Will a tax on gas-guzzling vehicles really have an impact on terrorism? Probably not, or at least not a significant one. So that argument could be considered propaganda.
(It could also not be propaganda; it could also simply be wrong. When you see a message that's untrue, it's usually pretty clear from the context whether the intent was to deceive or whether the intent was to be truthful and the messenger simply got it wrong.)
BUT, and here's the important thing, if proposition 252 was an authorization for war against Terrorism-Supporting Country X, and I took out a billboard that said, "Vote yes on 252 to beat the terrorists," that would not be propaganda. You see, the same message can be propaganda or not depending on the context. It depends on whether the intent of the deliverer was to create a truthful message or not.
The bottom line here is this: you can't slap the label "propaganda" on any message that you don't like, or any message on a subject that you don't like. Calling something "propaganda" when it really isn't is... well, it's propaganda.
Being able to distinguish propaganda from other types of persuasive speech is an important part of critical thinking. Simply being skeptical of everything, simply putting the propaganda label on everything, doesn't cut it.
politics is the conflict over the distribution of values and burdens
I think that's much too narrow a definition, even for discussion purposes. I'd define politics as the interaction between the individual and the group.
The reason I bring this up is that this definition of politics puts the lie to the assertion that folks can just opt out of the whole thing. If you're an individual and you interact with one or more groups, you're participating in politics. You might not be aware of it, but you are.
Ah, touché. Although 1 has been around since long before Rendezvous, and I think 4 isn't really implemented anywhere yet. I believe all Rendezvous traffic is addressed to 224.0.0.251 port 5353.
You're not mistaken, but what's new here is the C library for talking to mDNSResponder. That wasn't there in the POSIX example code before, which meant you were SOL if you wanted to actually build Rendezvous support into your application. You could run a Rendezvous proxy on a POSIX system; I set that up at a friend's place. They had a network that was about 75% Mac and 25% SGI. I set up Rendezvous proxies so their IRIX machines would announce their FTP and SSH services via Rendezvous so the Mac users would be able to make use of them more easily. But that was as far as you could go without heavy, heavy lifting.
But now that's no longer a problem.
The only reason for Apple atempting to break DAAP interoperability that I can think of is to enforce the 5-connections maximum present in iTunes.
No, it had to do with stealing. DAAP has to be encrypted to prevent people from being able to easily steal music with iTunes sharing.
May I humbly suggest that you have some clue what Rendezvous is before posting comments comparing it to this or that?
1. Rendezvous has nothing to do with routing.
2. Rendezvous doesn't work over the Internet; at this point, it can't even cross a router, because Rendezvous responders all drop requests with the wrong TTL value.
Rendevous is some what like making each computer a DNS/DHCP/Directory server, however that's not completely accurate.
It's not so much that it's not completely accurate as it is that it's completely wrong.
Rendezvous has nothing to do with DNS, DHCP, or directory services. It's a service discovery framework, and that's all. Here's how it works.
Let's say you've got some program, Foo.app, that has a feature for talking to other instances of Foo.app over the network. Doesn't matter what it is. It could be iTunes music sharing or iChat or distributed compilation or whatever you want.
Without Rendezvous, you'd have to tell your instance of Foo.app where to find other instances. That'd require some kind of setup and some kind of maintenance.
With Rendezvous, your instance of Foo.app sends out a single multicast message when it starts up. That message says that there's an instance of Foo.app available at our IP address. Other instances on the network receive that message and make a note of it. They maintain a list in memory of available services, all automatically, without your intervention.
Does this involve a lot of network traffic? Not really. It requires some, but not much. When an instance of Foo.app starts up, it (1) announces its own presence, and (2) sends out a multicast request for other instances, and the other instances reply. When Foo.app shuts down, it sends out an announcement of its own termination. That's it.
Does this involve terrible security risks? Not really. All Rendezvous does is publish the availability of services that are already running on the network. The responder daemon itself doesn't run with any privileges (on a Mac, it runs as the "nobody" user), and all Rendezvous requests are handled by that one daemon. If something magical happened and somebody was able to get mDNSResponder to run arbitrary code, there would have to be another exploitable security hole somewhere else on the system, because mDNSResponder doesn't have privilege to do anything.
A prime example of Rendevous is two Powerbooks in a cafe, both with Airport wireless. You can set up an Ad Hoc wireless network between these computers, and they will auto configure their IP's and other information so that they can talk to each other.
That's not Rendezvous. That's nothing more than self-assigned IP addresses. When your computer can't find a DHCP server, it self-assigns an address in the 169.254/16 network. Which means any two computers on the same network segment that have self-assigned IPs can talk to each other. This has been around since long before Rendezvous.
So Rendevous is not designed to replace DNS/DHCP, but merely to find a way for network configuration when there is no established network structure.
No, that's overstating it. The sole purpose of Rendezvous is service discovery. That's it. It's independent of network configuration. It works with or without DHCP, DNS, or any other network stuff. As long as you've got an IP address, Rendezvous does its thing.
This is really the beauty of it, because it can determine what configuration is necessary and do whatever needed to get the computers networked, all transparently!
No, no, NO! That's not Rendezvous, that's DHCP. Rendezvous is ONLY for service discovery. Rendezvous doesn't set your IP address or your routing table or your hostname resolution parameters. It doesn't do any of those things. All it does is facilitate service announcement and discovery for your applications.
No, the Apple display is new, because it's 30" diagonal at 100 dpi.
The IBM "Big Bertha" display is 22" diagonal at 200 dpi, making it great for things like medical imaging but all but useless for traditional application work.
Apple's display is cool because it's got more glass and more pixels but the pixels are almost exactly the same size, meaning that your UI elements like the menu bar and the mouse pointer are going to be almost exactly the same size when you're working on the new monster display.
As I understand it, resource forks are now a legacy feature of Mac OS 9.
Deprecated, but fully supported.
Can't we finally retire this non-feature that was a clever idea if anybody else was going to support it, but a horrible impediment to cross-platform compatibility?
There are lots of third-party backup solutions out there for backing up an OS X Server, but none I completely trust to do a bare-metal restore and give me a bootable system.
Use Apple Software Restore. It's what Apple uses in-house. It's available on both OS X client and server, and it comes in both GUI and command-line flavors.
No, it would be OS X 11.0. The name is OS X, or Mac OS X. It's pronounced "Oh Ess Ten" or "Mac Oh Ess Ten."
The version number is separate.
If and when they get to the point where it's time to go up a whole number, it'll be Mac OS X 11.0.
I say "if" because it's not a sure thing. SGI has their UNIX operating system, IRIX. They ship a new feature release every quarter, which is basically like the difference between 10.2 and 10.3 only less so. The version number of IRIX is 6.5.x, where the x is the number of the feature release. They're up to 6.5.22 or so now with no plans to ever produce another major release of IRIX.
Nothing's stopping Apple from doing the same thing: 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, 10.5... 10.9, 10.10, 10.11... 10.20, 10.21, 10.22. Whatever.
Slashdot Mirror
radio stations west of the mississippi rivir use K for their callsign. Not w. Nice try.
You don't even need Google for this one. Simply typing "WFAA" into your browser is enough to make you look like the world's biggest ass.
(That comment about Photoshop being a Mac game, though? Funny. Keep up the good work.)
You don't need to delve into urban legend. Back in 1998, a dozen wireless heart monitors went offline at a major Dallas-area hospital when WFAA-TV turned on its HDTV transmitter for the first time.
Safari has an extension association that would allow a page to call the command terminal and run any command desired. Oops, you're rooted.
Sounds wrong to me. I'm not up on all the lingo, but doesn't "rooted" mean "gained superuser access?" It's not possible to gain superuser access on an out-of-the-box Mac using that trick.
(If you're using "rooted" in the obvious sense, as a synonym for "fucked," then just excuse me for over-analyzing your post.)
Open source gave us:
-The GPL
Which Apple staunchly refuses to have anything to do with. Please try to remember, there are two camps in the so-called "open source community." There's the BSD "Here, take our code" came, and the GPL "You are all our slaves" camp.
-Operating systems for the rest of us
Who's "the rest of us?" I guess by "the rest of us" you mean a tiny minority made up of software nerds and soldering-iron hobbyists. Apple's declared mission in creating Macintosh was, of course, to create a computer for the rest of us, specifically meaning people who are not software nerds or soldering-iron hobbyists.
Apple and Open Source belong together
Hmm. Really couldn't disagree with that statement more. Apple and the GPL community, for example, can't get along at all. Apple's not ideologically pure enough for those guys. Apple and the true open source advocates are definitely birds of a feather, but their purposes are orthogonal. They don't belong together; they just get along.
It's updated every five minutes. Keep watching. For instance, right now it says:
function count(){ var num = 94790014;return num; }
That's more than 10,000 songs since your comment was posted.
But no- this is the U.S. Corporatist Government, we can't maximize efficiency, we have to maximize profits instead.
Yeah, because if modern history has taught us anything, it's that just handing checks to local governments is a great way to maximize efficiency.
You're kidding, right?
I know it's a bad idea to feed the trolls, but I don't think you understand the situation at all.
You're kidding, right?
There are many thousands, if not millions, of sane, normal people who believe themselves justified in either sacrificing their lives to kill Americans, or in contributing to such actions.
Right. And that's what we're fighting against. Wasn't too long ago there were sane, normal people who thought totalitarian communism was an okay idea. Wasn't too long ago there were sane, normal people who thought fascism was okay. Wasn't too long ago there were sane, normal people who thought racism was okay. Some even went so far as to try to carry out campaigns of mass extermination. Wasn't too long ago, either, that some people thought slavery was all right.
We're fighting a war against the idea of terrorism. It's not okay. No matter what your motivations, no matter what your grievance, no matter what your bitch, no matter what your own personal delusion about the god you worship, terrorism is not okay.
Given the choice between living in a world where sane, normal people think terrorism is okay and waging war, we chose war.
I have a feeling we're gonna win. But even if we don't, we're going to lose fighting.
Maybe if we figure out why these people are so angry and change the root cause behind that anger, we can put an end to this terrorist mennace?
There will always be root causes. No matter what, there will always be causes. We're fighting to ensure that the next generation grows up in a world where people with causes--sane, normal people--don't fly planes into landmarks or blow themselves up in pizza parlors or detonate truck bombs outside government buildings.
You go try to take care of the causes. But until and unless you can invent a magical happy ray that can keep people content no matter how poor they are, or how rich other people are, or how long other people's beards are, or what God I worship if any, you're not going to enjoy much success.
You keep sitting there gazing at your navel. You keep talking about how terrorism is speech. Seriously: I'm glad you live in a place where you can enjoy that kind of sanguine delusion about the world you live in. I hope some day my kids can grow up believing that same thing, that terrorism is just another expression of dissatisfaction, perfectly valid if distasteful. I hope some day my kids have to study terrorism in school. I hope some day my kids have to pass a test about terrorism.
But most of all, I hope they have to study for it. Because I hope they grow up knowing no more about the reality of terrorism than you do. God, please bless them with that level of ignorance.
Hard drives do not `skip'. So there's no need for a skip buffer. However, it's possible that a jolt or something could stop the hard drive from delivering data for a second or two
:-)
It could skip, in other words.
But 25 minutes would be silly -- one minute would be far more than enough.
You know why they have a 25-minute buffer? Because a 32 MB DRAM chip was the smallest they could secure at the right price and sufficient quantity.
What happens is your hard drive spins up, the player buffers the next 25 MB of music to play into RAM, and then the hard drive spins down
You hit the nail on the head. That's why 25 minutes is cool. And again, I'm not positive that the Dell doesn't have a buffer. I just didn't see anything obvious about it on their site, and I certainly didn't bother digging for it.
While I prefer the Apple interface, there are no other special features about the iPod that aren't duplicated in the Dell player.
AAC support (including but not limited to FairPlay), contacts and calendars, text notes, on-the-go playlists, auto-sync your whole library or one or more playlists, an alarm clock, FireWire, a 25-minute skip buffer, that cool solitaire game, and a partridge in a pear tree.
(The Dell site didn't say anything obvious about a skip buffer. If it's got one, scratch that one off the list. Neither the Dell nor the iPod include a bird or a tree. That was just for fun.)
Well, that's not true. The people who compile dictionaries attempt to document what words already mean, not to assign meaning themselves. But aside from that:Sounds like a much better definition than the one you quoted. And, as I understand it, sounds pretty much like what I described.
The same applies to the other person who basically said what you said.
The key point here is that "propaganda" is used as a pejorative term to dismiss messages with which people do not agree. If you stick to your dictionary's definition--which is pitifully shallow--then any message that seeks to persuade can be dismissed as propaganda. That's neither correct nor right. Which is my whole point.
the primary DB System for so long has been MySQL. PHP coders don't have too much for an alternative
Au contraire, there are PHP interfaces for PostgreSQL, Oracle, Sybase, and MSSQL built right in to the source distribution. I seem to recall that back in the Bad Old Days before Mac OS X, when you had to compile things yourself, building PHP with all the necessary libraries was a huge pain, but now it's a trivial thing. Marc Liyanage maintains a PHP module package that snaps right into the built-in Apache web server on your Mac, and it already has most of the necessary bells and whistles built in.
It seems to me that the whole premise behind this so-called vulnerability is wrong. Frames and windows don't have owners, so there's nothing for the browser to verify.
So yeah, I think the "a specified design feature of frames" thing is pretty close to the truth.
"Kill all the Iraqis, they eat babies" would be propaganda
What about "Vote for the other guy, the President eats babies?"
but so would "Invade Iraq to reduce terrorism".
Now you see why I specifically avoided the use of any real-world examples. In this case, I would disagree that that was anything like propaganda, because I both understand and accept the links between Iraq and terrorism.
But you've illustrated my point: at worst, the statement you cited is ambiguous. It's not propaganda, and it wrong to label it as such.
We may have killed a load of bad guys, but we might have succeded in turning a load more confused and angry guys into bad guys.
There's a book. I can't remember which one it is, but it's got a passage in it about a particularly gullible people. To them, everything was a sign. If it rained, it was a sign. If it didn't rain, it was a sign. If a goat gave birth to a three-eyed, three-legged kid under the light of a full moon, it was a sign. And if a perfectly normal goat gave birth to a perfectly normal kid during a pleasant and unseasonably warm afternoon, well, that too was a sign.
Same thing is at work here. If the US attacks our enemies, we strengthen the terrorists. If we don't attack our enemies, we strengthen the terrorists. If we support Israel, we strengthen the terrorists. If we withdraw support from Israel, we strengthen the terrorists. If we have corned beef on rye for lunch, we strengthen the terrorists.
At some point you just have to stop for a minute and think that maybe the problem here isn't US foreign policy, but rather terrorism itself.
But what the hell do I know. Surely you're right. Everything that the United States did during the Clinton administration, when networks of terrorists were organizing around the world and preparing to strike, was good. Everything that the Bush administration has done is bad. Silly of me to see it any other way.
Let's clarify something. This meme has gone far enough, I think.
First, there's speech. Any kind of communication is speech. It can be phone sex, it can be trading recipes, it can be the State of the Union address. Speech is the base class, if you prefer.
Then there's persuasive speech. The purpose of persuasive speech is, as the name implies, to persuade people of something. Maybe it's to persuade people to vote for that guy, or to persuade your boss to give you a raise. Whatever. Persuasive speech is a subclass of speech.
Propaganda is a subclass of persuasive speech. It's distinguished from other kinds of persuasive speech by one major characteristic: it's unconcerned with truth.
(There are other defining characteristics of propaganda, like its reliance on mass communication, but these are tangential to my point.)
Not all persuasive speech is propaganda. For example, let's imagine there's a proposition on the ballot in a local election, proposition 251. Proposition 251 will put a big tax on people who drive cars that get less than 30 miles per gallon.
If I take out a billboard that says, "Vote yes on prop. 251 because it's good to use less gas," that's not propaganda. Likewise, if I take out a billboard that says, "Vote no on 251 because the tax will hurt local trucking businesses," that's not propaganda either. Both of those arguments are based on valid premises, you see. Both of those arguments are true. And furthermore, it's clear from the message that the intent was to be truthful. So those aren't propaganda.
Contrariwise, if I posted a billboard that says, "Vote yes on 251 to beat the terrorists," that could be considered propaganda. Because it's an argument that's completely unconcerned with truth, you see. Will a tax on gas-guzzling vehicles really have an impact on terrorism? Probably not, or at least not a significant one. So that argument could be considered propaganda.
(It could also not be propaganda; it could also simply be wrong. When you see a message that's untrue, it's usually pretty clear from the context whether the intent was to deceive or whether the intent was to be truthful and the messenger simply got it wrong.)
BUT, and here's the important thing, if proposition 252 was an authorization for war against Terrorism-Supporting Country X, and I took out a billboard that said, "Vote yes on 252 to beat the terrorists," that would not be propaganda. You see, the same message can be propaganda or not depending on the context. It depends on whether the intent of the deliverer was to create a truthful message or not.
The bottom line here is this: you can't slap the label "propaganda" on any message that you don't like, or any message on a subject that you don't like. Calling something "propaganda" when it really isn't is... well, it's propaganda.
Being able to distinguish propaganda from other types of persuasive speech is an important part of critical thinking. Simply being skeptical of everything, simply putting the propaganda label on everything, doesn't cut it.
politics is the conflict over the distribution of values and burdens
I think that's much too narrow a definition, even for discussion purposes. I'd define politics as the interaction between the individual and the group.
The reason I bring this up is that this definition of politics puts the lie to the assertion that folks can just opt out of the whole thing. If you're an individual and you interact with one or more groups, you're participating in politics. You might not be aware of it, but you are.
Ah, touché. Although 1 has been around since long before Rendezvous, and I think 4 isn't really implemented anywhere yet. I believe all Rendezvous traffic is addressed to 224.0.0.251 port 5353.
Other than that, good point.
You're not mistaken, but what's new here is the C library for talking to mDNSResponder. That wasn't there in the POSIX example code before, which meant you were SOL if you wanted to actually build Rendezvous support into your application. You could run a Rendezvous proxy on a POSIX system; I set that up at a friend's place. They had a network that was about 75% Mac and 25% SGI. I set up Rendezvous proxies so their IRIX machines would announce their FTP and SSH services via Rendezvous so the Mac users would be able to make use of them more easily. But that was as far as you could go without heavy, heavy lifting.
But now that's no longer a problem.
The only reason for Apple atempting to break DAAP interoperability that I can think of is to enforce the 5-connections maximum present in iTunes.
No, it had to do with stealing. DAAP has to be encrypted to prevent people from being able to easily steal music with iTunes sharing.
May I humbly suggest that you have some clue what Rendezvous is before posting comments comparing it to this or that?
1. Rendezvous has nothing to do with routing.
2. Rendezvous doesn't work over the Internet; at this point, it can't even cross a router, because Rendezvous responders all drop requests with the wrong TTL value.
Rendevous is some what like making each computer a DNS/DHCP/Directory server, however that's not completely accurate.
It's not so much that it's not completely accurate as it is that it's completely wrong.
Rendezvous has nothing to do with DNS, DHCP, or directory services. It's a service discovery framework, and that's all. Here's how it works.
Let's say you've got some program, Foo.app, that has a feature for talking to other instances of Foo.app over the network. Doesn't matter what it is. It could be iTunes music sharing or iChat or distributed compilation or whatever you want.
Without Rendezvous, you'd have to tell your instance of Foo.app where to find other instances. That'd require some kind of setup and some kind of maintenance.
With Rendezvous, your instance of Foo.app sends out a single multicast message when it starts up. That message says that there's an instance of Foo.app available at our IP address. Other instances on the network receive that message and make a note of it. They maintain a list in memory of available services, all automatically, without your intervention.
Does this involve a lot of network traffic? Not really. It requires some, but not much. When an instance of Foo.app starts up, it (1) announces its own presence, and (2) sends out a multicast request for other instances, and the other instances reply. When Foo.app shuts down, it sends out an announcement of its own termination. That's it.
Does this involve terrible security risks? Not really. All Rendezvous does is publish the availability of services that are already running on the network. The responder daemon itself doesn't run with any privileges (on a Mac, it runs as the "nobody" user), and all Rendezvous requests are handled by that one daemon. If something magical happened and somebody was able to get mDNSResponder to run arbitrary code, there would have to be another exploitable security hole somewhere else on the system, because mDNSResponder doesn't have privilege to do anything.
A prime example of Rendevous is two Powerbooks in a cafe, both with Airport wireless. You can set up an Ad Hoc wireless network between these computers, and they will auto configure their IP's and other information so that they can talk to each other.
That's not Rendezvous. That's nothing more than self-assigned IP addresses. When your computer can't find a DHCP server, it self-assigns an address in the 169.254/16 network. Which means any two computers on the same network segment that have self-assigned IPs can talk to each other. This has been around since long before Rendezvous.
So Rendevous is not designed to replace DNS/DHCP, but merely to find a way for network configuration when there is no established network structure.
No, that's overstating it. The sole purpose of Rendezvous is service discovery. That's it. It's independent of network configuration. It works with or without DHCP, DNS, or any other network stuff. As long as you've got an IP address, Rendezvous does its thing.
This is really the beauty of it, because it can determine what configuration is necessary and do whatever needed to get the computers networked, all transparently!
No, no, NO! That's not Rendezvous, that's DHCP. Rendezvous is ONLY for service discovery. Rendezvous doesn't set your IP address or your routing table or your hostname resolution parameters. It doesn't do any of those things. All it does is facilitate service announcement and discovery for your applications.
Back in 01 they had one that could do like 3,500 pixels.
It had a lot more than that. And yes, it was very nice. I saw it at Supercomputing 2000, I think. Or 2001. Can't remember now.
The problem with it is that the was 200 dpi. That meant it was all but useless for typical computer work.
No, the Apple display is new, because it's 30" diagonal at 100 dpi.
The IBM "Big Bertha" display is 22" diagonal at 200 dpi, making it great for things like medical imaging but all but useless for traditional application work.
Apple's display is cool because it's got more glass and more pixels but the pixels are almost exactly the same size, meaning that your UI elements like the menu bar and the mouse pointer are going to be almost exactly the same size when you're working on the new monster display.
As I understand it, resource forks are now a legacy feature of Mac OS 9.
Deprecated, but fully supported.
Can't we finally retire this non-feature that was a clever idea if anybody else was going to support it, but a horrible impediment to cross-platform compatibility?
Nope. You're just going to have to learn to deal.
Imagine trying to work at theater resolution (>2,000 pixels...)
Funny you should bring that up.
When you scan 35 mm film to work on it digitally, you typically do it at 2K resolution, which results in an image that's 2,048 by 1,556 pixels.
How big is the new screen, boys and girls? That's right. 2,560 by 1,600.
In other words, it's big enough for you to work in 2K with plenty of room on top for the menu bar and on the side for UI elements.
There are lots of third-party backup solutions out there for backing up an OS X Server, but none I completely trust to do a bare-metal restore and give me a bootable system.
Use Apple Software Restore. It's what Apple uses in-house. It's available on both OS X client and server, and it comes in both GUI and command-line flavors.
No, it would be OS X 11.0. The name is OS X, or Mac OS X. It's pronounced "Oh Ess Ten" or "Mac Oh Ess Ten."
The version number is separate.
If and when they get to the point where it's time to go up a whole number, it'll be Mac OS X 11.0.
I say "if" because it's not a sure thing. SGI has their UNIX operating system, IRIX. They ship a new feature release every quarter, which is basically like the difference between 10.2 and 10.3 only less so. The version number of IRIX is 6.5.x, where the x is the number of the feature release. They're up to 6.5.22 or so now with no plans to ever produce another major release of IRIX.
Nothing's stopping Apple from doing the same thing: 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, 10.5... 10.9, 10.10, 10.11... 10.20, 10.21, 10.22. Whatever.