Re:I'm buying one purely for the tiny firewire hd
on
Apple releases iPod
·
· Score: 1
I don't see any indication that you can use it for anything but music.
It uses firewire to synch with iTunes. In fact, Jobs said when you plug it into the Mac it launches iTunes. The 6 line LCD interface screen doesn't appear to allow for file browsing. I don't see any indication you could use this for anything BUT iTunes.
I too would like to use this as a portabel storage medium but it doesn't appear to be work that way.
If you have any additional info that suggests otherwise, please let me know.
According to Maccentral, Jobs said he would consider looking at Windows down the line, but right now iPod and iTunes are Mac only.
"We have thought than when we get a little spare time, we will look at taking it to Windows. We know the experience won't be as good, but we will probably look at that down the road."
Once a standard is reached how long would it be before the manufacturers start supporting the proposition, especially in a bad economy with a sales slump for traditional "luxury" items?
Doesn't standards decrease cost over the long term? I get the impression hardware manufacturer's main gripes boil down to:
1. Additional cost to implement SSSCA into their products.
2. SSSCA provisions limiting future product design.
Make no mistake, I am against SSSCA, but if Sony can make money from CD and DVD players, why not be able to make money from these hypothetical devices?
Copy protected devices (DVD/ e-nbook readers, MiniDisc) seem to be the trend anyway. Especially as the content creators become content distributors.
yep. stealing is wrong even if you have a miserable salary that couldn't support your drug habit (free music). Note how It's not okay to see "Sir Paid A Lot" earn a $.05 salary (He is a label artist after all) and have to get a job, but the same situation with the girl earning money and paying the label is okay.
"Sir-Paid-A-Lot"
That's how the label would see him. And it helps paint the artist as a victim.
You can interpret it in may ways. Either way it is a blatant attempt at swaying the behavior of viewers.
I hope my Senators and representative gets the letter I sent them last week.
But given the mail, I doubt they will. Even if they do, one of my Senators, gets money from the Hollywood lobby (#12 on the list) although to be fair, most comes from actors and actresses in the form of personal donations. At least according to Public Radio here.
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/indus.asp?C ID=N00004443&cycle=2002
and
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?In d=B02
Historically speaking , you are correct. And yes, most recessions in the US since WW2 have been caused by expensive gasoline prices.
But if space based stations that beam solar energy to earth are in the near future (and I've been hearing such talk since the 70s at least) then centralized energy needs could be dramatically reduced. There'd be little costs after construction of such systems. Very little or no environmental damage such as that caused by hydro electric, petroleum based or nuclear power sources.
What would happen if all those examples you cited cost only 10% of what they cost now. Would we just use more energy, convert from other ebergy sources, develop tide based and windpower generators? That's what I want to know.
If everybody had near zero cost energy what would be be fighting over?
I didn't say I was for or against such things. Only asking what kind of ramification would develop. I do believe that the entrenched interests would do whatever they can to keep their stranglehold which is why I asked the questions in the first place.
Besides, these sorts of power generation stations would work well for centralized systems such as power plants for factories, city wide lighting systems etc, but would be useless for things like automobiles.
"Adapt or die, it's the oldest law on the books." I thought the oldest rule was "might is right".
The initial costs wouldn't be cheap, admittedly, but the environmental costs (no pollution, no environmental damage) would make such a system very attractive in the long run.
\
I can't comment on the admin costs, but I can't imagine that it would rise significantly over time.
I am suspicious of cheap or low cost power schemes. The majority of the economy is predicated on not so cheap power.
If power were really dirt cheap (approaching $0) what ramifications would we face? Would we see the current power industries (like oil and nuclear) moving to protect their interests? Would the economies (developed and developing) be able to shift resources for growth?
Well as I am a web designer learning the underbelly of OSX. The projects and applications I am seeing come out for my setup seem to be using mySQL. I'm trying to come up with a CMS system for a non profit. phpNuke, PHPwebsite and others use mySQL. OSX shareware that allows visual or GUI manipulation of tables seem to be supporting mySQL as well. Maybe I could get it to run on Postgres, but I really don't want to figure out how.
I just need something simple to start on. I don't want to learn the intricacies of databases. I want to select a system, design templates for it and turn it over to the non-technical people to run.
That's why *I* am looking at it over Postgres and others.
"We need to get soft money banned. People complain this restricts speech, but this structure is actually HINDERING speech because the small guy is getting drowned out; getting rid of soft money actually PROTECTS free speech (and free speech should be based on the individual, not the corp.)"
The courts have decided numerous times that campaign spending is the equivalent of free speech. The fact that the "small guy" is not heard doesn't matter. I don't have to listen to your banter no matter hwo loud it is.
Campaign Finance won't happen until the Democrats and Republicans are in the minority. Any chance of a third party getting elected has been minimized by the campaign finance laws.
The only way this wretched bill will not pass is to have the mainstream press (owned in large part by the entertainment industry) report it and the American people actually get off their butts and make it clear they will not reelect somebody who voted for it.
Given recent history I think we are doomed. And yes, I did write my Senators (one gets a LOT of Hollywood money) and Representative this past Monday.
I agree that the real conflict will be between traditionally "light" infantry and/or special forces.
However, I do belive that Katz is somewhat correct inasmuch as this is a "new war". What I mean by that is that the infantry won't be seizing and holding objectives as in traditional warfare. Indeed, I would go so far as to suggest that in the past 20 years the military has moved to a strategy that involves NOT holding objectives. The objective of current military missions is to cause as much damage as possible and move AWAY from the objective with the most speed possible.
You can see that in the military objectives and techniques involved since the 80s. Operations like Panama, Grenada, the air attacks on Libya and the Balkans, and the Gulf War all point to this kind of action. When objectives are held or soldiers stationed in potentialy hostile environments, casualties are more likely to develop. When these happen to soldiers (as they did in Beirut in 82/83? with 149 dead marines or the Rangers in Somalia) domestic pressure tends to result in a change in policy.
Again, I am not disagreeing with you on the fact that infantry will need to do the actual killing of people, just that the traditional "seize and hold objectives with infantry" is very unlikely to occur. American military strategy does tend to be moving to a much more mobile and fluid approach wherein small groups of people engage in guerilla or low intensity warfare. This is to be expected given that no military in the world can take the US military on and win in a traditional engagement.
I hesitate to call this conflict a war since it is not between two states, but rather between a state and a group of individuals. The fact that Bush Jr has involved the Taliban doesn't change that for me.
That said, I think you will find that the tech involved in this conflict will be primarily oriented to command and control, recon and surveillence.
It appears that so far the "smart bombs" have done no discernable damage to the Al Queda network. Nor are such devices likely to work as they are designed to take out military assets, not individuals. Several experts believe that the US and its allies will rely heavily on special forces used on the ground. I tend to agree. The strengths of the Al Queda followers are the same as those of the muhjadeen - rapid strike ground forces that disappear after contact - hit and run tactics as explained by a former British SAS member who helped them refine their techniques. Those kinds of tactics cannot be fought by bombing an area into submission.
Wherer the tech does stand out however, is in tracking and locating friendly forces. GPS allows ground commanders and operational officers to know where their men are at any time. That is a great advantage for recon (When the enemy is spotted or engaged), evac (if troops are in danger). Enhanced communications and satellites will play further aid these processes.
Other less glamorous technologies such as night vision and short range heat trackers will lend a tactical advantage to ground forces (who will be more likely to attack their opponents at night), but again these aren't the high profile items that cost 5 and 6 figures each.
As for playing up the danger of conflict, that's been SOP for a long time. Remember the US government built up Iraq as the fourth largest military in the world (when it couldn't make a dent in Iran for 10 years). Technology's role in the military since WW2 has rarely created a paradigm shift, it merely increases the efficiency in which something can be done.
The fact that once again the most dangerous weapons US troops are likely to face are ones we sold our opponents doesn't help.
Given that most people seem to visit web properties run by 4 major corporations, the attempts by government to restrict information access and prevent anonymous transactions, mass marketing of products and services with no relevence to me, and attempts to make money off open standards via W3C's RAND proposal, it sure seems like the same as the physical world.
What's the point of me moderating if nobody reads *my* posts?
Nope. Once the SSCA is passed the recording industry can come up with their own format and cut out MS completely. SSCA will require all devices (not just ones WiMp works on) to run whatever format they want.
Odds are it will be a recording industry standard similar to redbook. But the recording industry isn't stupid. They know MS's history of workign with their partners. WiMP is only a stop gap, short-term measure selected because of WiMP market penetration and rudimentary DRM backed up by the DMCA.
Once the SSCA is entrenched there won't be any need for WiMP format or any non-RIAA chosen format. The RIAA is going for WiMP at the moment because it's the format with the widest distribution and has some rudimentary digital rights built in.
Once SSCA hardware is the standard then they'll use whatever format they want. Remember, the preliminary legislation allows for *legal monopoly* in the format. That allows the RIAA to control the format directly. The recording industry is smart enough to know they want MS to control distribution for the shortest time possible.
If you can't make Linux work on the desktop what hope do you have of having charities and non-profits use it?
Most of these people can't train their current employees, let alone train future ones. I've volunteered at a non-profit for 4 years doing their web site. Another volunteer hosts the web site on a Linux box, and is a big proponent of using Open Source software. I'm all for it, but nobody has the time or money to learn a new word processor, let alone a new OS and different programs that can't be learned in 5 minutes or through clicking buttons.
I've wanted to enable the organization to be able to update the web site themselves. Telling them they'll need to learn HTML, FTP, (possibly) database maintenence etc is just asking too much. They need something similar to Manila (which of course is not what the Open Source guy wants) - so easy to use you just type away.
I think your best bet is to VOLUNTEER to set up and maintain Linux and other free software solutions. Setting up the boxes and walking away is not a practical solution for most chaities and non-profits.
Yes, there is a OSX build of 0.9.4. It is on the ftp server. I am using it now.
Some observations:
1. I am using the Aqua theme. the scrollbar seems narrower than before because my scroll thumb graphic is munched up appearing non contiguous.
2. According to the Dock, there is a window called "Hidden" that I cannot access nor close. This is in addition to any other windows open.
3. Preferences and settings from the previous build transferred over.
4. Upon launching he first time you get taken to the Mozilla.org home page.
5. The scrollbars have their arrows pointing left and right instead of up and down. Happens on form elements like this text box entry too.
Haven't noticed anything else of import. Overall doesn't appear much changed to me yet.
Employee theft accounts for the vast majority of property stolen. When I last read stats on it it was something around 90% (in the early '90s). Menards (a hardware chain based out of Minneapolis IIRC) a few years back went to the trouble of personally searching every employee as they left work. Don' t know if they still do that.
Anyway, there's plenty of ways to steal stuff. A prime method is to read some old Loompanics (http://www.loompanics.com) books. While dated, they offer the tricks of the trade. Of course, they are supposed to be used for *stopping* these things. Knowledge being a two edged sort and all that.
Also most tags (at least used to) be nullified by running a electro magnetic charge over them. That's the thing they use when they pass the merchandise over it.
Of course, I don't shoplift (having had money in the past to buy what I wanted), but running a small bookstore back in 91-93 you needed to know how this was done.
The arbitrator should be assigned by the registrar who registered the domain in the forust place. this would spur competition in both the registrar and arbitrator spheres.
When the one doing the suing decides the arena it is heard in. it is inevitable that "trademark friendly" arenas will predominate the process.
The system does protect he moneyed interests at the expense of free speech and legitimate alternative trademark holder. Who should get sun.com? It is a computer company, a dishwasher detergent, and a newspaper. Shold Sun microsystems get the domain just becuase they have a "more valuable" trademark?
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see any indication that you can use it for anything but music.
It uses firewire to synch with iTunes. In fact, Jobs said when you plug it into the Mac it launches iTunes. The 6 line LCD interface screen doesn't appear to allow for file browsing. I don't see any indication you could use this for anything BUT iTunes.
I too would like to use this as a portabel storage medium but it doesn't appear to be work that way.
If you have any additional info that suggests otherwise, please let me know.
According to Maccentral, Jobs said he would consider looking at Windows down the line, but right now iPod and iTunes are Mac only.
"We have thought than when we get a little spare time, we will look at taking it to Windows. We know the experience won't be as good, but we will probably look at that down the road."
FWIW.
Link here.
Once a standard is reached how long would it be before the manufacturers start supporting the proposition, especially in a bad economy with a sales slump for traditional "luxury" items?
Doesn't standards decrease cost over the long term? I get the impression hardware manufacturer's main gripes boil down to:
1. Additional cost to implement SSSCA into their products.
2. SSSCA provisions limiting future product design.
Make no mistake, I am against SSSCA, but if Sony can make money from CD and DVD players, why not be able to make money from these hypothetical devices?
Copy protected devices (DVD/ e-nbook readers, MiniDisc) seem to be the trend anyway. Especially as the content creators become content distributors.
"spent $125 on cd's from her $.05 salary"
yep. stealing is wrong even if you have a miserable salary that couldn't support your drug habit (free music). Note how It's not okay to see "Sir Paid A Lot" earn a $.05 salary (He is a label artist after all) and have to get a job, but the same situation with the girl earning money and paying the label is okay.
"Sir-Paid-A-Lot"
That's how the label would see him. And it helps paint the artist as a victim.
You can interpret it in may ways. Either way it is a blatant attempt at swaying the behavior of viewers.
I aint' surprised.
I hope my Senators and representative gets the letter I sent them last week. But given the mail, I doubt they will. Even if they do, one of my Senators, gets money from the Hollywood lobby (#12 on the list) although to be fair, most comes from actors and actresses in the form of personal donations. At least according to Public Radio here. http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/indus.asp?C ID=N00004443&cycle=2002
and
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?In d=B02
Historically speaking , you are correct. And yes, most recessions in the US since WW2 have been caused by expensive gasoline prices.
But if space based stations that beam solar energy to earth are in the near future (and I've been hearing such talk since the 70s at least) then centralized energy needs could be dramatically reduced. There'd be little costs after construction of such systems. Very little or no environmental damage such as that caused by hydro electric, petroleum based or nuclear power sources.
What would happen if all those examples you cited cost only 10% of what they cost now. Would we just use more energy, convert from other ebergy sources, develop tide based and windpower generators? That's what I want to know.
If everybody had near zero cost energy what would be be fighting over?
I didn't say I was for or against such things. Only asking what kind of ramification would develop. I do believe that the entrenched interests would do whatever they can to keep their stranglehold which is why I asked the questions in the first place.
Besides, these sorts of power generation stations would work well for centralized systems such as power plants for factories, city wide lighting systems etc, but would be useless for things like automobiles.
"Adapt or die, it's the oldest law on the books." I thought the oldest rule was "might is right".
YMMV
The initial costs wouldn't be cheap, admittedly, but the environmental costs (no pollution, no environmental damage) would make such a system very attractive in the long run.
\
I can't comment on the admin costs, but I can't imagine that it would rise significantly over time.
I am suspicious of cheap or low cost power schemes. The majority of the economy is predicated on not so cheap power.
If power were really dirt cheap (approaching $0) what ramifications would we face? Would we see the current power industries (like oil and nuclear) moving to protect their interests? Would the economies (developed and developing) be able to shift resources for growth?
I'll believe it when I see it.
"I still don't get why people use it."
Well as I am a web designer learning the underbelly of OSX. The projects and applications I am seeing come out for my setup seem to be using mySQL. I'm trying to come up with a CMS system for a non profit. phpNuke, PHPwebsite and others use mySQL. OSX shareware that allows visual or GUI manipulation of tables seem to be supporting mySQL as well. Maybe I could get it to run on Postgres, but I really don't want to figure out how.
I just need something simple to start on. I don't want to learn the intricacies of databases. I want to select a system, design templates for it and turn it over to the non-technical people to run.
That's why *I* am looking at it over Postgres and others.
For NeuLevel
neulevel.outof.biz
Just before they sell their laptops for more coffee.
Maybe I can pick up a cheap laptop at Starbuck's now? After my receptionist job starts paying me anyway!
What is the input mechanism for this? Would I be able to rip straight from a CD player with optical out? Or is it just an analog input?
I'm guessing the software is done outside the phone?
Couldn't find these answers after skimming the web site.
Have you also noticed that the mainstream media are owned by the people who are promoting the SSSCA (did I put the right number of "S" in there?)?
>
Yes. Indeed, I mentioned just that fact.
"We need to get soft money banned. People complain this restricts speech, but this structure is actually HINDERING speech because the small guy is getting drowned out; getting rid of soft money actually PROTECTS free speech (and free speech should be based on the individual, not the corp.)"
The courts have decided numerous times that campaign spending is the equivalent of free speech. The fact that the "small guy" is not heard doesn't matter. I don't have to listen to your banter no matter hwo loud it is.
Campaign Finance won't happen until the Democrats and Republicans are in the minority. Any chance of a third party getting elected has been minimized by the campaign finance laws.
The only way this wretched bill will not pass is to have the mainstream press (owned in large part by the entertainment industry) report it and the American people actually get off their butts and make it clear they will not reelect somebody who voted for it.
Given recent history I think we are doomed. And yes, I did write my Senators (one gets a LOT of Hollywood money) and Representative this past Monday.
I agree that the real conflict will be between traditionally "light" infantry and/or special forces.
However, I do belive that Katz is somewhat correct inasmuch as this is a "new war". What I mean by that is that the infantry won't be seizing and holding objectives as in traditional warfare. Indeed, I would go so far as to suggest that in the past 20 years the military has moved to a strategy that involves NOT holding objectives. The objective of current military missions is to cause as much damage as possible and move AWAY from the objective with the most speed possible.
You can see that in the military objectives and techniques involved since the 80s. Operations like Panama, Grenada, the air attacks on Libya and the Balkans, and the Gulf War all point to this kind of action. When objectives are held or soldiers stationed in potentialy hostile environments, casualties are more likely to develop. When these happen to soldiers (as they did in Beirut in 82/83? with 149 dead marines or the Rangers in Somalia) domestic pressure tends to result in a change in policy.
Again, I am not disagreeing with you on the fact that infantry will need to do the actual killing of people, just that the traditional "seize and hold objectives with infantry" is very unlikely to occur. American military strategy does tend to be moving to a much more mobile and fluid approach wherein small groups of people engage in guerilla or low intensity warfare. This is to be expected given that no military in the world can take the US military on and win in a traditional engagement.
I hesitate to call this conflict a war since it is not between two states, but rather between a state and a group of individuals. The fact that Bush Jr has involved the Taliban doesn't change that for me.
That said, I think you will find that the tech involved in this conflict will be primarily oriented to command and control, recon and surveillence.
It appears that so far the "smart bombs" have done no discernable damage to the Al Queda network. Nor are such devices likely to work as they are designed to take out military assets, not individuals. Several experts believe that the US and its allies will rely heavily on special forces used on the ground. I tend to agree. The strengths of the Al Queda followers are the same as those of the muhjadeen - rapid strike ground forces that disappear after contact - hit and run tactics as explained by a former British SAS member who helped them refine their techniques. Those kinds of tactics cannot be fought by bombing an area into submission.
Wherer the tech does stand out however, is in tracking and locating friendly forces. GPS allows ground commanders and operational officers to know where their men are at any time. That is a great advantage for recon (When the enemy is spotted or engaged), evac (if troops are in danger). Enhanced communications and satellites will play further aid these processes.
Other less glamorous technologies such as night vision and short range heat trackers will lend a tactical advantage to ground forces (who will be more likely to attack their opponents at night), but again these aren't the high profile items that cost 5 and 6 figures each.
As for playing up the danger of conflict, that's been SOP for a long time. Remember the US government built up Iraq as the fourth largest military in the world (when it couldn't make a dent in Iran for 10 years). Technology's role in the military since WW2 has rarely created a paradigm shift, it merely increases the efficiency in which something can be done.
The fact that once again the most dangerous weapons US troops are likely to face are ones we sold our opponents doesn't help.
Given that most people seem to visit web properties run by 4 major corporations, the attempts by government to restrict information access and prevent anonymous transactions, mass marketing of products and services with no relevence to me, and attempts to make money off open standards via W3C's RAND proposal, it sure seems like the same as the physical world.
What's the point of me moderating if nobody reads *my* posts?
Nope. Once the SSCA is passed the recording industry can come up with their own format and cut out MS completely. SSCA will require all devices (not just ones WiMp works on) to run whatever format they want.
Odds are it will be a recording industry standard similar to redbook. But the recording industry isn't stupid. They know MS's history of workign with their partners. WiMP is only a stop gap, short-term measure selected because of WiMP market penetration and rudimentary DRM backed up by the DMCA.
Once the SSCA is entrenched there won't be any need for WiMP format or any non-RIAA chosen format. The RIAA is going for WiMP at the moment because it's the format with the widest distribution and has some rudimentary digital rights built in.
Once SSCA hardware is the standard then they'll use whatever format they want. Remember, the preliminary legislation allows for *legal monopoly* in the format. That allows the RIAA to control the format directly. The recording industry is smart enough to know they want MS to control distribution for the shortest time possible.
If you can't make Linux work on the desktop what hope do you have of having charities and non-profits use it?
Most of these people can't train their current employees, let alone train future ones. I've volunteered at a non-profit for 4 years doing their web site. Another volunteer hosts the web site on a Linux box, and is a big proponent of using Open Source software. I'm all for it, but nobody has the time or money to learn a new word processor, let alone a new OS and different programs that can't be learned in 5 minutes or through clicking buttons.
I've wanted to enable the organization to be able to update the web site themselves. Telling them they'll need to learn HTML, FTP, (possibly) database maintenence etc is just asking too much. They need something similar to Manila (which of course is not what the Open Source guy wants) - so easy to use you just type away.
I think your best bet is to VOLUNTEER to set up and maintain Linux and other free software solutions. Setting up the boxes and walking away is not a practical solution for most chaities and non-profits.
More (more like an intro) Heaven's Door info can be found here:
http://www.shift.jp.org/058/cowboybebop/
When I was reviewing it I had problems figuring out what "Their groovy way to live just with their desire!" meant, so I left it the way it was.
:)
Yes, there is a OSX build of 0.9.4. It is on the ftp server. I am using it now.
Some observations:
1. I am using the Aqua theme. the scrollbar seems narrower than before because my scroll thumb graphic is munched up appearing non contiguous.
2. According to the Dock, there is a window called "Hidden" that I cannot access nor close. This is in addition to any other windows open.
3. Preferences and settings from the previous build transferred over.
4. Upon launching he first time you get taken to the Mozilla.org home page.
5. The scrollbars have their arrows pointing left and right instead of up and down. Happens on form elements like this text box entry too.
Haven't noticed anything else of import. Overall doesn't appear much changed to me yet.
Employee theft accounts for the vast majority of property stolen. When I last read stats on it it was something around 90% (in the early '90s). Menards (a hardware chain based out of Minneapolis IIRC) a few years back went to the trouble of personally searching every employee as they left work. Don' t know if they still do that.
Anyway, there's plenty of ways to steal stuff. A prime method is to read some old Loompanics (http://www.loompanics.com) books. While dated, they offer the tricks of the trade. Of course, they are supposed to be used for *stopping* these things. Knowledge being a two edged sort and all that.
Also most tags (at least used to) be nullified by running a electro magnetic charge over them. That's the thing they use when they pass the merchandise over it.
Of course, I don't shoplift (having had money in the past to buy what I wanted), but running a small bookstore back in 91-93 you needed to know how this was done.
The arbitrator should be assigned by the registrar who registered the domain in the forust place. this would spur competition in both the registrar and arbitrator spheres.
When the one doing the suing decides the arena it is heard in. it is inevitable that "trademark friendly" arenas will predominate the process.
The system does protect he moneyed interests at the expense of free speech and legitimate alternative trademark holder. Who should get sun.com? It is a computer company, a dishwasher detergent, and a newspaper. Shold Sun microsystems get the domain just becuase they have a "more valuable" trademark?