So unless you require liars to tell you about other liars, I'd suggest you find another, more accurate source for your claims. Bill O'Reilly is not perfect but at least he has paid his dues. Al Franken is a comedic writer who is now trying to dabble in politics. He is the Dennis Miller of the left.
Who do you think you're kidding?
Stuary Smally is not a credible source for calling someone a liar.
And Bill O'Reilly is a great analyst -- you just don't care for his analysis.
I truly enjoy our two-party republic here in the good ol' United States of America. You do not have to vote for one of the two major candidates, but they are the ones who will most likely take office. I am a bit worried, however, that we have people calling for a change to a coalition-based government...
Coalition governments have a hard time ruling since they require a great deal of consensus between very different people. Such a situation usually results in stagnation and impotency. Look at Israel for an example of that. They are constantly holding elections due to a coalition government falling out of favor.
As many Curb Your Enthusiasm fans know, a compromise is considered the situation whereby both parties are equally dissatisfied. This is why I'm such a big fan of this country! It allows me to be thoroughly appaled at the actions, legislature, and judicial rulings set down by liberals while still accepting their right to hold power. It is this system of compromise that allows our government to work, despite what many/.ers believe.
It will be a country of red and blue states forever.
Or at least until Democrats stop preventing Nader from being on the ballot.
His show is merely a forum for his opinions and that of his guests. He has never claimed to report the news. He provides a point of view. If you don't like it, fine, don't watch. But to claim his show is Faux News is to laud The Daily Show as Real News.
He's a brilliant guy with some excellent insight into the modern world.
He's not always right, but at least he's vocal.
>>Now fuck off until you can post properly, you big-nosed, pork-dodging chopcock.
You idiot.
There is a difference between a Jew and a Hebrew.
A Jew is one who follows the teachings of the torah.
A Hebrew is one who was born to parents of origin relating to the Semitic tribes descending from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
I am a Hebrew. I eat pork, have a very appropriately-sized nose, and do not believe in God. You, on the other hand, are a racist, bigoted asshole who needs to resort to epithets to win an argument.
Bush is an elected representative of the people of the United States of America. Usama bin Laden is a wealthy fanatic who, as the son of Saudi construction works (Bin Laden Brothers), felt that he was being repressed by past American governments. Whether or not this is the case, he is a murderer who destroyed the lives of innocent people on 9/11/01. You can spin it however you like -- US being hated around the world, playing by the rules, America wading in killing everyone -- that's all goddamn bullshit.
Start recognizing that there is a culture of hate due to ignorance and miseducation. Modern Arabs have been treated poorly by their OWN rulers, not ours.
People like you are the ones who blame Israel and the U.S. for the plight of the Palestinians, not their Arab brothers and Yasser Arafat.
>>jb.hl.com expects to be called Troll/Flamebait for expressing a valid, but unpopular, opinion.
Oh, so it's valid now to call George W. Bush a "King?"
Or to say he invoks September 11th at every opportunity?
Or to justify a rich, fanatic like Usama bin Laden's use of commerical jet-liners as a weapon?
Fuck you, you twit.
Suck my balls for being so damn stupid.
.
Apple has a responsibility to ensure their product works as intended. Since Real has no intention of partnering with Apple (and instead using the iPod to guerilla market their own shoddy product), why does Apple have to deal with even the spectre of support for Real's product? If this product, Harmony, is allowed to blossom into a true competitor to the iTMS, where is Apple to turn for support?
Inward? HA!
Get a grasp of free market economics. Not only does a company aim to optimize demand and supply, they also must focus on reliability and functionality. If a company [Real] tries to muscle in on said reliability and functionality of another competing company [Apple], there must be the opportunity to protect the interests of the latter company.
To clarify: Apple wants their shit to work. Real wants their shit to work on the iPod. It is Real's responsibility to make a legitimate deal with Apple and partner up -- this rogue retrofitting of Real music (in their own proprietary format) will not fly in the modern world created by the DMCA.
And on a side note, I think the DMCA gets a bad rap.
The author had no idea why Apple wants to keep Real from overiding the proper method for loading music on to the iPod: iTunes. The author kept using poor examples -- such as razor blades -- to explain something that is more directly correlated to a void warranty.
Apple wants the iPod to work, so they design the iTunes MS to provide legal and copyright-protected music to iPod users. Real come along and says "We can load songs on the iPod, too -- only without Apple's permission."
So what happens when Apple wants to change their software architecture? Are they responsible for the Real music 'breaking?' Of course not! Real is responsible, but I bet you wont hear THEM saying that.
This author is off his rocker. No wonder he teaches at Duke...
One poster, Rich Mertz, wrote: "You people are wrong, wrong, wrong. If we wanted 'choices' like yours, they wouldn't have to be foisted on us. Most of us, given a real choice, would rather see you and your tactics go away. 'Competition' doesn't give you any right to reverse-engineer when you feel like it, but come down on those that hack into your IP rights. It's theft, pure and simple."
That was from the CNET article, and I cannot say I agree. While what RealNetworks did is not entirely ethical, it isn't theft. It's essentially what the Linux on iPod group is doing (on some level) and I believe it's wrong to condemn them for it.
The major issue I have with Real is that they tried to cut a deal with Apple and *THEN* decided to go and 'hack' the iPod. It seems to me that Apple has no problem with an agreement with Motorola -- so what did Real do wrong?
My guess is that Real was unwilling or unprepared to make the necessary accomodations to get on Apple's boat (so to speak). The best-selling hard disk digital music player isn't going to be pushed around by Real, so it seems obvious to me that the lack of negotiation skills on the part of Real is the problem.
As such, *that* is the problem people should be focusing on: why Real's management was too inept to make a deal happen.
That's not called censoring.
It's called being respectful.
Automoton or not, I at least intelligent enough to not ridicule CNN for not harping on a topic that doesn't need it. You're a bloody joke of a human being.
I have read all four of the books in the series thus far.
They are all quite good in their own respect, from How the Irish... through The Gifts of the Jews and including Sailing the Wine Dark Seas, currently being reviewed.
This book tells a story through the narrative of Homer and many other fine greek writers/orators. I recommend it to anyone seeking to brush up on the Classics. Included in the hardback, as with all his books, is a set of rather interesting photographs which document the subject.
Gifts of the Jews is quite good, too. You folks ought to give that a read, along with a great book titled The Source.
>>Peet's was founded by the same crew that founded Starbucks.
sweetaction, this is entirely false.
Starbucks was actually RUN by an ex-employee of Peet's Coffee & Tea. Starbucks was founded by a close associate of Alfred Peet, the founder of Peet's. Peet's Coffee and Tea was privately founded by Alfred Peet and is now a publicly traded corporation.
In the future, please provide references to your claims. For mine, I point you to Peet's own website: www.peets.com.
I'm curious as to what possible reasoning Starbucks used to enter this completely alien market. There's little money to be made from it and it seems impractical due to the time required to both burn the CD and create the playlist. Unless their goal is to keep the customer in their store for longer periods of time -- which I could see as a viable business model -- there really doesn't seem to be any strategy involved.
As an employee of a publically-traded rival corporation [Peet's Coffee & Tea] I'm not exactly unbiased here, but I'm wondering what others have to say about the strategy behind such a radical departure from the typical role of a coffee shop.
Have you tried the Image Capture application yet?
I do not, repeat *DO NOT*, own this camera.
I do, however, know that when I want to extract video from a USB image device (such as my Canon PowerShot S30 [30 second.avi clips]) the OS X application of choice is Image Capture. It's fairly straightforward, so give it a try.
On a side note, chances are that the OS 9 video capture Application would not work properly. As the Power Mac G5 can only run OS 9 as Classic [emulation] you're going to have a real hard time finding a compatible application.
Finally, since hindsight is 20/20, you really ought to have purchased a FireWire DV camcorder. They behave much better on the Mac.
Umm, because they've no real incentive to support AAC.
They *ought* to support MPEG 4, which is the codec, and not AAC specifically, which is DRM encoding.
Market forces are not pushing for the adoption of Apple's standards, so Apple must rely on sales of its own product to push said standards. The interesting thing about this is that even this new Rio isn't that much of a contender versus the iPod. The prices are nearly identical and the form factor almost in favor of the iPod. NTM the ridiculous "hype" behind the iPod, including these recent commens on iPod "jacking" -- sharing ones iPod with a passerby.
I own an iPod, and like Jack of AtAT says: someone comes up trying to stick their headphones in my jack and I'll mase their ass.
Always hating on the guy trying to enforce rigid security standards.
Can't we all recognize that the only real harm caused would be by *not* reporting on these security holes. C&D letters only cause anti-corporate sentiment due to their rather accusatory tone.
For shame.
Good thing I don't use gamespy...
The true goal of MS is to only write for only one platform.
They will soon cut off the Mac BU's ability to update Office v.X and force users to purchase the *new* Mac Office suite: Virtual PC and Office for Windows.
Windows Media Player 9 ain't that bad, but the fact that MS refuses to update the UI just reinforces what I wrote above. WiMP is just a horribly media application for the Mac....and for good reason.
>How come my Panasonic DVD player knows how to play a disc filled with WMA files but not AAC files?
Because, as you pointed out, they bought a license from MS. But why is it that my Mac can't play WiMP files very well? Could it be that, despite Apple being pretty on top of *industry standards* (FireWire, 802.11b/g, Mp4, zeroconf/rendezvous, java support), MS really doesn't want people to know much about their products? Hmmm...
There is no Apple music format -- there is Mp4 with Apple DRM. There IS a Windows 'music' format -- it uses MS code and MS DRM.
My definition of Open and Closed is as follows:
Open refers to the fact that Apple doesn't control the format of music played via their OS. Closed refers to the fact that MS completely controls the format of music played via their OS. And at every throw of the dice, MS shows they're willing to goose-step all over consumer rights.
And, to my complete and utter shock sarcasm, now MS owns Virtual PC -- which *still* doesn't run on Apple's new G5 due to the dependency of some Little Endian nonsense.
Harumph.
You can call me a troll if you like, but I calls 'em like I sees 'em.
Every word out of MS's megaphone is dubious if not outright *shady*.
The RDF of Steve Jobs is no match...
And, btw...
Stop touting your politics on slashdot// Clark is such a cop-out anyways.
Windows media == closed format supported completely over windows and partially on the Mac and *nix.
AAC == open format (Mp4) supported completely over all major platforms.
DRM rules -- unlimited CD burning over the iTunes music store, three separate computers able to play downloaded tracks, unlimited iPod transfers.
I truly don't understand the criticism coming from MS over the iTMS and iTunes music software. Apple has never claimed it's the end-all software jukebox -- but, as others have pointed out, it's very simple and straighforward. Much like iMovie compared to FCP or CakeWalk to ProTools, iTunes is a simple way to manage a library of music and transfer it to a number of different formats.
You can easily convert CD's burnt from Mp4 (AAC) tracks over to mp3 by merely ripping the burnt CD. That allows folks to still use Mp3-CD's with their entire collection and to share them with whomever they'd like.
All that I feel coming out of Redmond right now is Hot Air....especially after hearing Longhorn ain't arrivin' until '06. Long time to wait, so I'm sure there will be lots of potshots directed at Apple in the meantime.
Sometimes it's just rewarding to get things done by yourself.
I remember when I was being taught some basic data structures in JAVA -- the professor told us that we can't use the util class because Sun had included these data structures. I didn't understand why we were being told to write code that already works perfectly well until I actually had to do it and fix all the annoying little bugs.
I guess I'm trying to say that there are lessons in the process that are worth learning on your own.
Apple has no reason to open source specific pieces of their code. They are and have been a publicly-traded, capitalist computer maker that functions to make money. The company wouldn't exist if this were the case...
Apple is first and foremost a hardware company.
That is where they get their revenue.
That is where they must always pledge allegiance....especially since I own quite a bit of their stock.;)
Slashdot Mirror
Bill O'Reilly has proven it.
So unless you require liars to tell you about other liars, I'd suggest you find another, more accurate source for your claims. Bill O'Reilly is not perfect but at least he has paid his dues. Al Franken is a comedic writer who is now trying to dabble in politics. He is the Dennis Miller of the left.
Who do you think you're kidding?
Stuary Smally is not a credible source for calling someone a liar.
And Bill O'Reilly is a great analyst -- you just don't care for his analysis.
I truly enjoy our two-party republic here in the good ol' United States of America. You do not have to vote for one of the two major candidates, but they are the ones who will most likely take office. I am a bit worried, however, that we have people calling for a change to a coalition-based government...
Coalition governments have a hard time ruling since they require a great deal of consensus between very different people. Such a situation usually results in stagnation and impotency. Look at Israel for an example of that. They are constantly holding elections due to a coalition government falling out of favor.
As many Curb Your Enthusiasm fans know, a compromise is considered the situation whereby both parties are equally dissatisfied. This is why I'm such a big fan of this country! It allows me to be thoroughly appaled at the actions, legislature, and judicial rulings set down by liberals while still accepting their right to hold power. It is this system of compromise that allows our government to work, despite what many /.ers believe.
It will be a country of red and blue states forever.
Or at least until Democrats stop preventing Nader from being on the ballot.
His show is merely a forum for his opinions and that of his guests. He has never claimed to report the news. He provides a point of view. If you don't like it, fine, don't watch. But to claim his show is Faux News is to laud The Daily Show as Real News.
He's a brilliant guy with some excellent insight into the modern world.
He's not always right, but at least he's vocal.
You idiot.
There is a difference between a Jew and a Hebrew.
A Jew is one who follows the teachings of the torah.
A Hebrew is one who was born to parents of origin relating to the Semitic tribes descending from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
I am a Hebrew. I eat pork, have a very appropriately-sized nose, and do not believe in God. You, on the other hand, are a racist, bigoted asshole who needs to resort to epithets to win an argument.
So suck my balls, Anonymous Coward.
You're a fuckin' idiot.
Bush is an elected representative of the people of the United States of America. Usama bin Laden is a wealthy fanatic who, as the son of Saudi construction works (Bin Laden Brothers), felt that he was being repressed by past American governments. Whether or not this is the case, he is a murderer who destroyed the lives of innocent people on 9/11/01. You can spin it however you like -- US being hated around the world, playing by the rules, America wading in killing everyone -- that's all goddamn bullshit.
Start recognizing that there is a culture of hate due to ignorance and miseducation. Modern Arabs have been treated poorly by their OWN rulers, not ours.
People like you are the ones who blame Israel and the U.S. for the plight of the Palestinians, not their Arab brothers and Yasser Arafat.
Go read a fucking book, you twit.
Or to say he invoks September 11th at every opportunity?
Or to justify a rich, fanatic like Usama bin Laden's use of commerical jet-liners as a weapon?
Fuck you, you twit.
Suck my balls for being so damn stupid.
His analogy is not applicable to the case at hand
. Apple has a responsibility to ensure their product works as intended. Since Real has no intention of partnering with Apple (and instead using the iPod to guerilla market their own shoddy product), why does Apple have to deal with even the spectre of support for Real's product? If this product, Harmony, is allowed to blossom into a true competitor to the iTMS, where is Apple to turn for support?
Inward? HA!
Get a grasp of free market economics. Not only does a company aim to optimize demand and supply, they also must focus on reliability and functionality. If a company [Real] tries to muscle in on said reliability and functionality of another competing company [Apple], there must be the opportunity to protect the interests of the latter company.
To clarify: Apple wants their shit to work. Real wants their shit to work on the iPod. It is Real's responsibility to make a legitimate deal with Apple and partner up -- this rogue retrofitting of Real music (in their own proprietary format) will not fly in the modern world created by the DMCA.
And on a side note, I think the DMCA gets a bad rap.
It ain't perfect, but it ain't awful.
The author had no idea why Apple wants to keep Real from overiding the proper method for loading music on to the iPod: iTunes. The author kept using poor examples -- such as razor blades -- to explain something that is more directly correlated to a void warranty.
Apple wants the iPod to work, so they design the iTunes MS to provide legal and copyright-protected music to iPod users. Real come along and says "We can load songs on the iPod, too -- only without Apple's permission."
So what happens when Apple wants to change their software architecture? Are they responsible for the Real music 'breaking?' Of course not! Real is responsible, but I bet you wont hear THEM saying that.
This author is off his rocker. No wonder he teaches at Duke...
That was from the CNET article, and I cannot say I agree. While what RealNetworks did is not entirely ethical, it isn't theft. It's essentially what the Linux on iPod group is doing (on some level) and I believe it's wrong to condemn them for it.
The major issue I have with Real is that they tried to cut a deal with Apple and *THEN* decided to go and 'hack' the iPod. It seems to me that Apple has no problem with an agreement with Motorola -- so what did Real do wrong?
My guess is that Real was unwilling or unprepared to make the necessary accomodations to get on Apple's boat (so to speak). The best-selling hard disk digital music player isn't going to be pushed around by Real, so it seems obvious to me that the lack of negotiation skills on the part of Real is the problem.
As such, *that* is the problem people should be focusing on: why Real's management was too inept to make a deal happen.
>>Bush is certainly willing to deprive Americanns of their liberties, though. Sounds like MoveOn.org rhetoric to me...
It's called being respectful.
Automoton or not, I at least intelligent enough to not ridicule CNN for not harping on a topic that doesn't need it. You're a bloody joke of a human being.
Good for you for saying what need to be said.
There are better alternatives than solar power -- lets wait and see how they turn out.
Are you suffering indignity too great to measure?
Has TBA [The Bush Administration] censored you?
Obviously not.
So quit your damn bitching, you idiotic liberal.
This book tells a story through the narrative of Homer and many other fine greek writers/orators. I recommend it to anyone seeking to brush up on the Classics. Included in the hardback, as with all his books, is a set of rather interesting photographs which document the subject.
Gifts of the Jews is quite good, too. You folks ought to give that a read, along with a great book titled The Source.
>>Peet's was founded by the same crew that founded Starbucks.
sweetaction, this is entirely false. Starbucks was actually RUN by an ex-employee of Peet's Coffee & Tea. Starbucks was founded by a close associate of Alfred Peet, the founder of Peet's. Peet's Coffee and Tea was privately founded by Alfred Peet and is now a publicly traded corporation.
In the future, please provide references to your claims. For mine, I point you to Peet's own website: www.peets.com.
I'm curious as to what possible reasoning Starbucks used to enter this completely alien market. There's little money to be made from it and it seems impractical due to the time required to both burn the CD and create the playlist. Unless their goal is to keep the customer in their store for longer periods of time -- which I could see as a viable business model -- there really doesn't seem to be any strategy involved.
As an employee of a publically-traded rival corporation [Peet's Coffee & Tea] I'm not exactly unbiased here, but I'm wondering what others have to say about the strategy behind such a radical departure from the typical role of a coffee shop.
Have you tried the Image Capture application yet? .avi clips]) the OS X application of choice is Image Capture. It's fairly straightforward, so give it a try.
I do not, repeat *DO NOT*, own this camera.
I do, however, know that when I want to extract video from a USB image device (such as my Canon PowerShot S30 [30 second
On a side note, chances are that the OS 9 video capture Application would not work properly. As the Power Mac G5 can only run OS 9 as Classic [emulation] you're going to have a real hard time finding a compatible application.
Finally, since hindsight is 20/20, you really ought to have purchased a FireWire DV camcorder. They behave much better on the Mac.
Umm, because they've no real incentive to support AAC. They *ought* to support MPEG 4, which is the codec, and not AAC specifically, which is DRM encoding. Market forces are not pushing for the adoption of Apple's standards, so Apple must rely on sales of its own product to push said standards. The interesting thing about this is that even this new Rio isn't that much of a contender versus the iPod. The prices are nearly identical and the form factor almost in favor of the iPod. NTM the ridiculous "hype" behind the iPod, including these recent commens on iPod "jacking" -- sharing ones iPod with a passerby. I own an iPod, and like Jack of AtAT says: someone comes up trying to stick their headphones in my jack and I'll mase their ass.
Always hating on the guy trying to enforce rigid security standards. Can't we all recognize that the only real harm caused would be by *not* reporting on these security holes. C&D letters only cause anti-corporate sentiment due to their rather accusatory tone. For shame. Good thing I don't use gamespy...
The true goal of MS is to only write for only one platform. They will soon cut off the Mac BU's ability to update Office v.X and force users to purchase the *new* Mac Office suite: Virtual PC and Office for Windows. Windows Media Player 9 ain't that bad, but the fact that MS refuses to update the UI just reinforces what I wrote above. WiMP is just a horribly media application for the Mac....and for good reason.
>How come my Panasonic DVD player knows how to play a disc filled with WMA files but not AAC files? Because, as you pointed out, they bought a license from MS. But why is it that my Mac can't play WiMP files very well? Could it be that, despite Apple being pretty on top of *industry standards* (FireWire, 802.11b/g, Mp4, zeroconf/rendezvous, java support), MS really doesn't want people to know much about their products? Hmmm... There is no Apple music format -- there is Mp4 with Apple DRM. There IS a Windows 'music' format -- it uses MS code and MS DRM. My definition of Open and Closed is as follows: Open refers to the fact that Apple doesn't control the format of music played via their OS. Closed refers to the fact that MS completely controls the format of music played via their OS. And at every throw of the dice, MS shows they're willing to goose-step all over consumer rights. And, to my complete and utter shock sarcasm, now MS owns Virtual PC -- which *still* doesn't run on Apple's new G5 due to the dependency of some Little Endian nonsense. Harumph. You can call me a troll if you like, but I calls 'em like I sees 'em. Every word out of MS's megaphone is dubious if not outright *shady*. The RDF of Steve Jobs is no match... And, btw... Stop touting your politics on slashdot // Clark is such a cop-out anyways.
Windows media == closed format supported completely over windows and partially on the Mac and *nix. AAC == open format (Mp4) supported completely over all major platforms. DRM rules -- unlimited CD burning over the iTunes music store, three separate computers able to play downloaded tracks, unlimited iPod transfers. I truly don't understand the criticism coming from MS over the iTMS and iTunes music software. Apple has never claimed it's the end-all software jukebox -- but, as others have pointed out, it's very simple and straighforward. Much like iMovie compared to FCP or CakeWalk to ProTools, iTunes is a simple way to manage a library of music and transfer it to a number of different formats. You can easily convert CD's burnt from Mp4 (AAC) tracks over to mp3 by merely ripping the burnt CD. That allows folks to still use Mp3-CD's with their entire collection and to share them with whomever they'd like. All that I feel coming out of Redmond right now is Hot Air....especially after hearing Longhorn ain't arrivin' until '06. Long time to wait, so I'm sure there will be lots of potshots directed at Apple in the meantime.
Sometimes it's just rewarding to get things done by yourself. I remember when I was being taught some basic data structures in JAVA -- the professor told us that we can't use the util class because Sun had included these data structures. I didn't understand why we were being told to write code that already works perfectly well until I actually had to do it and fix all the annoying little bugs. I guess I'm trying to say that there are lessons in the process that are worth learning on your own.
I knew you could do it! ;)
Keep up the good work.
Apple has no reason to open source specific pieces of their code. They are and have been a publicly-traded, capitalist computer maker that functions to make money. The company wouldn't exist if this were the case... Apple is first and foremost a hardware company. That is where they get their revenue. That is where they must always pledge allegiance. ...especially since I own quite a bit of their stock. ;)