I like watching Tough Crowd. I just hate Colin Quinn. Not only do I think he's an ignorant religious bigot, but he can't even present his bullshit views in a humorous fashion, making him totally worthless to the show... which is his own show. Seriously, I can't believe the guy was successful as a stand-up comic. He can't deliver a punch-line, obviously doesn't rehearse for that travesty of speech he calls a monologue at the beginning of his show, stutters, forgets material and is often played off by the music on his own god damn show.
Fortunately for him, he has people like Jim Norton and Nick DiPaulo to keep the show interesting. Quinn is a persistent hemorrhoid on the ass of stand-up. It's the only reason he gets any attention at all.
See, no eveidence amounts to hill of beans if the defense can confuse the jury. Do you guys honestly think that people understand all of this the way we understand it and know how to talk about it and hash it out?
Good point. I hate to sound elitist, but people are, for the most part, stupid. All you have to do to get out of jury duty is stand up and tell the truth. Say, "I can think critically and don't let emotion or spectacle sway me from objective thinking." Both lawyers will be very quick to dismiss you, since they can't manipulate or distract you with flashy bullshit like what Cochrane pulled in the OJ Simpson trial.
The burden of proof is on the person claiming that the evidence has been tampered with. That's the way it's always been. There are certain tell-tale signs that a video or picture has been edited. But to automatically assume that all evidence is completely worthless just because of "well it could have been edited..." is just absurd and places a ridiculously high burden of proof on the prosecution and forces them to prove a negative -- that the evidence has not been tampered with.
For example, let's say that I'm on trial, and the prosecution thinks I might have sent an incriminating message to someone over AOL IM. AOL has logged this message, so they get subpoenaed for it. Once that text file finds its way into the court's hands, are you saying that I can actually claim that the evidence is not admissible because someone who works at AOL might have had a grudge against me and falsified the server-side logs? That's ridiculous. It'd be up to me to prove that the logs had been falsified. I could do this a number of ways. I could compare the server log to my machine's logs to find that the logs disagree or check to see if I was even logged into my computer at that time. If I was, check the IM process' logs to see if it recorded sending that message out at any time.
But its censoring powers should certainly be taken away. Here we have a body of unelected officials telling the American people what they can and can't see/hear over public airwaves that their tax money supports. Run those asshole censors out on a rail, I say. This whole Janet Jackson breast clusterfuck has shown that these people are Draconian Puritans who make a living off of being fucking uptight prudes. They need to get real jobs.
Sometimes censorship is called for, but the Moral Police have abused it to further their own right-wing Christian agenda. I'm fucking sick of it.
Apple's effectively got a monopoly on Apple hardware Operating Systems
Well gee, no shit Sherlock. By that idiotic definition, every company has a monopoly on their own products. Give me a break.
, so wouldn't you say they're basically forcing QuickTime and iTunes (I think that's bundled with OS X... if not, it probably will be soon) on users? Explain why this is OK.
Unlike Windows Media Player, you actually can delete QuickTime Player and iTunes. Permanently. Without elaborate OS hacks. Please learn the difference between an API and an application built using that API.
Last time I looked at an HP machine there was all sorts of crazy third party software on there, like MusicMatch Jukebox and whatnot.
Don't pretend that Microsoft has never used a license to lock out competitors. That's why they were found guilty of violating anti-trust laws. Dell anyone?
Has anyone actually tried having Apple bundle RealPlayer with OS X? I have a feeling you'll find out that Apple won't let Real do that...
The two situations are not analogous. Apple distributes both the software and hardware. Microsoft only distributes the software, and it used its licenses to prevent hardware distributors from putting competing products on their machines.
I know Slashdotters guffaw at the mention of WMP and IE being "essential" Windows components, but the reality is that it's true, to an extent. MS built in APIs for doing HTML rendering and Media playback which, surprise, surprise, rely on the IE and WMP cores.
You can't remove the damned applications from Windows. That's the problem. Apple has WebKit and QuickTime frameworks on their system, but those frameworks don't rely on the presence of Apple-made binaries! That's the whole fucking point of a framework!
Nothing inherently evil in that, after all, if you want to use KDE's HTML rendering APIs you've gotta use code developed for Konqueror to do it (to draw an analogy). Now if you were to completely gut Windows of IE and WMP, the problem is that all applications (MS and 3rd party) relying on those components would break in varying ways. In that regard, those two applications are quite essential to normal Windows operation.
And whoops! You can remove Konqueror if you don't like it. You're confusing application binaries built with APIs with the actual APIs themselves, which is apparently what Microsoft did. OS X can live perfectly happily without Safari, QuickTime Player or iTunes. The frameworks will still be there so that third-party developers can use them, but you don't have to keep Apple's binaries on your system.
Oh yeah, striking a deal with manufacturers to bundle your software is exactly the same as leveraging your desktop monopoly to force your other software on users and then using a license to prohibit manufacturers from putting any competing products on their machines. Tell me, what part of the article says that Apple's license prohibits the manufacturer from putting RealPlayer on there as well? Since when is it impossible to remove iTunes from either Mac OS X or Windows?
What diffrence does it make what happens to OpenAL when there's audiere [sourceforge.net]?
Who fucking cares about audiere? Apple's contributions to OpenAL invalidate your claim that they're not embracing open source.
Anyway, Konquerer is GPL'd so it's not like apple really had a choice. It was either continue to be beholden to Microsoft and IE:mac, write their own web browser from scratch which would make no money, or pay for some improvements in a already existing browser which would make them no money.
Apple is adding this to OSS project that help them much more then they help the community. There's nothing wrong with that, it's fine. But it's not like their some "Champion" of OSS, like IBM with Eclipse or SUN with Open Office.
Nice job of moving the goal posts around. First you claimed that Apple wasn't embracing open source, and when that claim was shot out of the water, you're now demanding that they be "champion" of open source. Make up your mind.
Ah, so Apple didn't just make a huge contribution to OpenAL? They never gave their changes to the KHTML engine back to the KHTML group? The entire point of open source is to have many developers collaborate on one thing, not to make every god damn piece of software out there free and open source. Where Apple has used open source, it has given back to the community. That's the philosophy of open source.
Yeah, they shrunk the motherboard, reworked the cooling system and added more space for drives inside. From an engineering standpoint, that is a big deal.
Somewhat off topic, but anyone wanna bet Apple's 'lossless' codec is just their DRM wrapped around FLAC? And yet it was a 30MB+ download!...
I'll bet you $1000 that it's not.
The codec is independent of the DRM, and the files generated by Apple's lossless encoder are AAC lossless files with no DRM. Thank you for demonstrating that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Some folks consider allowing yourself to die when there's an alternative to be the same as suicide, and therefore a mortal sin. Which results in some folks believing they'll have the choice to either live forever or burn in hell forever.
Those same people believe in an invisible man in the sky who can't be seen, touched or otherwise shown to exist. We normally classify such people as delusional and don't really care about what they say.
Anything digital can be
circumnavigated. There's always a way. And as long as Lite-On has $30 52X burners and Memorex has 100-pack spindles for $19.99, they will be used feverishly and for whatever purpose we choose.
I think the word you were looking for was "circumvented."
Newsflash: The proper words made up by 1337 h4x0rs addressed a need for a word in computer jargon. There's been a plural form of the word "virus" for a very long time now. Why do we need a butchered one that just applies to computers? Because the 1337s want to sound cool?
While the evolution of a language may not be subject to any rules, the language itself is, and the word "virii" breaks those rules needlessly. It's not a valid evolution because it doesn't address any sort of need or shortcoming in the language. It's simply redundant.
I think that's only half right. The public does care about features, but there's a line in the sand where they stop caring after you hit so many of them. You could go to your average Joe and prattle on forever about how [non-iPod player] can play Ogg, FLAC, WAV, MP3, WMA, ASF, AAC and whatever other acronyms you want, but he's just going to say, "Oh, it plays MP3s. That's all I care about."
After he finds out that the device will sufficiently meet his needs, he looks to functionality and ease of use. And I'll be honest with you: I want my iPod's little scrolling circle/wheel thing on all my gadgets. I'd kill for something similar on my cell phone, for example. Scrolling through large lists of music is just a breeze with that thing. That's something that's important to your average person. The touch-sensitive controls also mean that you won't get dirt or sand or grains of whatever in the controls to fuck them up. Again, this is important. And I'll reiterate: the ability to play Ogg Vorbis is not.
After he finds out that the device is easy to use, it's off to aesthetics. And I'm sorry, the iPod is just damn sexy. Bright white with a chrome finish, small and simple. The minis with the color scheme are also some very appealing little gadgets. The iPod is like that kid at school who's cool because he doesn't try to be cool.:)
So the iPod basically combines exquisite-yet-simple styling with excellent ease-of-use and doing everything the average Joe wants it to do. People will pay extra for that.
The word "hacker" is a simple case of redefinition. "Virii" is a case of lonely teenagers inventing an invalid plural form of a word when there was already an existing one that had been in use for centuries. "Virus" for example, can now describe malicious programs, so what's wrong with the accepted plural form of it?
I mainly use the word because it pisses off people who are anal about the word "virii". I also like it more than "viruses". Forget Latin and all of that crap.. I don't know Latin and so that has no real bearing on my particular word choice here. I simply like the word better as it's more descriptive, IMO.
LOL! "Virii" is more descriptive? How so? What does it get across that "viruses" does not? The fact that it's a computer virus being referred to? Here's a hint: that's unneeded because it can easily be gleaned from context.
And again, all this is beside the point. As long as meaning is conveyed between the people doing the communicating, which word you use is irrelevant. The purpose of language is to communicate. Anything that achieves that goal is not only acceptable, but is, in fact, a valid form of language.
Ah, so "fo shizzle" is valid, just like "virii"? I know it may seem that way in 15 year-old script kiddie land, but professionals communicate with real words.
The person who uses a word because it sounds cooler and everybody still knows what he means, or the person who judges somebody as a "retard" for use of a single word?
I'd say the person who chooses his words based on coolness. But I guess that makes me a square or non-1337.
I use virii, because I like that word better. And nobody has a problem understanding what I mean, therefore the point of language, namely communication, is accomplished just as well. Viruses looks and sounds fucking stupid. You retard.
Yes, but you also look like a fucking fool when you do because you decided to use a word made up by so-called 1337 h4x0rs instead of the proper, plural form that has existed for hundreds of years.
Socially inept nerds making up (what they think to be) cool-sounding plural forms does not count as a valid step in the evolution of the English language. The plural for "virus" existed long before computers did, and there is absolutely no reason to change it when it refers to a computer virus. You can use the word "virii" if you want, but don't be surprised when people think that you're a fucking retard for doing so.
Plants aren't going to be the same after 20 or 30 years. They'll receive upgrades, and those upgrades will prompt new safety standards and inspections to keep inspectors on their toes. Your same argument could be applied to just about any kind of construction. Just because fire inspectors might get complacent and miss some faulty wiring in a building which could be fatal doesn't mean that we shouldn't use electricity.
Yes, but the problem is that the average bitrates for the Ogg files were almost always higher than iTunes AAC, for example. iTunes AAC was always at 128 kbps average. One of the Ogg files was at 148 kbps average, meaning that it had a higher average bitrate and thus a larger file size. All we can tell is that Ogg sounds better than AAC when Ogg has a higher average datarate. That's not very useful. And considering how close Ogg and AAC were throughout the comparison, I'd be willing to bet that, bitrates being equal, AAC would be just as good as. if not better than, Ogg.
Slashdot Mirror
I like watching Tough Crowd. I just hate Colin Quinn. Not only do I think he's an ignorant religious bigot, but he can't even present his bullshit views in a humorous fashion, making him totally worthless to the show ... which is his own show. Seriously, I can't believe the guy was successful as a stand-up comic. He can't deliver a punch-line, obviously doesn't rehearse for that travesty of speech he calls a monologue at the beginning of his show, stutters, forgets material and is often played off by the music on his own god damn show.
Fortunately for him, he has people like Jim Norton and Nick DiPaulo to keep the show interesting. Quinn is a persistent hemorrhoid on the ass of stand-up. It's the only reason he gets any attention at all.
Ah, LaTeX ... how I love the documents you produce.
That feature is exclusive to Office 2004 for Mac OS X. :)
If you can't use if, you're not expected to pay jack-shit. Now get with the times and upgrade to OS X.
The burden of proof is on the person claiming that the evidence has been tampered with. That's the way it's always been. There are certain tell-tale signs that a video or picture has been edited. But to automatically assume that all evidence is completely worthless just because of "well it could have been edited ..." is just absurd and places a ridiculously high burden of proof on the prosecution and forces them to prove a negative -- that the evidence has not been tampered with.
For example, let's say that I'm on trial, and the prosecution thinks I might have sent an incriminating message to someone over AOL IM. AOL has logged this message, so they get subpoenaed for it. Once that text file finds its way into the court's hands, are you saying that I can actually claim that the evidence is not admissible because someone who works at AOL might have had a grudge against me and falsified the server-side logs? That's ridiculous. It'd be up to me to prove that the logs had been falsified. I could do this a number of ways. I could compare the server log to my machine's logs to find that the logs disagree or check to see if I was even logged into my computer at that time. If I was, check the IM process' logs to see if it recorded sending that message out at any time.
But its censoring powers should certainly be taken away. Here we have a body of unelected officials telling the American people what they can and can't see/hear over public airwaves that their tax money supports. Run those asshole censors out on a rail, I say. This whole Janet Jackson breast clusterfuck has shown that these people are Draconian Puritans who make a living off of being fucking uptight prudes. They need to get real jobs.
Sometimes censorship is called for, but the Moral Police have abused it to further their own right-wing Christian agenda. I'm fucking sick of it.
Oh yeah, striking a deal with manufacturers to bundle your software is exactly the same as leveraging your desktop monopoly to force your other software on users and then using a license to prohibit manufacturers from putting any competing products on their machines. Tell me, what part of the article says that Apple's license prohibits the manufacturer from putting RealPlayer on there as well? Since when is it impossible to remove iTunes from either Mac OS X or Windows?
Ah, so Apple didn't just make a huge contribution to OpenAL? They never gave their changes to the KHTML engine back to the KHTML group? The entire point of open source is to have many developers collaborate on one thing, not to make every god damn piece of software out there free and open source. Where Apple has used open source, it has given back to the community. That's the philosophy of open source.
Yeah, they shrunk the motherboard, reworked the cooling system and added more space for drives inside. From an engineering standpoint, that is a big deal.
The codec is independent of the DRM, and the files generated by Apple's lossless encoder are AAC lossless files with no DRM. Thank you for demonstrating that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Please send a me $1000 dollar check.
Newsflash: The proper words made up by 1337 h4x0rs addressed a need for a word in computer jargon. There's been a plural form of the word "virus" for a very long time now. Why do we need a butchered one that just applies to computers? Because the 1337s want to sound cool?
While the evolution of a language may not be subject to any rules, the language itself is, and the word "virii" breaks those rules needlessly. It's not a valid evolution because it doesn't address any sort of need or shortcoming in the language. It's simply redundant.
I think that's only half right. The public does care about features, but there's a line in the sand where they stop caring after you hit so many of them. You could go to your average Joe and prattle on forever about how [non-iPod player] can play Ogg, FLAC, WAV, MP3, WMA, ASF, AAC and whatever other acronyms you want, but he's just going to say, "Oh, it plays MP3s. That's all I care about."
:)
After he finds out that the device will sufficiently meet his needs, he looks to functionality and ease of use. And I'll be honest with you: I want my iPod's little scrolling circle/wheel thing on all my gadgets. I'd kill for something similar on my cell phone, for example. Scrolling through large lists of music is just a breeze with that thing. That's something that's important to your average person. The touch-sensitive controls also mean that you won't get dirt or sand or grains of whatever in the controls to fuck them up. Again, this is important. And I'll reiterate: the ability to play Ogg Vorbis is not.
After he finds out that the device is easy to use, it's off to aesthetics. And I'm sorry, the iPod is just damn sexy. Bright white with a chrome finish, small and simple. The minis with the color scheme are also some very appealing little gadgets. The iPod is like that kid at school who's cool because he doesn't try to be cool.
So the iPod basically combines exquisite-yet-simple styling with excellent ease-of-use and doing everything the average Joe wants it to do. People will pay extra for that.
The word "hacker" is a simple case of redefinition. "Virii" is a case of lonely teenagers inventing an invalid plural form of a word when there was already an existing one that had been in use for centuries. "Virus" for example, can now describe malicious programs, so what's wrong with the accepted plural form of it?
Socially inept nerds making up (what they think to be) cool-sounding plural forms does not count as a valid step in the evolution of the English language. The plural for "virus" existed long before computers did, and there is absolutely no reason to change it when it refers to a computer virus. You can use the word "virii" if you want, but don't be surprised when people think that you're a fucking retard for doing so.
That's in a criminal court. The burden of proof is far, far lower in a civil court.
Plants aren't going to be the same after 20 or 30 years. They'll receive upgrades, and those upgrades will prompt new safety standards and inspections to keep inspectors on their toes. Your same argument could be applied to just about any kind of construction. Just because fire inspectors might get complacent and miss some faulty wiring in a building which could be fatal doesn't mean that we shouldn't use electricity.
Yes, but the problem is that the average bitrates for the Ogg files were almost always higher than iTunes AAC, for example. iTunes AAC was always at 128 kbps average. One of the Ogg files was at 148 kbps average, meaning that it had a higher average bitrate and thus a larger file size. All we can tell is that Ogg sounds better than AAC when Ogg has a higher average datarate. That's not very useful. And considering how close Ogg and AAC were throughout the comparison, I'd be willing to bet that, bitrates being equal, AAC would be just as good as. if not better than, Ogg.