It's good that you have your own preference, but I just thought I'd point out that iTunes has all the features you listed, except perhaps bookmarks.
Plus considering that iTunes can encode several formats, burn CDs without a speed cap, and considering that it costs nothing, I wouldn't say it is "slowly catching up." It looks like it's at least equivalent if not better.
As far as Winamp having a better interface, well, that's obviously subject to differing opinions.
Because it is the subdomain which determines the theme. There is no 'shit' section, so it reverts to the default theme. Try it with a real section: replace the 'it' subdomain with 'apple' and you'll see the Apple section theme.
This also adds doubt to the claim that open source is more secure because people can look at the code. It appears that this issue has existed for five years yet we're only hearing about it now.
This point is moot simply because this problem is not a problem with the code. It's a design problem. Therefore, even if you read every line of the code it's not something that you're going to see and say 'yep, there's a security bug.'
But I agree with your other points. Basically, they screwed up big-time to keep this issue under the table. It's a ding to their name IMO.
atleast their source isn't available for everyone to go in and find problems to exploit.
This problem wasn't discovered by finding a security hole in the source. In fact, it isn't even a security hole in the code. It's a security problem by design.
Nice theory, though. Have you ever even heard of any holes being exploited because the source was available anyway?
*yawn* Such is business. You make choices and some choices will piss people off. What a shame. You can't make everybody happy, but you can at least make most people happy. You unhappy people are a minority and you're not going to get anywhere else by moping on slashdot. Go play with your iRiver. Not that there's anything wrong with an iRiver or anything else. Get whatever you want. In the end, nobody cares what you chose. *yawn* Some people buy apples and some people buy oranges. But in the end they're both fruit. Or something.
Notice I didn't say anything that was done was "novel" or particularly impressive. You've totally missed the point like I would expect any average slashdotter to.
Should Sears be surprised at what people are using their tools for?
That's not the issue. Your statement would apply if Apple was suing a customer of their product over what they're using their products for. Apple doesn't care what consumers do with their bought iPods!
The issue is that a competing company reverse engineered their technology in order to bring in more money for themselves.
If I own a device, I can do whatever the fuck I want with it. So can Real.
Yeah... so how does that relate? Real doesn't own the iPod.
If you, the consumer, hack your iPod to play Real files, that's just great for you--nobody is disputing the fact that you have the right to do whatever you want with what YOU buy. But it isn't the same thing as Real reverse engineering another company's technology in order to bring in more money for themselves.
Actually, they don't talk about choice. You're puting words in their mouth. Perhaps the iPod isn't what you think it is. It's a device sold by a company to make a profit. Like any other consumer device put out by a company looking to make money, it doesn't say 'choices' it says 'buy me.'
If you're going to ignore it because it doesn't say 'choices,' you'll probably be ignoring a whole lot of products, but that's your choice.
have companies behind them which actually listen to us when we have complaints.
Funny thing is, Apple has listened to our complaints. It just so happens that we don't have very many. And in case you were curious, I doubt the lack of compatibility with Real's files was a complaint Apple heard very often.
But we sure complained about battery life, didn't we? Lo and behold they fixed it.. along with dropping the price and throwing it various other features that may or may not have been asked for.
it looks fake to me. On the video with the skeleton, the skeleton is way too still. Also, the invisibility material sometimes lets you see through a human body and sometimes not?
It's just a nifty effect (although the harry potter CG people did a better job).
You have so proven my point. Why would you say DRM music is crippled? What DRM does is prevents you from passing around media files, but YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO THAT ANYWAY! In other words, if you DO do that you are breaking the law and are just a dishonest person. DRM keeps honest people honest, and for the rest of you dishonest people you will undoubtedly find a way to get around the DRM and everyone gets what they want in the end.
And by the way, your view of shareware is not correct. True shareware isn't based on donations. True shareware actually costs money IF you decide to keep using the software. It isn't supposed to be optional. If true shareware worked, there would be no serial schemes or copy protection on software, everyone would just honestly pay for what they use. But it doesn't work and neither does un-copy protected media files.
Don't get me wrong. I would love to have artists and software developers just trust me to not steal their software! But that's an ideal, not the reality. People (even people who would never even think to take anything from a physical store) wouldn't think twice about swapping files on a computer, and that's wrong. I don't know where this idea came from, but it's got to be approached from a realistic perspective.
They aren't going to make a make money without DRM for the same reason true shareware doesn't work. For some reason people have got it into their heads that files on a computer don't need to be paid for. After all, it's all just electricity running through my computer. Shareware is supposed to work by having people try software and then pay for it if they want to keep using it. Shareware isn't supposed to include applications which incorporate these complicated serial schemes and anti-crack methods, yet that's what we've had to do because everyone thinks it's OK to just take all that hard work for nothing! The same applies to music files except that it's even more-so because it's become popular among the kids and even habitual. Why pay for it? I'll just get on kazaa and get it. What do they care about how much work it took to produce it?
So the point is, shareware would absolutely fail without copy protection. I know of one company that discovered that over 65% of people using their software use an illegal copy, and I'm sure that's typical. That's a lot of money not going to hard-working people who (usually) deserve it. Just as shareware needs copy protection, media files need it even more-so. Honestly.
Well, I just stood up for DRM on slashdot. Goodbye karma!
No, howl is just a separate implementation of the same thing. The significance of Rendezvous itself being released is that Apple made zeroconf (It was Stuart Cheshire who works [or worked, I don't know] at Apple). So basically, this is straight out of the horse's mouth. As far is which is better, they're both good. And it's not like you have to choose (unless you're a developer) because they do the same thing.
I've never seen anyone tout that Apple's design was supposed to be innovative or original. However, you can have whatever opinion you like about the design itself.
As for me, I like it not because I consider it original, and nor do I care how stylish it is. I like it just because it's a clean and uncluttered look.
It was kind of an ugly story. Apple released a patch for that hole, but then it was discovered that the entire concept of their registering URL system could allow pretty much any URL to launch arbitrary code.. Or something like that. I didn't follow it too closely myself. Apple just barely released a master fix just two days ago.
It's good for you, assuming that you really do send artists money, because it probably makes up for any twang of guilt you may feel stealing the music. But it does little for the cause of getting artists what they deserve on a large scale. Not that you said that was your goal in the first place; just pointing that out...
It's just like Super Metroid, with an incredible soundtrack thrown in.
I for one really like the Metroid soundtracks. They are very different from other games, but I think they match the game perfectly. But from what I've read, quite a few people apparently really don't like them.
Boston? BYU is Brigham Young University, a private school located in Provo, Utah. It is a somewhat prestigious university in its own right, but it certainly isn't any school in Boston.
Slashdot Mirror
It's good that you have your own preference, but I just thought I'd point out that iTunes has all the features you listed, except perhaps bookmarks.
Plus considering that iTunes can encode several formats, burn CDs without a speed cap, and considering that it costs nothing, I wouldn't say it is "slowly catching up." It looks like it's at least equivalent if not better.
As far as Winamp having a better interface, well, that's obviously subject to differing opinions.
Because it is the subdomain which determines the theme. There is no 'shit' section, so it reverts to the default theme. Try it with a real section: replace the 'it' subdomain with 'apple' and you'll see the Apple section theme.
This also adds doubt to the claim that open source is more secure because people can look at the code. It appears that this issue has existed for five years yet we're only hearing about it now.
This point is moot simply because this problem is not a problem with the code. It's a design problem. Therefore, even if you read every line of the code it's not something that you're going to see and say 'yep, there's a security bug.'
But I agree with your other points. Basically, they screwed up big-time to keep this issue under the table. It's a ding to their name IMO.
atleast their source isn't available for everyone to go in and find problems to exploit.
This problem wasn't discovered by finding a security hole in the source. In fact, it isn't even a security hole in the code. It's a security problem by design.
Nice theory, though. Have you ever even heard of any holes being exploited because the source was available anyway?
that idea is funny to me
*yawn* Such is business. You make choices and some choices will piss people off. What a shame. You can't make everybody happy, but you can at least make most people happy. You unhappy people are a minority and you're not going to get anywhere else by moping on slashdot. Go play with your iRiver. Not that there's anything wrong with an iRiver or anything else. Get whatever you want. In the end, nobody cares what you chose. *yawn* Some people buy apples and some people buy oranges. But in the end they're both fruit. Or something.
If they *buy* an iPod, they *own* an iPod, and hence they can hack on it in any way they like.
Isn't that exactly what I said? Oh it is? Ok, just checking. Nice reenforcer, though.
Notice I didn't say anything that was done was "novel" or particularly impressive. You've totally missed the point like I would expect any average slashdotter to.
Should Sears be surprised at what people are using their tools for?
That's not the issue. Your statement would apply if Apple was suing a customer of their product over what they're using their products for. Apple doesn't care what consumers do with their bought iPods!
The issue is that a competing company reverse engineered their technology in order to bring in more money for themselves.
If I own a device, I can do whatever the fuck I want with it. So can Real.
Yeah... so how does that relate? Real doesn't own the iPod. If you, the consumer, hack your iPod to play Real files, that's just great for you--nobody is disputing the fact that you have the right to do whatever you want with what YOU buy. But it isn't the same thing as Real reverse engineering another company's technology in order to bring in more money for themselves.
Actually, they don't talk about choice. You're puting words in their mouth. Perhaps the iPod isn't what you think it is. It's a device sold by a company to make a profit. Like any other consumer device put out by a company looking to make money, it doesn't say 'choices' it says 'buy me.'
If you're going to ignore it because it doesn't say 'choices,' you'll probably be ignoring a whole lot of products, but that's your choice.
have companies behind them which actually listen to us when we have complaints.
Funny thing is, Apple has listened to our complaints. It just so happens that we don't have very many. And in case you were curious, I doubt the lack of compatibility with Real's files was a complaint Apple heard very often.
But we sure complained about battery life, didn't we? Lo and behold they fixed it.. along with dropping the price and throwing it various other features that may or may not have been asked for.
Why you think Apple isn't listening is beyond me.
That's his point, that you can open "Windows" files on a Mac OS machine.
it looks fake to me. On the video with the skeleton, the skeleton is way too still. Also, the invisibility material sometimes lets you see through a human body and sometimes not?
It's just a nifty effect (although the harry potter CG people did a better job).
You have so proven my point. Why would you say DRM music is crippled? What DRM does is prevents you from passing around media files, but YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO THAT ANYWAY! In other words, if you DO do that you are breaking the law and are just a dishonest person. DRM keeps honest people honest, and for the rest of you dishonest people you will undoubtedly find a way to get around the DRM and everyone gets what they want in the end.
And by the way, your view of shareware is not correct. True shareware isn't based on donations. True shareware actually costs money IF you decide to keep using the software. It isn't supposed to be optional. If true shareware worked, there would be no serial schemes or copy protection on software, everyone would just honestly pay for what they use. But it doesn't work and neither does un-copy protected media files.
Don't get me wrong. I would love to have artists and software developers just trust me to not steal their software! But that's an ideal, not the reality. People (even people who would never even think to take anything from a physical store) wouldn't think twice about swapping files on a computer, and that's wrong. I don't know where this idea came from, but it's got to be approached from a realistic perspective.
and show that you can make money without DRM.
They aren't going to make a make money without DRM for the same reason true shareware doesn't work. For some reason people have got it into their heads that files on a computer don't need to be paid for. After all, it's all just electricity running through my computer. Shareware is supposed to work by having people try software and then pay for it if they want to keep using it. Shareware isn't supposed to include applications which incorporate these complicated serial schemes and anti-crack methods, yet that's what we've had to do because everyone thinks it's OK to just take all that hard work for nothing! The same applies to music files except that it's even more-so because it's become popular among the kids and even habitual. Why pay for it? I'll just get on kazaa and get it. What do they care about how much work it took to produce it?
So the point is, shareware would absolutely fail without copy protection. I know of one company that discovered that over 65% of people using their software use an illegal copy, and I'm sure that's typical. That's a lot of money not going to hard-working people who (usually) deserve it. Just as shareware needs copy protection, media files need it even more-so. Honestly.
Well, I just stood up for DRM on slashdot. Goodbye karma!
so does HOWL pull src from Rendezvous?
No, howl is just a separate implementation of the same thing. The significance of Rendezvous itself being released is that Apple made zeroconf (It was Stuart Cheshire who works [or worked, I don't know] at Apple). So basically, this is straight out of the horse's mouth. As far is which is better, they're both good. And it's not like you have to choose (unless you're a developer) because they do the same thing.
I've never seen anyone tout that Apple's design was supposed to be innovative or original. However, you can have whatever opinion you like about the design itself.
As for me, I like it not because I consider it original, and nor do I care how stylish it is. I like it just because it's a clean and uncluttered look.
It was kind of an ugly story. Apple released a patch for that hole, but then it was discovered that the entire concept of their registering URL system could allow pretty much any URL to launch arbitrary code.. Or something like that. I didn't follow it too closely myself. Apple just barely released a master fix just two days ago.
How is this not doing any good?
It's good for you, assuming that you really do send artists money, because it probably makes up for any twang of guilt you may feel stealing the music. But it does little for the cause of getting artists what they deserve on a large scale. Not that you said that was your goal in the first place; just pointing that out...
[not sarcasm]Good question.[/not sarcasm]
Well, Apple has been dying for almost 30 years now, right? I don't think now is the time to get all paranoid about seeing them disappear.
It's just like Super Metroid, with an incredible soundtrack thrown in.
I for one really like the Metroid soundtracks. They are very different from other games, but I think they match the game perfectly. But from what I've read, quite a few people apparently really don't like them.
In fact, Metroid Prime wasn't even made by Nintendo - it was made by Retro Studios, and published by Nintendo.
Nintendo created Retro Studios in 1998 and it is still a wholly owned subsidiary of Nintendo.
You're sooo going to get modded down.
So much for that theory.
he's a professor at Boston...
Boston? BYU is Brigham Young University, a private school located in Provo, Utah. It is a somewhat prestigious university in its own right, but it certainly isn't any school in Boston.