The moderation of the parent article is as follows:
70% Insightful 30% Overrated
Then the next article is by an Apple fan stating that the price is correct because it "goes through more quality control" and the like.
Now, either of them could be right (I personally believe the parent is), but regardless of your opinion on the subject, the fact that you don't agree with a post is NOT a reason to mod it down! Mod it down for the reasons stated: That it's flamebait, that it was trolling, etc. The parent was not a post that should have been modded down because it didn't fit any of those definitions! Was it flaming anyone? I don't think so.
Even so, if you do mod it down, don't short-circuit the metamod system by using -1, Overrated. That's just cowardly.
This should apply everywhere but I see this sort of moderation abuse frequently in Apple-related articles. Now, I'm not saying that it's anywhere near exclusive to them, but I'm sure if you look through the moderation in this article's comments you'll see the same thing.
Posting as myself because I think the point needs to be made. Karma to burn.
I recently had a friend ask me for help in debugging a PHP extension for some CMS... Ah, Google to the rescue; it was SEF Advance, a Joomla extension that did... something, I never really bothered to find out. Anyway, issue was that the guy was trying to debug the script locally (maybe to add something) and it was saying that it "was only licensed to x and y domains", where x and y were the production servers. The code itself was a bunch of open source config variables, then a statement as follows:
eval(gzinflate(base64_decode('7T39Vxs5k...')));
The parameter went on for ages. When I changed the eval to echo, I got another block of the same, only the data was different. Apparently the guy had just gzipped his code over and over (five times to be exact) and used that as "encryption" so nobody would be able to modify it. I got around it in around five minutes, and sure enough, the domains were simply an array in the decrypted (inflated?) code.
The point is, according to the parent, it looks like Apple is patenting object code encryption, which has been done many, many times before in many different ways. I'm sure that the rest of the patent indicates something "unique" (and I put unique in quotes because there's no way to know it hasn't been done before somewhere) but in the end it's just diminishing possible future innovations by a little bit, like all software patents.
Even if that were true, would you want to be on the nasty (i.e. defending) side of a Microsoft lawsuit? Not that they'd have a case, but they'd drag it on for YEARS, and you'd eventually run out of money and settle. They'd come out with the name (as you would have been forced to sign it over in the settlement) and be in exactly the same position they're in now, while you would be destitute from having to pay your lawyers.
On a slightly off-topic tangent, why the hell hasn't the SCO case finished yet? It's been TWO YEARS! I wish the judge would see through SCO's attempts to keep the case going (and thus back their FUD) and end the thing.
I didn't really do the research but I did read the backs of the labels when I was searching for a DRM-free, download-allowed MP3 player, and if you're looking for a good flash player for cheap, I highly recommend the RCA Lyra. Mounts as a disk drive like the parent's and plays MP3s and WMAs (an issue if you're tied into iTMS, but in that case you're probably not looking for a DRM-free player in the first place).
Actually, I guarantee you there's no loss when recording back from the sound card if done right. There's loss in reencoding to MP3, but there's no way around that. Just use a high bitrate; I suggest 256Kbps if disk space isn't an issue for you.
Why should I have to go through the whole process of transcoding TWICE (and using an external medium, no less) in order to have to listen to songs I BOUGHT anywhere I want? iTMS (or any other product-locking music store) isn't getting my money until they offer files directly in DRM-free formats.
BTW, if anyone hasn't seen them, I suggest taking a look at Magnatune. They aren't a music store (they're a record label) but they allow you to download copies of all their songs in decent-quality MP3 format. If you like the music, you can then buy the album and name your own price between a certain reasonable range; the artist gets a full 50% of each sale (more than ten times the amount most major recording contracts allow).
I've been using my laptop without antispyware or even antivirus software for oh, about three months now (ever since I had to reformat it as I had to get it repaired, and didn't want them snooping my files). I probably should be running an antivirus, but it's completely possible to be safe without any antispyware software. You just have to be a) behind a router or software firewall (choose one, not two, because both is overkill), b) run anything but IE, c) don't download things that mysteriously require IE (huge red flag), and d) keep your apps updated. In fact, if you followed a, c, and d, I suspect you could even run IE as long as it had decent security settings. I just wouldn't advise it because you'd be missing out on so much.
It doesn't say what software it tries to exploit but it does say which scripts. I'd post them here but it would be a waste of space; they're about halfway down on the McAfee page.
I'd say if your website has one of those scripts I'd look into updating or removing whatever software it is that has the vulnerability.
I pity you for having to work for AOL tech support. I worked for Stream on an HP desktop contract and I always avoided referring people to AOL as much as possible because I knew that they would be punted as quickly as possible to someone else (not your fault I realize, you probably had some insanely low AHT to hold).
Just curious, what was the average handle time you had to keep up at AOL?
My bet is on The Environment and The Machines, respectively. Of course, then they'll have to team up into some sort of lava-powered super-robots, which would proceed to conquer the galaxy and have their own series and several spinoffs.
*And* it gets around any sort of foreign employment restrictions! All they need to do is modify it to give tasks based on your skillset and they'd have a global, cheap, semi-anonymous group of programmers working for them 24/7.
Ah, but if the speakers were (forcibly placed) in your ears and received data wirelessly and encrypted, they could make it so that if you tried to remove the speakers or open them, they would explode and give you an lobotomy.
RMS: If patent law had been applied to novels in the 1880s, great books would not have been written.
USPTO: Ooh, good idea!
Seriously, the US patent system is very broken, and it appears they are moving in a direction to expand, rather than contract, the amount of things that are patentable. They clearly have no care for whether the patents they grant are stifling innovation. Action is needed to reverse this, but I doubt we'll see it while Bush is still in power.
How do you figure that their dollar would be worth less? The idea is that their dollar would be worth exactly the same; they would simply be spending their dollars at the till rather than through an income tax return. It's not inflation because they end up spending exactly the same, if not less due to no preparation.
As for your aside, take a look at the Fairtax FAQ, specifically question 9, which asks if spending is a reliable source of taxation. It turns out it's probably more reliable than income, which varies more based on the economy.
1. I realize this and stated that it was improbable in my post. It was just something I thought when I GPL'd a bunch of my programs a while ago and saw the "any future version at your option" clause.
2. Read my post again; I'm not saying that they could add additional restrictions to the GPL, I'm stating that they could remove the requirement that source code needs to be provided with distribution in V3, which would allow commercial companies to link against GPL code without having to provide the source or any of their derivatives.
Slashdot Mirror
I swear I would help you if I could >_
Only on Slashdot can I be virtually guaranteed at least one comment that will make me laugh out loud every two weeks or so.
+1, Awesome
Don't worry, we think of you as the 14th province we wish we didn't have. ;^)
Yeah, for PHP, there's Zend Encoder. Does a much better job than GZip :^P
Rant time.
The moderation of the parent article is as follows:
70% Insightful
30% Overrated
Then the next article is by an Apple fan stating that the price is correct because it "goes through more quality control" and the like.
Now, either of them could be right (I personally believe the parent is), but regardless of your opinion on the subject, the fact that you don't agree with a post is NOT a reason to mod it down! Mod it down for the reasons stated: That it's flamebait, that it was trolling, etc. The parent was not a post that should have been modded down because it didn't fit any of those definitions! Was it flaming anyone? I don't think so.
Even so, if you do mod it down, don't short-circuit the metamod system by using -1, Overrated. That's just cowardly.
This should apply everywhere but I see this sort of moderation abuse frequently in Apple-related articles. Now, I'm not saying that it's anywhere near exclusive to them, but I'm sure if you look through the moderation in this article's comments you'll see the same thing.
Posting as myself because I think the point needs to be made. Karma to burn.
I recently had a friend ask me for help in debugging a PHP extension for some CMS... Ah, Google to the rescue; it was SEF Advance, a Joomla extension that did... something, I never really bothered to find out. Anyway, issue was that the guy was trying to debug the script locally (maybe to add something) and it was saying that it "was only licensed to x and y domains", where x and y were the production servers. The code itself was a bunch of open source config variables, then a statement as follows:
:^D)
eval(gzinflate(base64_decode('7T39Vxs5k...')));
The parameter went on for ages. When I changed the eval to echo, I got another block of the same, only the data was different. Apparently the guy had just gzipped his code over and over (five times to be exact) and used that as "encryption" so nobody would be able to modify it. I got around it in around five minutes, and sure enough, the domains were simply an array in the decrypted (inflated?) code.
The point is, according to the parent, it looks like Apple is patenting object code encryption, which has been done many, many times before in many different ways. I'm sure that the rest of the patent indicates something "unique" (and I put unique in quotes because there's no way to know it hasn't been done before somewhere) but in the end it's just diminishing possible future innovations by a little bit, like all software patents.
(Does this mean I'm liable under the DMCA?
Even if that were true, would you want to be on the nasty (i.e. defending) side of a Microsoft lawsuit? Not that they'd have a case, but they'd drag it on for YEARS, and you'd eventually run out of money and settle. They'd come out with the name (as you would have been forced to sign it over in the settlement) and be in exactly the same position they're in now, while you would be destitute from having to pay your lawyers.
On a slightly off-topic tangent, why the hell hasn't the SCO case finished yet? It's been TWO YEARS! I wish the judge would see through SCO's attempts to keep the case going (and thus back their FUD) and end the thing.
I didn't really do the research but I did read the backs of the labels when I was searching for a DRM-free, download-allowed MP3 player, and if you're looking for a good flash player for cheap, I highly recommend the RCA Lyra. Mounts as a disk drive like the parent's and plays MP3s and WMAs (an issue if you're tied into iTMS, but in that case you're probably not looking for a DRM-free player in the first place).
Actually, I guarantee you there's no loss when recording back from the sound card if done right. There's loss in reencoding to MP3, but there's no way around that. Just use a high bitrate; I suggest 256Kbps if disk space isn't an issue for you.
Why should I have to go through the whole process of transcoding TWICE (and using an external medium, no less) in order to have to listen to songs I BOUGHT anywhere I want? iTMS (or any other product-locking music store) isn't getting my money until they offer files directly in DRM-free formats.
BTW, if anyone hasn't seen them, I suggest taking a look at Magnatune. They aren't a music store (they're a record label) but they allow you to download copies of all their songs in decent-quality MP3 format. If you like the music, you can then buy the album and name your own price between a certain reasonable range; the artist gets a full 50% of each sale (more than ten times the amount most major recording contracts allow).
He signed away his rights to the name. What did he expect?
I've been using my laptop without antispyware or even antivirus software for oh, about three months now (ever since I had to reformat it as I had to get it repaired, and didn't want them snooping my files). I probably should be running an antivirus, but it's completely possible to be safe without any antispyware software. You just have to be a) behind a router or software firewall (choose one, not two, because both is overkill), b) run anything but IE, c) don't download things that mysteriously require IE (huge red flag), and d) keep your apps updated. In fact, if you followed a, c, and d, I suspect you could even run IE as long as it had decent security settings. I just wouldn't advise it because you'd be missing out on so much.
It doesn't say what software it tries to exploit but it does say which scripts. I'd post them here but it would be a waste of space; they're about halfway down on the McAfee page.
I'd say if your website has one of those scripts I'd look into updating or removing whatever software it is that has the vulnerability.
You also elected your judges ;^)
They have succeeded again
I pity you for having to work for AOL tech support. I worked for Stream on an HP desktop contract and I always avoided referring people to AOL as much as possible because I knew that they would be punted as quickly as possible to someone else (not your fault I realize, you probably had some insanely low AHT to hold).
Just curious, what was the average handle time you had to keep up at AOL?
If you complain about anything, your boss can just say you've broken your contract by not being cheerful and fire you.
Man, I want THAT job.
Person: Are you the ombudsman for National Security Letters?
Me: Yes.
Person: I'd like to complain about the FBI's issuance of one against me. I was cleared and they're now storing all my personal information forever.
Me: Sir, you're not supposed to know about that.
Person: But I...
Me: I'm afraid you're now a threat to National Security.
Person: Wait, what the... No, I'm an innocent man! I'M INNOCENT DAMN-*gunshots* *silence*
Me: I love my job.
My bet is on The Environment and The Machines, respectively. Of course, then they'll have to team up into some sort of lava-powered super-robots, which would proceed to conquer the galaxy and have their own series and several spinoffs.
Kodos.
(I'm such a Simpsons nerd >_)
*And* it gets around any sort of foreign employment restrictions! All they need to do is modify it to give tasks based on your skillset and they'd have a global, cheap, semi-anonymous group of programmers working for them 24/7.
Ah, but if the speakers were (forcibly placed) in your ears and received data wirelessly and encrypted, they could make it so that if you tried to remove the speakers or open them, they would explode and give you an lobotomy.
RMS: If patent law had been applied to novels in the 1880s, great books would not have been written.
USPTO: Ooh, good idea!
Seriously, the US patent system is very broken, and it appears they are moving in a direction to expand, rather than contract, the amount of things that are patentable. They clearly have no care for whether the patents they grant are stifling innovation. Action is needed to reverse this, but I doubt we'll see it while Bush is still in power.
*sigh*
How do you figure that their dollar would be worth less? The idea is that their dollar would be worth exactly the same; they would simply be spending their dollars at the till rather than through an income tax return. It's not inflation because they end up spending exactly the same, if not less due to no preparation.
As for your aside, take a look at the Fairtax FAQ, specifically question 9, which asks if spending is a reliable source of taxation. It turns out it's probably more reliable than income, which varies more based on the economy.
1. I realize this and stated that it was improbable in my post. It was just something I thought when I GPL'd a bunch of my programs a while ago and saw the "any future version at your option" clause.
2. Read my post again; I'm not saying that they could add additional restrictions to the GPL, I'm stating that they could remove the requirement that source code needs to be provided with distribution in V3, which would allow commercial companies to link against GPL code without having to provide the source or any of their derivatives.