Huh. I honestly can't think of that being the result of anything other than bad or unoptimized programming. Unless the CPU involved was really, really slow... slower than I'm thinking the one in most MP3s players actually is. Couldn't you just implement this in an SQLite DB?
That said, I'm not an embedded systems programmer, so what do I know?
Fair enough. So why isn't the indexing done for all new or changed files on startup by the player itself? That wouldn't take nearly as much time (reading and parsing ID3 tags isn't difficult AFAIK) and would allow such changeability without additional software interaction.
PS, I was mentioning my Lyra flash-based player. I don't really know what their HDD models are like, but mine starts in about three seconds.
My MP3 player is a simple storage device. This is because I can just drop MP3s into it without any user or software intervention, and it plays them without complaint. (It's an old RCA Lyra, BTW; it's gone through the washing machine by accident twice and keeps on ticking.)
Try doing that on an iPod. Go on, try it. No, without iTunes, and without any additional drivers. What was that? It doesn't work? Yeah, that's because Apple uses a crazy scheme whereby they update an index file every time you change something on the iPod hard drive. Don't update that file and you can't see it inside the iPod's UI.
That's why there are a bunch of third party programs so you can treat it as a hard drive, but they are always updating that file in the background.
This is pretty much what I said above in another comment, but I'd argue that the blame falls more on the Apple side of the equation; WHQL isn't supposed to do all of your testing for you.
Eh. Kinda. Ultimately I think this is a lack of testing on Apple's part though. I don't think you should be able to code together some drivers and then pass off any and all testing to Microsoft.
"Please, Ms. Rowling, I'm so tired and bleeding from both ends..."
"Is J.K. gonna have to choke a bitch? Get me my money!"
Whoosh! That went over my head.
This is a reference to a Chappelle Show skit with Wayne Brady in response to people thinking that Wayne Brady was "the whitest black person" ever (he's talking to one of his prostitutes in the line above). Funny stuff; I can't verify this link due to being in class at the moment but Google says it's what I'm looking for.
As I understand it, it's completely permissible to have a monopoly on one or more industries. It's not permissible to use that monopoly to obtain a monopoly in *another* market.
Antitrust laws are all about preventing, say, the encroachment of Microsoft from a monopoly on operating systems into a monopoly on Internet browsers.
Any company that would have the ability to do this would be losing an astronomical amount in terms of labour and profit by taking the challenge (which would usually cost in at least the four or five digits).
And any "government agency" such as the NSA wouldn't want to reveal any such advanced recovery technology, especially since the challenge says you have to make your methods public.
Well, it would have taken me an additional couple of seconds to go back and see how much time it had actually wasted, and by that point, I already wanted to shoot the screen of my laptop and throw it into the Grand Canyon.
This is only if you accept the idea that all publicity is good publicity, which seems to be a popular idea these days, but always seemed kinda dubious to me.
I saw the ad, and I'm not going to buy Windows. Anyone to whom I link to the ad, I will enclose said link in language making fun of Microsoft, so likely they will also not buy Windows. In fact, this ad is so bad that most who see it will actually want to buy something else, which in this case would be a Mac, or at least anything but the product which it purports to advertise.
Score one for Microsoft in making it easier for those who already don't like them to make fun of them, and for those who weren't sure to take a step back and think, "Wow, these guys are out of touch."
Slashdot Mirror
I think Hardy Heron might be a badly chosen name.
Huh. I honestly can't think of that being the result of anything other than bad or unoptimized programming. Unless the CPU involved was really, really slow... slower than I'm thinking the one in most MP3s players actually is. Couldn't you just implement this in an SQLite DB?
That said, I'm not an embedded systems programmer, so what do I know?
Vista is not a big truck, it's, it's a series of tubes!
Fair enough. So why isn't the indexing done for all new or changed files on startup by the player itself? That wouldn't take nearly as much time (reading and parsing ID3 tags isn't difficult AFAIK) and would allow such changeability without additional software interaction.
PS, I was mentioning my Lyra flash-based player. I don't really know what their HDD models are like, but mine starts in about three seconds.
Hahaha, awesome, actually made me laugh out loud.
And I thank them for getting me to move from Vista to Linux. :^P
If I had points (and hadn't commented already like crazy) I'd mod you up here.
DRM almost always doesn't need to (and does not) run in kernelspace. It's userland encryption.
They do, however, have a specialized USB driver for iPods below that level.
When was I laughing?
Are you crazy?
My MP3 player is a simple storage device. This is because I can just drop MP3s into it without any user or software intervention, and it plays them without complaint. (It's an old RCA Lyra, BTW; it's gone through the washing machine by accident twice and keeps on ticking.)
Try doing that on an iPod. Go on, try it. No, without iTunes, and without any additional drivers. What was that? It doesn't work? Yeah, that's because Apple uses a crazy scheme whereby they update an index file every time you change something on the iPod hard drive. Don't update that file and you can't see it inside the iPod's UI.
That's why there are a bunch of third party programs so you can treat it as a hard drive, but they are always updating that file in the background.
This is pretty much what I said above in another comment, but I'd argue that the blame falls more on the Apple side of the equation; WHQL isn't supposed to do all of your testing for you.
Eh. Kinda. Ultimately I think this is a lack of testing on Apple's part though. I don't think you should be able to code together some drivers and then pass off any and all testing to Microsoft.
The iPod drivers that interact with the kernel are probably different (and I assume there are some since there is hardware involved here).
Drivers like the one for the iPod?
Expect Apple to blame Vista.
4. Thank you for allowing us to buy up all our competition! You've made everything so much easier.
Yours,
AT&T
This is a reference to a Chappelle Show skit with Wayne Brady in response to people thinking that Wayne Brady was "the whitest black person" ever (he's talking to one of his prostitutes in the line above). Funny stuff; I can't verify this link due to being in class at the moment but Google says it's what I'm looking for.
IANAL.
As I understand it, it's completely permissible to have a monopoly on one or more industries. It's not permissible to use that monopoly to obtain a monopoly in *another* market.
Antitrust laws are all about preventing, say, the encroachment of Microsoft from a monopoly on operating systems into a monopoly on Internet browsers.
I would argue in CPU time, they're all fairly similar; the main difference comes in RAM usage.
No. I like my free speech, thanks.
This is exactly what I was thinking.
Any company that would have the ability to do this would be losing an astronomical amount in terms of labour and profit by taking the challenge (which would usually cost in at least the four or five digits).
And any "government agency" such as the NSA wouldn't want to reveal any such advanced recovery technology, especially since the challenge says you have to make your methods public.
Epic fail.
Well, it would have taken me an additional couple of seconds to go back and see how much time it had actually wasted, and by that point, I already wanted to shoot the screen of my laptop and throw it into the Grand Canyon.
Which pisses me off, because I like my laptop!
This is only if you accept the idea that all publicity is good publicity, which seems to be a popular idea these days, but always seemed kinda dubious to me.
I saw the ad, and I'm not going to buy Windows. Anyone to whom I link to the ad, I will enclose said link in language making fun of Microsoft, so likely they will also not buy Windows. In fact, this ad is so bad that most who see it will actually want to buy something else, which in this case would be a Mac, or at least anything but the product which it purports to advertise.
Score one for Microsoft in making it easier for those who already don't like them to make fun of them, and for those who weren't sure to take a step back and think, "Wow, these guys are out of touch."
I want my damn minute back!
Usually there's at least a choice between DSL and cable internet, and even then, there's usually a choice of DSL providers.
Apologies if this is not the case, in which case you should contact your representative.