I'm not making a hyperlink out of that because it doesn't point to a Web page. It points to an RSS feed. You copy and paste that URL into your podcast client. Once subscribed, your client downloads each new audio file as it's available (in this case, each Friday) and sticks it straight into iTunes, where it automatically syncs to your iPod. Hence the name, see?
If you don't have an iPod... well, join us in the 21st century. But until you do, I'm sure there are podcast clients out there that will do other things with the audio file. Though I'm not quite sure what good they'll do you in this particular case. The commentary track is scene-specific, meaning it's meant to be listened to while you sit on your couch with the TV show on. I guess you could do it with a laptop, but it would be annoyingly cumbersome. Using an iPod works better.
Um, no. That's not what this is. A podcast is an encoded audio file, MP3 or similar, that's delivered via an Atom feed as an enclosure. Your client program, if you choose to use one, downloads it straight into iTunes for syncing to your iPod. Hence "podcast." It's a very specific thing.
Are you trying to be funny, or are you just not getting it?
I make a thing. This thing serves no useful purpose, but criminals can use it to kill a lot of people. I knew that going it, but I do it anyway. Is it ethical for me to make this thing? No.
I make a thing. This thing serves no useful purpose, but criminals can use it to destroy a lot of property. I knew that going it, but I do it anyway. Is it ethical for me to make this thing? No.
I make a thing. This thing serves no useful purpose, but criminals can use it to rob banks. I knew that going it, but I do it anyway. Is it ethical for me to make this thing? No.
I make a thing. This thing serves no useful purpose, but criminals can use it to steal music. I knew that going it, but I do it anyway. Is it ethical for me to make this thing? No.
I think you meant "apt," not "adept." To be adept means to be proficient at something.
And you were wrong anyway. No, the analogy is not apt, because a knife has many non-trivial uses. Breaking the encryption that makes AirPort Express work would have no non-trivial uses that didn't relate directly to stealing music.
We have to weigh. We have to weigh the potential good that can come of breaking the encryption against the potential ill. What good can come of it? Um...none. It's possible that some people might be able to use iTunes in a way that it's not designed to be used and that Apple prohibits through its license, but they shouldn't be doing those things anyway, so that doesn't count. What else is there? Just for the hell of it, as another commenter suggested? No, clearly that's not a reason either.
On the flip side, we have the obvious and vast harm that will come from the theft of music. Apple, being dedicated to keeping its customers honest, will have no choice but to dedicate resources to changing the encryption scheme to prevent further abuses, which will cost them money. What's more, it may end up doing them significant harm in their negotiations with record labels, movie studios and TV production companies for the licensing of digital content. Net result? Apple's success as a company is hindered, which is bad because Apple gives us wonderful things. But even more than that, the trouble for the company will be reflected in the company's earnings, which will negatively impact the stock price, which will literally take money out of the pocket of every Apple shareholder. Think you're not an Apple shareholder? Better guess again. If you have a 401K or a money-market account or an IRA, you're indirectly an Apple shareholder. So the money comes out of your own pocket.
Now, finally, do you understand why your knife analogy is the acme of stupidity? It's recklessly inapt. I hope to God that you understand this.
No, curiosity is not a legitimate reason to break a licensing agreement, reverse-engineer an encryption key and put a new tool into the hands of people who just want to steal stuff.
I don't get the non sequitur, but I can tell you that the knife analogy is massively, massively stupid. You do see why, don't you? For Christ's sake, tell me that you see why.
No, that's not a legitimate reason to want to break the encryption. What you want to do is expressly prohibited by Apple's iTunes license. Besides, there are already other good solutions to your problem, like simply putting the music files you want to listen to on your "media server."
"Because I feel like it" is not a sufficient reason to give pirates a tool for stealing music.
That's not supported, and it's not something that can't already be done better using other solutions.
No, I stand by my remark: there is zero legitimate reason to try to break the AirPort Express encryption scheme. It will only help the pirates, and deter companies like Apple from innovating in the future.
I'm wondering how long it will be before this project gets lawyered on.
Well, given that you just posted a big thing about how excited you are that this new development is going to make music piracy more convenient for you, I'd say not too damn long.
The bad news is that the world is full of people who don't give a shit about moral rights and who just want to take stuff. The good news is that these people are idiots.
"One of their own?" Nick Ciarelli is a 19-year-old college kid. He's so completely not "one of their own." Though his lawyer, and a few well-meaning but misguided souls, are trying to make the argument that he is, asserting that just because he has a Web site, it's suddenly a big-J Journalist. Fortunately nobody's buying.
It's funny to watch you flail around aimlessly looking for ways to describe Windows as superior to the Mac. The "Start" menu is too complicated, so Microsoft gave us the "quick launch" feature. Oh, but the dock, which is identical in every way to the "quick launch" feature, is bad. Did I say too complicated? I meant slower. Yeah, that's it. It's because the "Start" menu is too slow. (Ignore with all your might the fact that the dock is "faster" than the "Start" menu.) Then it's about "screen real estate" -- brag about your "flatpanel!" -- only it's not really, it's about "clutter," and icons add to clutter... but the demonstrably superior "quick launch" feature which kicks the dock's ass is nothing but a dock made up of icons, so it's not really about icons either, is it?
But what's most amusing of all is the way you responded to being told that your approach to dividing applications up into running and non-running is just objectively wrong was to haul out the childish name-calling.
Very funny all around... but the charm has faded now. If you want the opportunity to take the last word to somehow try to back away from being an obvious and incompetent anti-Mac troll, go right ahead. It's all yours.
So now we have the courts deciding who is and who is not a journalist? We have them deciding what is legitimate journalism and what is not?
Why not? We had a ton of people arguing that Jeff Gannon didn't belong in the White House briefing room based on their assertion that he wasn't a "legitimate journalist." This is no different.
Conceptually the two things are very different to me.
Okay, well the best thing I can say at this point is that you're looking at it wrong. You might as well be trying to distinguish between programs based on the number of corners their icons have. It's not a useful distinction.
"Quick Launch" isn't because it's too complicated, it's because it's two clicks when some people just want one.
That went by so fast, my head is spinning. So what you're saying here is that Microsoft added this "quick launch" feature because two clicks is too many... but it's not because the "Start" menu is too complicated? This makes sense... how?
Win95 leapfrogged ahead of Mac at that time, IMO, by making all running programs more visible
Again, my head spins. You claim to "value screen real estate." Okay, I can accept that. "Buy a bigger screen, you dumbass," is the proper response, of course, but we'll skip past that for the moment.
Then you say that Windows 95 was better because it made "all running programs more visible."
Let's see here. On the Mac you had the application menu, a tiny widget in the upper right-hand corner, a mere 32 by 32 pixels across, that when clicked would show you all running programs. While on Windows you had this massive dashboard-like thing that stretched all the way across the screen, something on the order of 60 pixels high (I've never measured it, so I'm just guesstimating) that would almost always be at least partly empty. This, in your estimation, is "leapfrogging ahead."
Explain, please.
the latter matches my mental model of "activities started in the past" vs "activities to start in the future"
Your mental model is wrong. Fix it. Don't complain about the software.
And, furthermore, don't complain about my telling you that your mental model is wrong. It's just objectively broken. Deal with it, suck it up and change your way of looking at your computer.
"tasks" and "applications" are used interchangably in this context.
Clearly not. The other guy tried to draw a distinction between a running application -- calling it a "task" -- and an application that's not presently running, and he got all confused to find examples of both in his dock.
You don't have the trash can but that's a stupid place for it anyway
Hmm. I'm not sure I'm crazy about having a conversation with somebody who dismisses things by saying "that's a stupid place for it anyway."
The dock is not any simpler or more intuitive than the windows taskbar, in fact it's basically the same
Have you not been paying attention at all? It's not the same. It's different, and simpler. You talk about all these different things: "Start" menu, task bar, "quick launch." It's all segregated. Only applications which are currently running appear in the "task bar," introducing this new and redundant concept called a "task." I don't know about you, but to me a "task" is the thing I'm trying to accomplish, like writing a letter or posting a photo to the Web. I might use one application to do it, or I might use a few, or I might use none at all and do it entirely on paper. Trying to inaugurate a new piece of jargon for what is nothing more than a running application just confuses people.
Meanwhile, non-running applications show up in the "Start" menu, alongside lots of stuff that's not an application. Non-running applications also appear in this "quick launch" thing, apparently because the "Start" menu is too complicated.
Bleah. It's baroque and confusing. The dock, by comparison, is simplicity itself. Drag an application into it. Click to run. Drag out to remove. Incredibly simple by comparison.
It takes up too much space
It's resizable and can be hidden entirely.
has gaudy animations
Bouncing is gaudy?
It's a MacOS abomination just like the menu at the top of the screen.
"Abomination?" Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were a real person. I didn't realize you were just a Mac-bashing troll.
Geez. Slashdot is positively infested with you people. Or maybe there's just one of you and he posts under lots of different names.
How come when I close an application in OS X the menu for that application continues to exist until I focus on another window?
I don't even know what that's supposed to mean. How do you "close" an application? Are you talking about a document? Document-based applications have documents that can be opened and closed. But talking about "closing" an application doesn't make any sense.
I think you're probably just stringing words together now.
See, that's kind of my point. The dock is not a blend of anything. Your frustration arises from the fact that you're trying to think of it in the wrong terms.
The dock is very, very simple: It's the place where you stash program icons. Running programs have their icons in the dock. Any program you drag to the dock stays there whether it's running or not. The right side of the dock, to the right of the separator, is where minimized windows go if you choose to minimize your windows. (Practically nobody does. Folks usually hide applications instead.)
See how you're all turned around? You're talking about "tasks." What are tasks? The Mac doesn't know from tasks. Think about applications instead. The dock is where you see your applications.
Incredibly simple. See? It's only hard if you make it hard.
Docking Station" (the Dock) is NOT like the Start menu
Hear hear. I've never understood why anybody would want to try to compare the dock to the "Start" menu. They're completely different things, the only similarities between them being that they both sit at the bottom of the screen.
The dock is this incredibly simple thing. I don't understand (1) why some otherwise very smart people can't seem to get it, and (2) why other very smart people feel the need to complicate things when explaining it.
For $500 you could build an amd64 system with "better" hardware that would absolutely knock the panties off a G4 MacMini in terms of sorting, fp/int calcs, ffts and huffman encoding (amond others).
Um. That's fine and all, but what happens when you actually want to use that computer to do something other that, you know, sorting numbers?
It's entirely possible that, if you're willing to completely discount the cost of your own labor, you might be able to build an ass-ugly computer for a few hundred bucks. But it won't have any software. How much is the software going to cost you? And don't say "it's free," because we're talking about a Mac here. You can't buy a PC equivalent of iLife at any price, but you can at least get kinda-sorta close by buying various pieces of off-the-shelf software. You can't even get that close using freeware.
So for your investment of X hundred dollars and countless hours of your own time, you've succeeded in building an empty computer that you then have to spend hundreds or even thousands filling with software.
Slashdot Mirror
I said it was an Atom feed. I got too specific. In this particular instance, it's an RSS 2.0 feed. Whatever. Same thing, for all intents and purposes.
Hmm. Methinks maybe you're not quite wrapping your head around the whole "podcast" idea.
s t/ podcast.xml
... well, join us in the 21st century. But until you do, I'm sure there are podcast clients out there that will do other things with the audio file. Though I'm not quite sure what good they'll do you in this particular case. The commentary track is scene-specific, meaning it's meant to be listened to while you sit on your couch with the TV show on. I guess you could do it with a laptop, but it would be annoyingly cumbersome. Using an iPod works better.
Here is the podcast URL:
http://www.scifi.com/battlestar/downloads/podca
I'm not making a hyperlink out of that because it doesn't point to a Web page. It points to an RSS feed. You copy and paste that URL into your podcast client. Once subscribed, your client downloads each new audio file as it's available (in this case, each Friday) and sticks it straight into iTunes, where it automatically syncs to your iPod. Hence the name, see?
If you don't have an iPod
it is called a webcast.
Um, no. That's not what this is. A podcast is an encoded audio file, MP3 or similar, that's delivered via an Atom feed as an enclosure. Your client program, if you choose to use one, downloads it straight into iTunes for syncing to your iPod. Hence "podcast." It's a very specific thing.
Are you trying to be funny, or are you just not getting it?
I make a thing. This thing serves no useful purpose, but criminals can use it to kill a lot of people. I knew that going it, but I do it anyway. Is it ethical for me to make this thing? No.
I make a thing. This thing serves no useful purpose, but criminals can use it to destroy a lot of property. I knew that going it, but I do it anyway. Is it ethical for me to make this thing? No.
I make a thing. This thing serves no useful purpose, but criminals can use it to rob banks. I knew that going it, but I do it anyway. Is it ethical for me to make this thing? No.
I make a thing. This thing serves no useful purpose, but criminals can use it to steal music. I knew that going it, but I do it anyway. Is it ethical for me to make this thing? No.
Any of this sinking in?
I think you meant "apt," not "adept." To be adept means to be proficient at something.
...none. It's possible that some people might be able to use iTunes in a way that it's not designed to be used and that Apple prohibits through its license, but they shouldn't be doing those things anyway, so that doesn't count. What else is there? Just for the hell of it, as another commenter suggested? No, clearly that's not a reason either.
And you were wrong anyway. No, the analogy is not apt, because a knife has many non-trivial uses. Breaking the encryption that makes AirPort Express work would have no non-trivial uses that didn't relate directly to stealing music.
We have to weigh. We have to weigh the potential good that can come of breaking the encryption against the potential ill. What good can come of it? Um
On the flip side, we have the obvious and vast harm that will come from the theft of music. Apple, being dedicated to keeping its customers honest, will have no choice but to dedicate resources to changing the encryption scheme to prevent further abuses, which will cost them money. What's more, it may end up doing them significant harm in their negotiations with record labels, movie studios and TV production companies for the licensing of digital content. Net result? Apple's success as a company is hindered, which is bad because Apple gives us wonderful things. But even more than that, the trouble for the company will be reflected in the company's earnings, which will negatively impact the stock price, which will literally take money out of the pocket of every Apple shareholder. Think you're not an Apple shareholder? Better guess again. If you have a 401K or a money-market account or an IRA, you're indirectly an Apple shareholder. So the money comes out of your own pocket.
Now, finally, do you understand why your knife analogy is the acme of stupidity? It's recklessly inapt. I hope to God that you understand this.
I never said it was illegal. I said it was a massive waste of time, because the only conceivable benefit will be to people who want to steal things.
In that sense, it's obviously unethical.
OMG. dood
That was as far as I got. I couldn't stomach any more.
No, curiosity is not a legitimate reason to break a licensing agreement, reverse-engineer an encryption key and put a new tool into the hands of people who just want to steal stuff.
Sorry. Suck it up.
I don't get the non sequitur, but I can tell you that the knife analogy is massively, massively stupid. You do see why, don't you? For Christ's sake, tell me that you see why.
No, that's not a legitimate reason to want to break the encryption. What you want to do is expressly prohibited by Apple's iTunes license. Besides, there are already other good solutions to your problem, like simply putting the music files you want to listen to on your "media server."
"Because I feel like it" is not a sufficient reason to give pirates a tool for stealing music.
That's not supported, and it's not something that can't already be done better using other solutions.
No, I stand by my remark: there is zero legitimate reason to try to break the AirPort Express encryption scheme. It will only help the pirates, and deter companies like Apple from innovating in the future.
I'm wondering how long it will be before this project gets lawyered on.
Well, given that you just posted a big thing about how excited you are that this new development is going to make music piracy more convenient for you, I'd say not too damn long.
The bad news is that the world is full of people who don't give a shit about moral rights and who just want to take stuff. The good news is that these people are idiots.
There are zero legitimate reasons to want to intercept data bound for an AirPort Express, and plenty of illegal reasons.
You're investing a huge amount of time and brain power trying to do something that can only help people who want to steal music.
Apple Lossless is just Apple's implementation of the MPEG-4 lossless reference codec, which is documented six ways from Sunday.
"One of their own?" Nick Ciarelli is a 19-year-old college kid. He's so completely not "one of their own." Though his lawyer, and a few well-meaning but misguided souls, are trying to make the argument that he is, asserting that just because he has a Web site, it's suddenly a big-J Journalist. Fortunately nobody's buying.
It's funny to watch you flail around aimlessly looking for ways to describe Windows as superior to the Mac. The "Start" menu is too complicated, so Microsoft gave us the "quick launch" feature. Oh, but the dock, which is identical in every way to the "quick launch" feature, is bad. Did I say too complicated? I meant slower. Yeah, that's it. It's because the "Start" menu is too slow. (Ignore with all your might the fact that the dock is "faster" than the "Start" menu.) Then it's about "screen real estate" -- brag about your "flatpanel!" -- only it's not really, it's about "clutter," and icons add to clutter ... but the demonstrably superior "quick launch" feature which kicks the dock's ass is nothing but a dock made up of icons, so it's not really about icons either, is it?
... but the charm has faded now. If you want the opportunity to take the last word to somehow try to back away from being an obvious and incompetent anti-Mac troll, go right ahead. It's all yours.
But what's most amusing of all is the way you responded to being told that your approach to dividing applications up into running and non-running is just objectively wrong was to haul out the childish name-calling.
Very funny all around
So now we have the courts deciding who is and who is not a journalist? We have them deciding what is legitimate journalism and what is not?
Why not? We had a ton of people arguing that Jeff Gannon didn't belong in the White House briefing room based on their assertion that he wasn't a "legitimate journalist." This is no different.
Sucks when something cuts both ways, doesn't it?
This has all been explained due to the outing of a CIA operative by a republican schill.
Bob Novak has been called many things in his long career, but "a Republican shill" is a first.
Conceptually the two things are very different to me.
... but it's not because the "Start" menu is too complicated? This makes sense ... how?
Okay, well the best thing I can say at this point is that you're looking at it wrong. You might as well be trying to distinguish between programs based on the number of corners their icons have. It's not a useful distinction.
"Quick Launch" isn't because it's too complicated, it's because it's two clicks when some people just want one.
That went by so fast, my head is spinning. So what you're saying here is that Microsoft added this "quick launch" feature because two clicks is too many
Win95 leapfrogged ahead of Mac at that time, IMO, by making all running programs more visible
Again, my head spins. You claim to "value screen real estate." Okay, I can accept that. "Buy a bigger screen, you dumbass," is the proper response, of course, but we'll skip past that for the moment.
Then you say that Windows 95 was better because it made "all running programs more visible."
Let's see here. On the Mac you had the application menu, a tiny widget in the upper right-hand corner, a mere 32 by 32 pixels across, that when clicked would show you all running programs. While on Windows you had this massive dashboard-like thing that stretched all the way across the screen, something on the order of 60 pixels high (I've never measured it, so I'm just guesstimating) that would almost always be at least partly empty. This, in your estimation, is "leapfrogging ahead."
Explain, please.
the latter matches my mental model of "activities started in the past" vs "activities to start in the future"
Your mental model is wrong. Fix it. Don't complain about the software.
And, furthermore, don't complain about my telling you that your mental model is wrong. It's just objectively broken. Deal with it, suck it up and change your way of looking at your computer.
Color me stupid
I think you took care of that yourself.
"tasks" and "applications" are used interchangably in this context.
Clearly not. The other guy tried to draw a distinction between a running application -- calling it a "task" -- and an application that's not presently running, and he got all confused to find examples of both in his dock.
You don't have the trash can but that's a stupid place for it anyway
Hmm. I'm not sure I'm crazy about having a conversation with somebody who dismisses things by saying "that's a stupid place for it anyway."
The dock is not any simpler or more intuitive than the windows taskbar, in fact it's basically the same
Have you not been paying attention at all? It's not the same. It's different, and simpler. You talk about all these different things: "Start" menu, task bar, "quick launch." It's all segregated. Only applications which are currently running appear in the "task bar," introducing this new and redundant concept called a "task." I don't know about you, but to me a "task" is the thing I'm trying to accomplish, like writing a letter or posting a photo to the Web. I might use one application to do it, or I might use a few, or I might use none at all and do it entirely on paper. Trying to inaugurate a new piece of jargon for what is nothing more than a running application just confuses people.
Meanwhile, non-running applications show up in the "Start" menu, alongside lots of stuff that's not an application. Non-running applications also appear in this "quick launch" thing, apparently because the "Start" menu is too complicated.
Bleah. It's baroque and confusing. The dock, by comparison, is simplicity itself. Drag an application into it. Click to run. Drag out to remove. Incredibly simple by comparison.
It takes up too much space
It's resizable and can be hidden entirely.
has gaudy animations
Bouncing is gaudy?
It's a MacOS abomination just like the menu at the top of the screen.
"Abomination?" Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were a real person. I didn't realize you were just a Mac-bashing troll.
Geez. Slashdot is positively infested with you people. Or maybe there's just one of you and he posts under lots of different names.
How come when I close an application in OS X the menu for that application continues to exist until I focus on another window?
I don't even know what that's supposed to mean. How do you "close" an application? Are you talking about a document? Document-based applications have documents that can be opened and closed. But talking about "closing" an application doesn't make any sense.
I think you're probably just stringing words together now.
See, that's kind of my point. The dock is not a blend of anything. Your frustration arises from the fact that you're trying to think of it in the wrong terms.
The dock is very, very simple: It's the place where you stash program icons. Running programs have their icons in the dock. Any program you drag to the dock stays there whether it's running or not. The right side of the dock, to the right of the separator, is where minimized windows go if you choose to minimize your windows. (Practically nobody does. Folks usually hide applications instead.)
See how you're all turned around? You're talking about "tasks." What are tasks? The Mac doesn't know from tasks. Think about applications instead. The dock is where you see your applications.
Incredibly simple. See? It's only hard if you make it hard.
Docking Station" (the Dock) is NOT like the Start menu
Hear hear. I've never understood why anybody would want to try to compare the dock to the "Start" menu. They're completely different things, the only similarities between them being that they both sit at the bottom of the screen.
The dock is this incredibly simple thing. I don't understand (1) why some otherwise very smart people can't seem to get it, and (2) why other very smart people feel the need to complicate things when explaining it.
For $500 you could build an amd64 system with "better" hardware that would absolutely knock the panties off a G4 MacMini in terms of sorting, fp/int calcs, ffts and huffman encoding (amond others).
Um. That's fine and all, but what happens when you actually want to use that computer to do something other that, you know, sorting numbers?
It's entirely possible that, if you're willing to completely discount the cost of your own labor, you might be able to build an ass-ugly computer for a few hundred bucks. But it won't have any software. How much is the software going to cost you? And don't say "it's free," because we're talking about a Mac here. You can't buy a PC equivalent of iLife at any price, but you can at least get kinda-sorta close by buying various pieces of off-the-shelf software. You can't even get that close using freeware.
So for your investment of X hundred dollars and countless hours of your own time, you've succeeded in building an empty computer that you then have to spend hundreds or even thousands filling with software.
Dumb idea.
You're forgetting to take into account the cost of designing all the products they didn't sell.
You'd be amazed to see some of the ideas that never make it to the mock-up stage.