The DRM I hate. The patent "encumbrance" -- developed by Ampex -- doesn't bother me in the slightest. I've got the ability to play OGG on my Mac, and I hear no "better sound." AAC at a high bitrate sounds fine to me.
I hope that DRM in music will go away, and it's in the process of doing so. Perhaps this year. As a longterm solution, neither piracy nor "free music" makes it in the real world.
Who cares? In a few weeks, there will be another article showing what tards Greenpeace are, and it'll be clearer. For the moment, they've got enough institutional weaknesses that they owe us a lot more to have us take them seriously again.
The issues they talk about are serious, but they have the minds of retarded terrorists. They've been schmucks since the baby seal campaign, more enamored of their own coolness than actually serving the issues.
We used to. It's been eroded, however, so that politically-connected advertisers, quack cure slimeballs, and the peddlers of mortgage reductions (for a hefty fee) giving the consumer the same thing that is available, free, from the government, can continue selling their junk.
I'd bet if I watched a month of UK TV ads, I'd spot a ton of well-connected business folk telling huge whoppers while the bureaucrats are slagging an insignificant exaggeration from Apple.
The demo by PC Pro was also dishonest. There were many gaps where the doltish hand model -- surely not a pro -- was obviously delaying his reaction to make the iPhone seem worse. I'd say the average sentient being could do all those things in maybe a minute.
Yes, it's true! Women in ads are deceitfully more attractive than the actual specimens. I know! The heartless bastards in the ad agencies actually use the ripe sexuality of their much younger and shapelier models as an inducement to buy cars, clothes, follicle replacement and Viagra! It must stop, and be controlled by a Board, because the idiotic people can't be expected to understand!
The point is, the method works to protect you against the great majority of phishing attacks. It works the same way as Google and Firefox. It is even less "threatening" than a google search. The proof of the idiocy of this attack is that it doesn't say anything substantial. It's not like they're selling your name or stealing from your bank account or selling your daughter to the slavers. The only thing they didn't do is "disclose" that in the process, a hashed database would be searched, and if it comes up positive, it warns you by not being green. Oh, the horror! There are so many bad things in the world, it really must be painful to spend your life looking for horrible things in a computer company whose main sin is costing just a little more than most others. Spare me the fake outrage.
It earned its keep when I signed onto my bank. I got through the the first layer of security, and the lock appeared. When my password was validated, and I went to the main page, there was the name of the Bank, outlined in green. If I'm stupid, and get fooled by a phishing scam, I'll remember to look in the upper right corner. About time, really. Apple should have done this much sooner, like Firefox and IE.
Thank you for your Fox News-like reportage of the story, which is barely a story. Apple DID deny the story, for starters. It was not printed with any scientific data, but a simple story in Liberation, the newspaper of French communists. You like communism, Fanboi Killa?
I don't come here any more, because it's been taken over by Apple haters. Have fun.
Then it's not the "full internet," now, is it? Or at least, a pile of advertising morons in Britain might so argue.
You also can't download PC software to your iPhone, nor can you connect to any part of the Internet while rowing a boat to Britain.
I'm generally in favor of advertising standards bodies, and they do a significant job protecting us from fraud. This is not fraud, and none but the most stupid (or an Apple hater) would think that.
I used to spend some time here, because there were positive comments about the Mac mixed in with criticism. Now nobody goes here but the haters. One story after another. I just bought an iPhone. I like it a lot. It's very good where I live. I never get a dropped call. Apparently that makes he a fanboy. It's sad, really. For you. Amazing how many little people love to bash Apple for their perceived awfulness, and how few of you actually understand what's real and what's not.
It's bad for Apple's image, as numerous posters here demonstrate. I think the app was originally cleared for the reasons you enumerate: it wasn't fraud, it was just a status symbol for the terminally stupid. When the publicity arrived, I suspect Jobs himself pulled it, because it's bad p.r.
The point is, the Wall Street idiot Sculley ditched Jobs because of a power play, and imposed a corporate vision that was a terrible fit for Apple. He went off in all directions. Meanwhile, Steve built distinctive, advanced and innovative boxes, aided in the development of NextStep, and all the familiar things. The little, short-term guys didn't understand what Jobs had started. Now that Jobs is back, and has shown how well the business works when you stick to the original vision, I hope that it's something that will continue after Jobs. Maybe not, but as long as the bean counters don't take over again, Apple will do just fine.
I had this experience with Safari in OS X 10.5.3: I went to a web site, forget which one, and got injected. I could tell monkey business was going on. My downloads folder started to dance, and I went to it just as an.exe plopped into it.Hmm. A danger if I was on my Intel computer, running Parallels. Since double-clicking on the exe would have launched Windows. And then run the exe and screwed up that virtual machine. So I'd have to go back to the snapshot I made when I made the installation. And trash the virtual machine that got hacked.
But I was on the G5, so it was like getting a marriage proposal from a Venusian.
It's so nice, getting security lectures from Microsoft.
I don't see the resemblance. In male chauvinist societies, the killing of a daughter is seen as justifiable if she breaks sharia, or goes out unchaperoned, or loves the wrong boy. Any attempt to convict the old man would be derided as "politically correct." So, on the contrary, I think hate crimes legislation as we have it here is the reverse of this kind of tribal, uh, conservatism.
If I was an Iraqi, I'd be clamping down on the wholesale violence, the neighbors dragged out in the street and shot, the men killed with an electric drill to the head, the buses that are stopped and all the men with Sunni names like Omar killed. That's the kind of killing that destroys individual lives, and also the life of the country. So let's say a national army, and a political settlement, brings that to a close except for the proverbial "rogue elements." Well, then a very good tool to use against those 'rogue elements' would be a first amendment and something like hate crimes laws. If some unofficial Shi'a gang starts killing Sunnis randomly, they're guilty of murder, and torture, and the attempt to revive the civil war. That's why you want the law to come down extra-hard on those murders?
I think a lot of this legislation came from Jewish memories of the growing violence against Jews in Germany in the '20s and '30s.
The law may be concerning defined groups for legal reasons, but there's no reason the laws couldn't be amended to follow the trajectory of the targets of hate crimes, which change.
You're misstating the law. You have to have a clear goal of committing the crime to punish a group you hate, and there has to be evidence to convince a jury. So robbing a man, and it later turns out he was gay, doesn't count. That was a robbery, for money. (Psst, it's against the law.) The sentence already goes up or down depending on the amount you stole, and whether there was brutality or threats involved -- and whether you have a history of committing this crime.
It's self-limiting. Often, people will not be charged because there's proof of robbery but no clear evidence of another motivation. A prosecutor who decides that this case gets the book thrown at it based on the identity of the victim is a poor prosecutor. In fact, though, that's one of the problems with the rest of the criminal justice system, as the murder of a white is clearly more prone to the death sentence -- but it shouldn't be.
However, if you have some young toughs who lurk outside a gay bar and take baseball bats to a perfect stranger who comes out of a gay club, as happens very commonly, then is that just an assault like any other? Or is it intended also to spread fear in that city's gay community? The assault has to be tried and sentenced as usual. The special circumstances of the gay bashing deserve a little extra time.
If at some point, some leftist radicals start attacking people coming out of the Young Republicans HQ, I'd think similar punishment should apply.
Slashdot Mirror
The DRM I hate. The patent "encumbrance" -- developed by Ampex -- doesn't bother me in the slightest. I've got the ability to play OGG on my Mac, and I hear no "better sound." AAC at a high bitrate sounds fine to me.
I hope that DRM in music will go away, and it's in the process of doing so. Perhaps this year. As a longterm solution, neither piracy nor "free music" makes it in the real world.
What good IS ogg vorbis, by the way? Is it a tribal thing? Is the audio better than AAC? Or is it that you can get more OV on the Pirate Bay?
You Linux guys are funny. A buzzillion? Really? Where in the real world is that?
Who cares? In a few weeks, there will be another article showing what tards Greenpeace are, and it'll be clearer. For the moment, they've got enough institutional weaknesses that they owe us a lot more to have us take them seriously again.
Ah, good. So, Windows = McCain, Apple = Obama?
I'll take that.
The issues they talk about are serious, but they have the minds of retarded terrorists. They've been schmucks since the baby seal campaign, more enamored of their own coolness than actually serving the issues.
No, the demo was presented by a bunch of lameasses who seemed to perpertually forget what they were doing. Were they looking for the Start menu?
Hmm. I might get one Safari crash a day. Are YOU LYING? Or am I?
We used to. It's been eroded, however, so that politically-connected advertisers, quack cure slimeballs, and the peddlers of mortgage reductions (for a hefty fee) giving the consumer the same thing that is available, free, from the government, can continue selling their junk.
I'd bet if I watched a month of UK TV ads, I'd spot a ton of well-connected business folk telling huge whoppers while the bureaucrats are slagging an insignificant exaggeration from Apple.
The demo by PC Pro was also dishonest. There were many gaps where the doltish hand model -- surely not a pro -- was obviously delaying his reaction to make the iPhone seem worse. I'd say the average sentient being could do all those things in maybe a minute.
Yes, it's true! Women in ads are deceitfully more attractive than the actual specimens. I know! The heartless bastards in the ad agencies actually use the ripe sexuality of their much younger and shapelier models as an inducement to buy cars, clothes, follicle replacement and Viagra! It must stop, and be controlled by a Board, because the idiotic people can't be expected to understand!
The point is, the method works to protect you against the great majority of phishing attacks. It works the same way as Google and Firefox. It is even less "threatening" than a google search. The proof of the idiocy of this attack is that it doesn't say anything substantial. It's not like they're selling your name or stealing from your bank account or selling your daughter to the slavers. The only thing they didn't do is "disclose" that in the process, a hashed database would be searched, and if it comes up positive, it warns you by not being green. Oh, the horror!
There are so many bad things in the world, it really must be painful to spend your life looking for horrible things in a computer company whose main sin is costing just a little more than most others. Spare me the fake outrage.
It earned its keep when I signed onto my bank. I got through the the first layer of security, and the lock appeared. When my password was validated, and I went to the main page, there was the name of the Bank, outlined in green. If I'm stupid, and get fooled by a phishing scam, I'll remember to look in the upper right corner. About time, really. Apple should have done this much sooner, like Firefox and IE.
And the Google phone, too, uses WebKit.
Thank you for your Fox News-like reportage of the story, which is barely a story. Apple DID deny the story, for starters. It was not printed with any scientific data, but a simple story in Liberation, the newspaper of French communists. You like communism, Fanboi Killa?
I don't come here any more, because it's been taken over by Apple haters. Have fun.
Then it's not the "full internet," now, is it? Or at least, a pile of advertising morons in Britain might so argue.
You also can't download PC software to your iPhone, nor can you connect to any part of the Internet while rowing a boat to Britain.
I'm generally in favor of advertising standards bodies, and they do a significant job protecting us from fraud. This is not fraud, and none but the most stupid (or an Apple hater) would think that.
I used to spend some time here, because there were positive comments about the Mac mixed in with criticism. Now nobody goes here but the haters. One story after another.
I just bought an iPhone. I like it a lot. It's very good where I live. I never get a dropped call. Apparently that makes he a fanboy.
It's sad, really. For you. Amazing how many little people love to bash Apple for their perceived awfulness, and how few of you actually understand what's real and what's not.
It's bad for Apple's image, as numerous posters here demonstrate. I think the app was originally cleared for the reasons you enumerate: it wasn't fraud, it was just a status symbol for the terminally stupid. When the publicity arrived, I suspect Jobs himself pulled it, because it's bad p.r.
The point is, the Wall Street idiot Sculley ditched Jobs because of a power play, and imposed a corporate vision that was a terrible fit for Apple. He went off in all directions. Meanwhile, Steve built distinctive, advanced and innovative boxes, aided in the development of NextStep, and all the familiar things. The little, short-term guys didn't understand what Jobs had started. Now that Jobs is back, and has shown how well the business works when you stick to the original vision, I hope that it's something that will continue after Jobs. Maybe not, but as long as the bean counters don't take over again, Apple will do just fine.
Writing your own OS and carving peripherals out of soap?
Trix are for kids. Who cares? Not me.
I'm finding this new messaging system well-nigh impossible to use.
I had this experience with Safari in OS X 10.5.3: I went to a web site, forget which one, and got injected. I could tell monkey business was going on. My downloads folder started to dance, and I went to it just as an .exe plopped into it.Hmm. A danger if I was on my Intel computer, running Parallels. Since double-clicking on the exe would have launched Windows. And then run the exe and screwed up that virtual machine. So I'd have to go back to the snapshot I made when I made the installation. And trash the virtual machine that got hacked.
But I was on the G5, so it was like getting a marriage proposal from a Venusian.
It's so nice, getting security lectures from Microsoft.
I don't see the resemblance. In male chauvinist societies, the killing of a daughter is seen as justifiable if she breaks sharia, or goes out unchaperoned, or loves the wrong boy. Any attempt to convict the old man would be derided as "politically correct." So, on the contrary, I think hate crimes legislation as we have it here is the reverse of this kind of tribal, uh, conservatism.
If I was an Iraqi, I'd be clamping down on the wholesale violence, the neighbors dragged out in the street and shot, the men killed with an electric drill to the head, the buses that are stopped and all the men with Sunni names like Omar killed. That's the kind of killing that destroys individual lives, and also the life of the country. So let's say a national army, and a political settlement, brings that to a close except for the proverbial "rogue elements." Well, then a very good tool to use against those 'rogue elements' would be a first amendment and something like hate crimes laws. If some unofficial Shi'a gang starts killing Sunnis randomly, they're guilty of murder, and torture, and the attempt to revive the civil war. That's why you want the law to come down extra-hard on those murders?
I think a lot of this legislation came from Jewish memories of the growing violence against Jews in Germany in the '20s and '30s.
The law may be concerning defined groups for legal reasons, but there's no reason the laws couldn't be amended to follow the trajectory of the targets of hate crimes, which change.
You're misstating the law. You have to have a clear goal of committing the crime to punish a group you hate, and there has to be evidence to convince a jury. So robbing a man, and it later turns out he was gay, doesn't count. That was a robbery, for money. (Psst, it's against the law.) The sentence already goes up or down depending on the amount you stole, and whether there was brutality or threats involved -- and whether you have a history of committing this crime.
It's self-limiting. Often, people will not be charged because there's proof of robbery but no clear evidence of another motivation. A prosecutor who decides that this case gets the book thrown at it based on the identity of the victim is a poor prosecutor. In fact, though, that's one of the problems with the rest of the criminal justice system, as the murder of a white is clearly more prone to the death sentence -- but it shouldn't be.
However, if you have some young toughs who lurk outside a gay bar and take baseball bats to a perfect stranger who comes out of a gay club, as happens very commonly, then is that just an assault like any other? Or is it intended also to spread fear in that city's gay community? The assault has to be tried and sentenced as usual. The special circumstances of the gay bashing deserve a little extra time.
If at some point, some leftist radicals start attacking people coming out of the Young Republicans HQ, I'd think similar punishment should apply.