it's the only player out there that is user friendly, stylish, and completely impartail to whether you choose to listen to licensed or DRM-free content
The player is impartial to whether you use Apple's version of DRM licensed content or not. To use any other form of DRMed content, you must burn to disc and rerip, or otherwise break the DRM and put it in unprotected format.
Those selling DRMed music that won't play natively on iPods have a massive interest in changing this. To the extent that Apple won't, they are locking users in to their storefront to some extent. I have no comment on whether their refusal to play other forms of DRMed content is greedy, unethical, monopolistic, or anti-music industry, all implied in TFA.
Yes, iPods play MP3s. However, they don't play any content that is DRMed by the other bigger players. Articles like this http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1387 reflect pressure on retailers that want to
sell downloadable music online using DRM
not be Apple and use iTunes
have the downloadable music play on iPods
The lock-in is, by selling iPods, Wal-Mart is effectively driving customers away from its own revenue stream derived from sales of downloaded music.
In Quantum Cryptography, traditional man-in-the-middle attacks are impossible due to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. If Mallory attempts to intercept the stream of photons, he will inevitably alter them if he uses an incorrect detector. He cannot re-emit the photons to Bob correctly, which will introduce unacceptable levels of error into the communication.
If Alice and Bob are using an entangled photon system, then it is virtually impossible to hijack these, because creating three entangled photons would decrease the strength of each photon to such a degree that it would be easily detected. Mallory cannot use a man-in-the-middle attack, since he would have to measure an entangled photon and disrupt the other photon, then he would have to re-emit both photons. This is impossible to do, by the laws of quantum physics.
Other attacks are possible. Because a dedicated fiber optic line is required between the two points linked by quantum cryptography, a denial of service attack can be mounted by simply cutting the line or, perhaps more surreptitiously, by attempting to tap it. If the equipment used in quantum cryptography can be tampered with, it could be made to generate keys that were not secure using a random number generator attack.
Kish said that the dogma so far has been that only quantum communication can be absolutely secure and that about $1 billion is spent annually on quantum communication research.
magnetic media can only do so much in a serial manor
You know, I have problems myself in serial manors. In fact, I find that being forced to go through the kitchen and bathroom to get the guest bedroom can be embarrassing for all involved.
"Various users have different motivations for trolling. A common factor to most of them is the desire to draw attention to the troll. Inflammatory, sarcastic, disruptive or humorous content is posted, meant to draw other users into engaging the troll in a fruitless confrontation."
Yes, I can see how you helped the discussion on internet governance.
wow - I hope *those* people find something better to do. Trolling - is that, in part, searching around looking for places you can insert one liners? Keep it up.
"xMax is not a compression technique, but rather a synergistic mix of two well-established communication approaches that dramatically improves spectrum utilization." - from the company's FAQ.
Doesn't everyone know that, therefore, xMax is a communications protocol for quickly generating excessive media interest and venture capital?
wow. I learned something. thanks anonymous cowards!
"The Internet is the largest internet in the world" - Source: The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing
I thought I'd post my experience moving from Insight Digital Cable (Indiana) to Eastlink (Halifax, Canada) to Aliant (Halifax, Canada).
The Indiana connection was advertised as 5 Mbps download, and not too far off actual speeds. Also, there seemed to be no throttling based on what I was doing (e.g. bittorrent, p2p). I paid $44.95, no taxes or additional fees, and was very happy.
I joined Eastlink about 2 months ago, which advertises service so fast "you don't have time to blink". However, what they don't tell you is that they use Ellacoya servers which implement technologies to throttle bandwidth to anyone using eMule, bittorrent, and a variety of other P2P technologies. Oh, and I was paying about $40 CDN/month for this.
Of course, as soon as I found out what they were doing, I switched from the cable guy (Eastlink) to the dsl guy (Aliant). Back to 5 Mbps, no throttling, much happier, $49.99 CDN/month.
The short bit: I would take Canada off the list of countries which are outpacing the US in broadband. From what I can tell, Eastlink's behavior is more common than Aliant in Canada. What good is 10+ Mbps if you can't use bittorrent? [for linux distros AND pr0n, of course].
Hey -
I don't mind paying for stuff. Heck, I do it all the time - even content!
I guess I would be a little annoyed if I had a whole pile of videos which worked on my computer, bought a newfangled iPod video player, and found out that unless I paid ANOTHER $30 for some kind of 'pro' version of some software, I wouldn't be able to watch my videos on that machine.
"If you've got video content in any format recognized by QT Pro, you're good to go."
I guess 'good to go' = 'have $30 you don't want'
Here's the pitch from the apple store.
QuickTime 7 Pro for Windows
With QuickTime 7 Pro, you can create stunning H.264 video and surround audio on your Windows PC. Capture audio for creating your own podcast or narration track. Edit movies with simple cut, copy, and paste commands, watch HD movies in full screen, and much more. Purchase now to receive your QuickTime 7 Pro registration code instantly via email.
Please note: QuickTime 7 Pro for Windows works only with the free QuickTime 7 Player for Windows. Be sure you have installed QuickTime 7 for Windows before you enter your QuickTime 7 Pro registration code.
Price: $29.99
Estimated Ship:
Now
Great news: As from today, VoipBuster is available again for all Beta testers! And on top of that we have added some popular destinations to our list of free countries as well.
BUT: To counter the misuse of our network and to reserve capacity for our genuine testers, we have limited our Free-Calls policy to 1 minute per call. If you want to enjoy UNLIMITED free calls, just register and buy 5 [euros] worth of credit.
If you still believe this
The literature does not clearly show that it is a misreading nor a 'relative waste of time'. The literature has opinions to support both points of view.
I encourage you to actually read the literature. As I mentioned in my first post, Shieber's edited volume is a great place to start.
Oh, and remember not to believe that just because x and not-x both appear in "the literature", they are both reasonable points of view.
Can we please read before posting?
Here is a bit from the article you quoted:
Moreover, as Moor (2001) argues against the claims of Sterrett (2000), there is no reason to think that one would get a better test if the computer must pretend to be a woman and the other participant in the game is a man pretending to be a woman (and, indeed, there is some reason to think that one would get a worse test).
Worse test here means 'easier to pass' which means 'weaker'.
Yes, I know he called it the imitation test. I'm tired, and meant to say "he didn't call it the Turing Test". Sorry about that.
Once again, though, the literature clearly shows, as you have cited, that a gendered test is both a misreading of Turing, and relative waste of time compared to the regular test.
However, as Copeland (2000), Piccinini (2000), and Moor (2001) convincingly argue, the rest of Turing's article, and material in other articles that Turing wrote at around the same time, very strongly support the claim that Turing actually intended the standard interpretation that we gave above, viz. that the computer is to pretend to be a human being, and the other participant in the game is a human being of unspecified gender. Moreover, as Moor (2001) argues against the claims of Sterrett (2000), there is no reason to think that one would get a better test if the computer must pretend to be a woman and the other participant in the game is a man pretending to be a woman (and, indeed, there is some reason to think that one would get a worse test).
Therefore, the language "imitation game" does attempt to set itself apart from the common usage of "turing test", and it also adopts a philosophical opinion on the interpretation.
Ok - the bit you quoted
1) Confirms that its author agrees with Shieber, based on Copeland and others, that Turing intended the standard (what I've called 'canonical') interpretation;
2) Adds that the gendered interpretation yields a weaker test.
I'm afraid I don't follow your concluding remark. Turing didn't call his own test "the imitation game". However, his imitation game is, as the article you cite claims, the same as what practically everyone else calls "the Turing Test".
I'm sorry, but the canonical interpretation is correct.
Unfortunately, Turing's original article contains an ambiguity. "What happens when you replace the role of B with a machine" can be read as quantifying over the whole set up, beginning with "person trying decide genders", vs. "person trying to decide which is the machine".
Many of Turing's other writings and interviews confirm the canonical interpretation. For an introduction to some of this evidence, I recommend looking at some of Stuart Shieber's comments in his edited volume "The Turing Test".
Slashdot Mirror
it's the only player out there that is user friendly, stylish, and completely impartail to whether you choose to listen to licensed or DRM-free content
The player is impartial to whether you use Apple's version of DRM licensed content or not. To use any other form of DRMed content, you must burn to disc and rerip, or otherwise break the DRM and put it in unprotected format.
Those selling DRMed music that won't play natively on iPods have a massive interest in changing this. To the extent that Apple won't, they are locking users in to their storefront to some extent. I have no comment on whether their refusal to play other forms of DRMed content is greedy, unethical, monopolistic, or anti-music industry, all implied in TFA.
The lock-in is, by selling iPods, Wal-Mart is effectively driving customers away from its own revenue stream derived from sales of downloaded music.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_cryptography
In Quantum Cryptography, traditional man-in-the-middle attacks are impossible due to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. If Mallory attempts to intercept the stream of photons, he will inevitably alter them if he uses an incorrect detector. He cannot re-emit the photons to Bob correctly, which will introduce unacceptable levels of error into the communication.
If Alice and Bob are using an entangled photon system, then it is virtually impossible to hijack these, because creating three entangled photons would decrease the strength of each photon to such a degree that it would be easily detected. Mallory cannot use a man-in-the-middle attack, since he would have to measure an entangled photon and disrupt the other photon, then he would have to re-emit both photons. This is impossible to do, by the laws of quantum physics.
Other attacks are possible. Because a dedicated fiber optic line is required between the two points linked by quantum cryptography, a denial of service attack can be mounted by simply cutting the line or, perhaps more surreptitiously, by attempting to tap it. If the equipment used in quantum cryptography can be tampered with, it could be made to generate keys that were not secure using a random number generator attack.
From TFA:
Kish said that the dogma so far has been that only quantum communication can be absolutely secure and that about $1 billion is spent annually on quantum communication research.
I guess the quantum bubble is about to burst.
magnetic media can only do so much in a serial manor
You know, I have problems myself in serial manors. In fact, I find that being forced to go through the kitchen and bathroom to get the guest bedroom can be embarrassing for all involved.
Since my post has been officially ranked 'Funny', that precludes me from being a troll.
From Wikipedia:
"Various users have different motivations for trolling. A common factor to most of them is the desire to draw attention to the troll. Inflammatory, sarcastic, disruptive or humorous content is posted, meant to draw other users into engaging the troll in a fruitless confrontation."
Yes, I can see how you helped the discussion on internet governance.
From wiki also: "Do not feed the trolls".
Shouldn't have. Will be last post on the matter.
wow - I hope *those* people find something better to do. Trolling - is that, in part, searching around looking for places you can insert one liners? Keep it up.
..avoid making tired, old, jokes, that turn them into mindless lackeys of political hacks.
This is over and done with. Can we please read this before making these jokes? Or maybe not make them at all? Or mod them down whenever they occur?
"xMax is not a compression technique, but rather a synergistic mix of two well-established communication approaches that dramatically improves spectrum utilization." - from the company's FAQ.
Doesn't everyone know that, therefore, xMax is a communications protocol for quickly generating excessive media interest and venture capital?
wow. I learned something. thanks anonymous cowards! "The Internet is the largest internet in the world" - Source: The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing
...I just started using openoffice for the first time. The word 'internet' gives me a red squiggly. That pisses me off more than bloat.
Hey -
I thought I'd post my experience moving from Insight Digital Cable (Indiana) to Eastlink (Halifax, Canada) to Aliant (Halifax, Canada).
The Indiana connection was advertised as 5 Mbps download, and not too far off actual speeds. Also, there seemed to be no throttling based on what I was doing (e.g. bittorrent, p2p). I paid $44.95, no taxes or additional fees, and was very happy.
I joined Eastlink about 2 months ago, which advertises service so fast "you don't have time to blink". However, what they don't tell you is that they use Ellacoya servers which implement technologies to throttle bandwidth to anyone using eMule, bittorrent, and a variety of other P2P technologies. Oh, and I was paying about $40 CDN/month for this.
Of course, as soon as I found out what they were doing, I switched from the cable guy (Eastlink) to the dsl guy (Aliant). Back to 5 Mbps, no throttling, much happier, $49.99 CDN/month.
The short bit: I would take Canada off the list of countries which are outpacing the US in broadband. From what I can tell, Eastlink's behavior is more common than Aliant in Canada. What good is 10+ Mbps if you can't use bittorrent? [for linux distros AND pr0n, of course].
Hey - I don't mind paying for stuff. Heck, I do it all the time - even content! I guess I would be a little annoyed if I had a whole pile of videos which worked on my computer, bought a newfangled iPod video player, and found out that unless I paid ANOTHER $30 for some kind of 'pro' version of some software, I wouldn't be able to watch my videos on that machine.
"If you've got video content in any format recognized by QT Pro, you're good to go."
I guess 'good to go' = 'have $30 you don't want'
Here's the pitch from the apple store.
QuickTime 7 Pro for Windows
With QuickTime 7 Pro, you can create stunning H.264 video and surround audio on your Windows PC. Capture audio for creating your own podcast or narration track. Edit movies with simple cut, copy, and paste commands, watch HD movies in full screen, and much more. Purchase now to receive your QuickTime 7 Pro registration code instantly via email. Please note: QuickTime 7 Pro for Windows works only with the free QuickTime 7 Player for Windows. Be sure you have installed QuickTime 7 for Windows before you enter your QuickTime 7 Pro registration code. Price: $29.99 Estimated Ship: Now
Yes, but can I play xvid or divx encoded videos? You know, all the ones that I created from DVDs I own?
What about one step DVD ripping? [no, I don't have any tie to the software manafacturer mentioned above, I just think it rules]
I hope this clears up the confusion.
http://www.voipbuster.com/en/newsflash.html
Great news: As from today, VoipBuster is available again for all Beta testers! And on top of that we have added some popular destinations to our list of free countries as well.
BUT: To counter the misuse of our network and to reserve capacity for our genuine testers, we have limited our Free-Calls policy to 1 minute per call. If you want to enjoy UNLIMITED free calls, just register and buy 5 [euros] worth of credit.
Professional philosophers know that ideas don't count, for the most part. Published articles, a form of product, do.
If you still believe this The literature does not clearly show that it is a misreading nor a 'relative waste of time'. The literature has opinions to support both points of view. I encourage you to actually read the literature. As I mentioned in my first post, Shieber's edited volume is a great place to start. Oh, and remember not to believe that just because x and not-x both appear in "the literature", they are both reasonable points of view.
Can we please read before posting? Here is a bit from the article you quoted: Moreover, as Moor (2001) argues against the claims of Sterrett (2000), there is no reason to think that one would get a better test if the computer must pretend to be a woman and the other participant in the game is a man pretending to be a woman (and, indeed, there is some reason to think that one would get a worse test). Worse test here means 'easier to pass' which means 'weaker'. Yes, I know he called it the imitation test. I'm tired, and meant to say "he didn't call it the Turing Test". Sorry about that. Once again, though, the literature clearly shows, as you have cited, that a gendered test is both a misreading of Turing, and relative waste of time compared to the regular test.
Ok - the bit you quoted
1) Confirms that its author agrees with Shieber, based on Copeland and others, that Turing intended the standard (what I've called 'canonical') interpretation;
2) Adds that the gendered interpretation yields a weaker test.
I'm afraid I don't follow your concluding remark. Turing didn't call his own test "the imitation game". However, his imitation game is, as the article you cite claims, the same as what practically everyone else calls "the Turing Test".
I'm sorry, but the canonical interpretation is correct. Unfortunately, Turing's original article contains an ambiguity. "What happens when you replace the role of B with a machine" can be read as quantifying over the whole set up, beginning with "person trying decide genders", vs. "person trying to decide which is the machine". Many of Turing's other writings and interviews confirm the canonical interpretation. For an introduction to some of this evidence, I recommend looking at some of Stuart Shieber's comments in his edited volume "The Turing Test".