Re:Is it really surprising?
on
More iTunes Math
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Yes, it's interesting. If you find such topics boring, then perhaps you shouldn't be reading Slashdot. I'm sure you'll find reading material more entertaining and suitable for lower intelligence level at Disney.com.
Many people who read this site care about issues like this. We find it interesting to experiment with software systems, especially those which we do not have direct access to the source code of. It's fun to see how a consumer-grade application reacts to unexpected data, for instance.
He could have decompiled the application. But doing so would likely have been in violation of the licensing agreement he agreed to before using said software. You may question the legality of such agreements, but he may not have wanted to take the risk of publishing his findings. Litigation is expensive, after all.
Not only that, but it's quite difficult to decompile a program written in C, C++ or Objective-C. That's especially true when you're dealing with an optimized program. It often isn't obvious what a particular chunk of assembly code is doing, and thus is basically useless for such analysis.
It's obviously not a bug.
on
More iTunes Math
·
· Score: 0, Troll
It's quite obvious that it doesn't impact on a normal user's experience. I thought that went without saying, but apparently you completely missed that point.
So in the end it doesn't crash the program, nor does it lead to incorrect output or corrupted data, or anything of that sort. Thus it is not a bug.
Re:So it's basically fixed point math.
on
More iTunes Math
·
· Score: 5, Funny
I doubt they're smoking anything. And if they are, it's likely a substance that enhances one's journalistic abilities.
This story has everything to do with what this site stands for. It directly involves Apple, mathematics, software design, software analysis, software realiability, and so forth.
Remember, one of the traits of the true, traditional hacker was to experiment with systems in order to better understand them. That holds especially true of proprietary software systems, where the source code cannot be easily or readily viewed.
Indeed, this is a very interesting story that should appeal perfectly to the general Slashdot audience.
Future considerations, perhaps?
on
More iTunes Math
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
They could have just been leaving their options open for future expansion of the software. Indeed, it would be better for compatibility to already use the 0 to 100 range.
Suppose in the future they added support for giving a song a percentage ranking. It's quite easy to do with the system they're using now. Data from the new software could be used with the old, as the old software is already expecting and can cope with a value in the 0 to 100 range, even if it does so slightly differently than the future versions.
Re:The beauty of AppleScript.
on
More iTunes Math
·
· Score: -1, Troll
I'm quite against Mozilla. Please refer to my past comments regarding its quite terrible architecture.
I think we need to look at applications like iTunes to see consumer software done right. Time and time again Apple has shown us how to write solid applications that work, even when we have people tinkering with internal values in unexpected ways.
Re:The beauty of AppleScript.
on
More iTunes Math
·
· Score: 0, Troll
I'm well aware of the DCOP capabilities of KDE. But not every Linux program is a KDE program. There are many users out there who choose to use GNOME, for whatever reason. Other significant applications, like Mozilla and OpenOffice, also do not necessarily have DCOP support.
Re:How does it handle values outside the range?
on
More iTunes Math
·
· Score: 1
GNUstep is a possibility. Licensing issues have been raised, however. Many people have reported difficulties getting it to compile as a usable DLL under Windows, which of course makes it virtually unusable for commercial developments.
Re:The beauty of AppleScript.
on
More iTunes Math
·
· Score: 0, Troll
Actually, the Windows equivalents nowhere near compare to what AppleScript offers. The WSH is, to put it kindly, a shitty tool. VBScript, well, we're all aware of how easily it allows applications like Microsoft Word to be exploited.
The open source solutions are far better. A program with Python, Tcl, or Scheme scripting, for instance, is often quite a useful application. Take GIMP, for instance. It's Scheme scripting capabilities are quite superb, and make for a swell application.
Still, AppleScript is by far the most integrated of all such systems. That's understandable, considering Apple's emphasis on providing a solid, coherent desktop system.
Re:How does it handle values outside the range?
on
More iTunes Math
·
· Score: 1, Troll
That sounds like something Apple would do: write high-quality software that even resists unexpected tampering.
Indeed, the consumer software world would be far better off if it followed Apple's model. It really makes me wonder how good Windows applications today would be if they had put more effort into developing YellowBox. We might not be faced with a future of slow, resource-intensive.NET applications, but rather small, fast applications written in Objective-C.
I wouldn't necessarily consider it a bug outright. First of all, it doesn't appear to crash iTunes. But beyond that, it's an action that is outside of the normal usage scope. It requires one to use AppleScript, at least on Mac OS X, to use the non-standard values.
One might say that quality software should properly deal with unusual values, and that is quite true. Likewise, it appears to be the case in this particular situation. The rating system still works, even with the unexpected data. Indeed, could the Linux kernel really be considered buggy if somebody were to start entering random values into kernel memory via/dev/kmem? I wouldn't say so.
This shows the beauty of scripting systems like AppleScript. They allow you a level of interaction with a system that is hardly seen on Windows, and only vaguely available on UNIX.
How does the Windows version work?
on
More iTunes Math
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Has anyone been able to replicate this behavior with the Windows version of iTunes? Is it built upon the same core as the Mac OS version, or does Apple have a separate implementation that may behave differently?
So it seems they developed their algorithm to only deal with the values 0, 20, 40, 60, 80, and 100. Is it really a surprise that it doesn't take into account other values?
How does it handle values outside the range?
on
More iTunes Math
·
· Score: 1
Do values outside of the range 0 to 100 cause the program to crash, for instance? Or does it just show zero or five stars, depending on which end of the range is being exceeded?
First of all, if you did bother to moderate me "troll", then you voided that moderation by posting in this topic.
Second of all, if you have used the "troll" moderation here ever, then you have partaken in an action that is strictly anti-democratic and overtly anti-American. It is a form of censorship, much akin to what we see in China today.
And your ad hominem attacks only serve to prove me and my points correct. Yet again, I am the victor!
No. They would have had nothing. Mickey Mouse and much of their earlier (and even later) works would be in the public domain. So yes, in a way they would still be able to use such characters, but so would anybody else.
The value of Mickey Mouse to Disney is mainly in Disney's monopoly over its use (or the licensing of its use). Without that monopoly, anybody could potentially make money via the use of the Mickey Mouse image without giving Disney a cent. So that Mickey Mouse backpack your kids might want may be made by some manufacturer in China, without Disney making any money off of it. Of course, because of their lobbying, they now likely would be making money off of such a product.
I assume you're an American, and that is why you cannot see the parallels between China and America. Label somebody who points out those similarities a "troll" all you want. That doesn't change the fact that such points are completely correct.
If you're a frequent reader here, I'm sure you've heard all about the problems associated with the recent elections in the US. While there will always be difficulties with any election, especially when electronic voting machines are used, a republic cannot function when it experiences the severe issues it has during 2000 and 2004 elections. There are many worldwide who question the legitimacy of the last two American regimes.
Regardless, what we all know today is that neither America nor China stands for freedom. What they do stand united in, however, is perhaps best described as fascism, even if they are self-described as "communist", "republican" or "democratic".
Mass mailings can be easily abused. Sure, you sign up thinking you'll be getting non-commercial mail regarding a particular subject. That goes on for a while, but soon enough the list administrators realize that they could make a bit of money by letting certain paying business folks push a message through now and then, or perhaps even the system is compromised. Regardless, what could be considered "spam" gets through.
So while you opted in, that is true, there's no guarantee that you still won't received unsolicited commercial email.
How are users in China supposed to be assured that this isn't just a honeypot-style operation, meant to catch users who wish to access content the government there wishes them not to access?
Not that I'm suggesting this is the case, by any means, but one would have to be quite trusting (or at least willing to face the consequences of getting caught) to use such a system.
Indeed, this does bring up a very curious issue amongst those who take a stance against unsolicited email. Is it acceptable to send unsolicited email in the name of "freedom"?
Of course, many would say that this isn't a case of "spamming", since there is likely a political, rather than a commercial, nature to the emails. But then it can also be said that political issues often revolve directly around commercial and economic issues.
Regardless, what we will likely see is people take a hypocritical stance to the issue. On one had they'll decry getting spammed by others, while at the same time be willing to do it in the name of "freedom".
If we're dealing with solid software, written by those with a clue, a lack of security should have no relation to the market share.
Look at Apache, for instance. It is used by an estimated 60% (if not more) of all web sites. But we rarely hear about serious security issues. Sure, bugs and exploits do crop up occasionally, but nowhere near at the rate of its competitors.
Likewise, if Firefox is a well-written application, then it should be secure if it has one user, or if it has hundreds of millions of users. Unfortunately, the recent 1.5.x release of Firefox went poorly, and many these days are doubting its degree of security. A rushed development cycle, built upon a base that isn't exactly ideal, can lead to security issues.
Let me reiterate: the security of a program is based on its development process and developers, not on the number of users it has.
It's misleading to think that Firefox prevents all Windows-based spyware. It doesn't. It is quite easy for a Firefox user to unknowingly install malicious software.
The only real way to combat spyware today is to use a system like Linux, Mac OS X, or if possible, OpenBSD. An even better idea is to use a browser like Konqueror or Opera, which is known to have a very solid track record. The recent 1.5.x release of Firefox did ship with numerous problems, and that has lead to many switching away from it to the alternatives.
That's not true at all. Let's look at some example data, shall we?
YEAR | AVERAGE TEMPERATURE IN BRITAIN (deg. C) 0706 | 14 0806 | 14 0906 | 15 1006 | 14 1106 | 14 1206 | 15 1306 | 13 1406 | 15 1506 | 14 1606 | 13 1706 | 14 1806 | 17 1906 | 19 2006 | 21
Notice that even though 2006 is the hottest year of the past 1200, it in no way implies that any of the previous years were hotter, even going back over 1200 years. As shown in the data above, the earlier years could be far colder.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, it's interesting. If you find such topics boring, then perhaps you shouldn't be reading Slashdot. I'm sure you'll find reading material more entertaining and suitable for lower intelligence level at Disney.com.
Many people who read this site care about issues like this. We find it interesting to experiment with software systems, especially those which we do not have direct access to the source code of. It's fun to see how a consumer-grade application reacts to unexpected data, for instance.
He could have decompiled the application. But doing so would likely have been in violation of the licensing agreement he agreed to before using said software. You may question the legality of such agreements, but he may not have wanted to take the risk of publishing his findings. Litigation is expensive, after all.
Not only that, but it's quite difficult to decompile a program written in C, C++ or Objective-C. That's especially true when you're dealing with an optimized program. It often isn't obvious what a particular chunk of assembly code is doing, and thus is basically useless for such analysis.
It's quite obvious that it doesn't impact on a normal user's experience. I thought that went without saying, but apparently you completely missed that point.
So in the end it doesn't crash the program, nor does it lead to incorrect output or corrupted data, or anything of that sort. Thus it is not a bug.
I doubt they're smoking anything. And if they are, it's likely a substance that enhances one's journalistic abilities.
This story has everything to do with what this site stands for. It directly involves Apple, mathematics, software design, software analysis, software realiability, and so forth.
Remember, one of the traits of the true, traditional hacker was to experiment with systems in order to better understand them. That holds especially true of proprietary software systems, where the source code cannot be easily or readily viewed.
Indeed, this is a very interesting story that should appeal perfectly to the general Slashdot audience.
They could have just been leaving their options open for future expansion of the software. Indeed, it would be better for compatibility to already use the 0 to 100 range.
Suppose in the future they added support for giving a song a percentage ranking. It's quite easy to do with the system they're using now. Data from the new software could be used with the old, as the old software is already expecting and can cope with a value in the 0 to 100 range, even if it does so slightly differently than the future versions.
I'm quite against Mozilla. Please refer to my past comments regarding its quite terrible architecture.
I think we need to look at applications like iTunes to see consumer software done right. Time and time again Apple has shown us how to write solid applications that work, even when we have people tinkering with internal values in unexpected ways.
I'm well aware of the DCOP capabilities of KDE. But not every Linux program is a KDE program. There are many users out there who choose to use GNOME, for whatever reason. Other significant applications, like Mozilla and OpenOffice, also do not necessarily have DCOP support.
GNUstep is a possibility. Licensing issues have been raised, however. Many people have reported difficulties getting it to compile as a usable DLL under Windows, which of course makes it virtually unusable for commercial developments.
Actually, the Windows equivalents nowhere near compare to what AppleScript offers. The WSH is, to put it kindly, a shitty tool. VBScript, well, we're all aware of how easily it allows applications like Microsoft Word to be exploited.
The open source solutions are far better. A program with Python, Tcl, or Scheme scripting, for instance, is often quite a useful application. Take GIMP, for instance. It's Scheme scripting capabilities are quite superb, and make for a swell application.
Still, AppleScript is by far the most integrated of all such systems. That's understandable, considering Apple's emphasis on providing a solid, coherent desktop system.
That sounds like something Apple would do: write high-quality software that even resists unexpected tampering.
.NET applications, but rather small, fast applications written in Objective-C.
Indeed, the consumer software world would be far better off if it followed Apple's model. It really makes me wonder how good Windows applications today would be if they had put more effort into developing YellowBox. We might not be faced with a future of slow, resource-intensive
I wouldn't necessarily consider it a bug outright. First of all, it doesn't appear to crash iTunes. But beyond that, it's an action that is outside of the normal usage scope. It requires one to use AppleScript, at least on Mac OS X, to use the non-standard values.
/dev/kmem? I wouldn't say so.
One might say that quality software should properly deal with unusual values, and that is quite true. Likewise, it appears to be the case in this particular situation. The rating system still works, even with the unexpected data. Indeed, could the Linux kernel really be considered buggy if somebody were to start entering random values into kernel memory via
This shows the beauty of scripting systems like AppleScript. They allow you a level of interaction with a system that is hardly seen on Windows, and only vaguely available on UNIX.
Has anyone been able to replicate this behavior with the Windows version of iTunes? Is it built upon the same core as the Mac OS version, or does Apple have a separate implementation that may behave differently?
So it seems they developed their algorithm to only deal with the values 0, 20, 40, 60, 80, and 100. Is it really a surprise that it doesn't take into account other values?
Do values outside of the range 0 to 100 cause the program to crash, for instance? Or does it just show zero or five stars, depending on which end of the range is being exceeded?
First of all, if you did bother to moderate me "troll", then you voided that moderation by posting in this topic.
Second of all, if you have used the "troll" moderation here ever, then you have partaken in an action that is strictly anti-democratic and overtly anti-American. It is a form of censorship, much akin to what we see in China today.
And your ad hominem attacks only serve to prove me and my points correct. Yet again, I am the victor!
No. They would have had nothing. Mickey Mouse and much of their earlier (and even later) works would be in the public domain. So yes, in a way they would still be able to use such characters, but so would anybody else.
The value of Mickey Mouse to Disney is mainly in Disney's monopoly over its use (or the licensing of its use). Without that monopoly, anybody could potentially make money via the use of the Mickey Mouse image without giving Disney a cent. So that Mickey Mouse backpack your kids might want may be made by some manufacturer in China, without Disney making any money off of it. Of course, because of their lobbying, they now likely would be making money off of such a product.
I assume you're an American, and that is why you cannot see the parallels between China and America. Label somebody who points out those similarities a "troll" all you want. That doesn't change the fact that such points are completely correct.
If you're a frequent reader here, I'm sure you've heard all about the problems associated with the recent elections in the US. While there will always be difficulties with any election, especially when electronic voting machines are used, a republic cannot function when it experiences the severe issues it has during 2000 and 2004 elections. There are many worldwide who question the legitimacy of the last two American regimes.
Regardless, what we all know today is that neither America nor China stands for freedom. What they do stand united in, however, is perhaps best described as fascism, even if they are self-described as "communist", "republican" or "democratic".
Perhaps they won't give a damn? As long as they get their money, why should they really give a fuck?
Sure, some will say because they should care about "freedom". But it's human nature to care about profit before all else.
Mass mailings can be easily abused. Sure, you sign up thinking you'll be getting non-commercial mail regarding a particular subject. That goes on for a while, but soon enough the list administrators realize that they could make a bit of money by letting certain paying business folks push a message through now and then, or perhaps even the system is compromised. Regardless, what could be considered "spam" gets through.
So while you opted in, that is true, there's no guarantee that you still won't received unsolicited commercial email.
How are users in China supposed to be assured that this isn't just a honeypot-style operation, meant to catch users who wish to access content the government there wishes them not to access?
Not that I'm suggesting this is the case, by any means, but one would have to be quite trusting (or at least willing to face the consequences of getting caught) to use such a system.
Indeed, this does bring up a very curious issue amongst those who take a stance against unsolicited email. Is it acceptable to send unsolicited email in the name of "freedom"?
Of course, many would say that this isn't a case of "spamming", since there is likely a political, rather than a commercial, nature to the emails. But then it can also be said that political issues often revolve directly around commercial and economic issues.
Regardless, what we will likely see is people take a hypocritical stance to the issue. On one had they'll decry getting spammed by others, while at the same time be willing to do it in the name of "freedom".
If we're dealing with solid software, written by those with a clue, a lack of security should have no relation to the market share.
Look at Apache, for instance. It is used by an estimated 60% (if not more) of all web sites. But we rarely hear about serious security issues. Sure, bugs and exploits do crop up occasionally, but nowhere near at the rate of its competitors.
Likewise, if Firefox is a well-written application, then it should be secure if it has one user, or if it has hundreds of millions of users. Unfortunately, the recent 1.5.x release of Firefox went poorly, and many these days are doubting its degree of security. A rushed development cycle, built upon a base that isn't exactly ideal, can lead to security issues.
Let me reiterate: the security of a program is based on its development process and developers, not on the number of users it has.
It's misleading to think that Firefox prevents all Windows-based spyware. It doesn't. It is quite easy for a Firefox user to unknowingly install malicious software.
The only real way to combat spyware today is to use a system like Linux, Mac OS X, or if possible, OpenBSD. An even better idea is to use a browser like Konqueror or Opera, which is known to have a very solid track record. The recent 1.5.x release of Firefox did ship with numerous problems, and that has lead to many switching away from it to the alternatives.
That's not true at all. Let's look at some example data, shall we?
YEAR | AVERAGE TEMPERATURE IN BRITAIN (deg. C)
0706 | 14
0806 | 14
0906 | 15
1006 | 14
1106 | 14
1206 | 15
1306 | 13
1406 | 15
1506 | 14
1606 | 13
1706 | 14
1806 | 17
1906 | 19
2006 | 21
Notice that even though 2006 is the hottest year of the past 1200, it in no way implies that any of the previous years were hotter, even going back over 1200 years. As shown in the data above, the earlier years could be far colder.
The best way to block Flash is to not install the Flash plug-in in the first place.