Tim C's comment was correct in interpreting what I meant by "new information"--that is, information that was not previously discarded.
I honestly have never tried re-encoding from AAC to AAC (or MP3, Vorbis, etc.) because I've read in many places that the resulting quality is terrible. I was merely regurgitating information from other sources with that particular point.
When I get some free time, I'll fool around with it (hopefully in a way that doesn't cost me a CD-R for every seventy minutes worth of music).
I didn't see the connection between AAIF and AIFF--merely a typo, of course, but I didn't make the connection. Though, technically speaking, it's still not true--it's like saying DVDs store video in AVI format.
"Because iTunes happily converts protected AAC songs into standard, unprotected AAIF CD files when burning a CD, there isn't much point for a user trying to attack the system or steal its keys. The main reason for trying to defeat FairPlay is to exploit the system for the benefit of third parties."
I have no idea what AAIF means. Redbook CD Audio is just a set of raw PCM streams.
That aside, my real complaint lies in the statement that "the main reason for trying to defeat FairPlay is... for the benefit of third parties." This is just false. The CD Audio "happily" produced by iTunes is simply uncompressed AAC audio. That means that all the data that was discarded by the encoder when the file was created is still lost, but the file is back to its original size (a lose-lose scenario, only useful for playing on standard CD players). It's foolish to try to recompress the data--even in AAC format--because new information will be discarded, and the quality will be even less (probably far less) than the original AAC file.
That's where the value of the unencrypted AAC file lies: it can be used just like an MP3 or similar file in any capable player. The file retains the benefit of the much smaller size, and it can be used on other platforms (like Linux) and on compatible players (like newer car/home stereos, many portable media players). The main use is not for the benefit of third parties, but just so I can play music I payed for in a manner of my choosing (a right protected by existing copyright law).
The author of the article may understand DRM, but he doesn't seem to grasp the usefulness of the unencrypted AAC file vs. uncompressed CD audio.
Is it just me or does the "Harmonization Office" sound like something straight out of a George Orwell novel? Its name vaguely reminds me of the Ministry of Peace from Nineteen Eighty-Four. Should we call it HarmOff in Newspeak?
It is NOT the government's job to be the parent. If you do not know what your kids are doing and how they are doing it, it is YOUR FAULT, not THEIRS, nor ANYONE ELSE'S. That is, you are responsible for monitoring your children. MySpace does not need to provide a "back door" for parents--they have every right to march right in the front door. If your child does not allow you to view their online activity, then you punish him/her. This doesn't have to be violent--not that a little smack would hurt--but it needs to get the point across. Set boundaries and enforce them. Stop whining and DO SOMETHING.
And it is certainly a compelling argument. But the article discusses how Google Earth is being used to target weak spots in the British bases. Roadside bombs create collateral damage--carefully targeted and aimed explosives do not.
The phrase "collateral damage" refers to unintended casualties (esp. civilians) resulting from a military operation. I don't mean to be disrespectful, but the British soldiers are the intended targets--there's nothing collateral about them being killed.
I'm not sure if all of this has been posted before, but this is my take:
First, compression does not have to be lossy. There exist lossless codecs, the major open-source one being FLAC. But there are also more proprietary, DRM-supporting formats like Apple Lossless and WMA Lossless.
Second, the modern lossy compression algorithms, when used with a quality encoder, can produce relatively high quality audio at reasonable bit rates (~128 to ~192kbps). Variable bit rate is inherently better, but the encoder is what makes the difference. LAME produces quality MP3, aoTuV produces quality Vorbis, Nero produces quality AAC, etc. For most people, lossy compression is not something to scorn--it can generally produce high-quality audio at a fraction of the bit rate of CDs (1411kbps), and barely a hint of the uber-quality 32-bit float, 96kHz audio that makes digital audiophiles drool (over 6000kbps).
As for the issue of whether or not lossless audio should be available from iTunes and the like, I think they avoid it because of the fear that some users will always use just lossless--which will certainly use more bandwidth (even the best lossless compression usually only cuts the bit rate by 50%). Now, it might not be a bad idea to sell two "versions" of the song--say 0.99 USD for just the lossy, 1.49 USD for the option of either. They get more money to pay for more bandwidth, and users who want the lossless can get it, albeit on a song-per-song basis.
I also think they should offer more formats, either lossy or lossless, but that's another discussion.
The simple answer is no, you should not vote. In the simplest terms, an uninformed vote is an irresponsible choice, and as such is one that you should not make.
To take things beyond the black-and-white, voting is a fundamental right. The founders hoped that Americans would make informed, responsible decisions. But they knew that would not always be the case.
If you are going to vote, take twenty minutes and do some Google searches. Know the candidates, know their positions, and know their records. Remember that you don't have to vote in every race: you may have strong feelings about governor, but might not know anything about the clerks of the courts. That's okay; you can choose to vote in one race and not another.
There is a difference between being informed and being influenced: there is a lot of propaganda, a lot of nonsense. You must remember that every candidate wants your vote, and will likely do whatever it takes to get it. They want party hacks, leaning moderates, and even crazies. They'll appeal to whomever they can, and you must be wary of it. I find that these tactics can be useful in your decision-making process, but not exactly how the candidates intended. If candidates run particularly dirty campaigns, focusing all of their attention on smearing and belittling their opponents, then that may be a mark of how they will conduct themselves in office.
And remember, there are not always massive differences between parties. There's a lot of overlap. Often, you'll find that you agree with both candidates some of the time and disagree with them some of the time. In order to make a decision with which you would be comfortable, you'll have to arrange some mental priorities: Is the economic situation important to me? Is the social situation important to me? Is foreign policy important to me?
I hope that some of this might help. I would not discourage anyone from voting: it is a right, and there is no reason why you should not exercise it. But it is a big decision, and it does carry consequences. Know before you go, and be comfortable with what you do. If you make a mistake, then you'll be better informed for next time!
First, let me say I have compulsive foot-in-mouth disease.
That said, one particular thing was sticking in my head. The networking stack causes (some, all?) system calls and/or applications to hang until all addresses are acquired via DHCP and all persistent network drives are mapped (with like a one or two minute timeout).
I was sitting waiting for my system to acquire an address (the wireless router had in fact died right after authentication) and couldn't do anything with the computer. So it stuck in my mind when it finally did acquire its address and I got on slashdot.
I haven't noticed any other problems that needed fixing, but my comment about useless crap remains (it applied to Windows XP over Windows 2000, too).
Neither, apparently, was fact-checking. The operating system, QDOS (Quick and Dirty Operating System), which you implicitly mention, is itself based on CP/M (Control Program for Microcomputers), and so the Seattle company that created it was not by any means original. And the original Windows code was entirely developed at Microsoft--if you mean concepts, then again their originator was (for the most part) Xerox, whose managers never saw a use for the technology. And there is no "patent" covering Windows--in fact, many of the patents that could be construed to define the modern operating system are held by Apple. As for the "copied the basic coding of KDE, and have emulated Gnome", neither of those statements are true. While Windows may (or may not) incorporate BSD code, it certainly does not incorporate code from either KDE or GNOME. In fact, GNOME could be said to emulate Windows--simplified user interface, integrated network architecture, and centralized system configuration, among others. While I do agree that there is no compelling reason to upgrade to Vista--they fixed nothing that needed to be fixed and added more crap than Congress--please try to validate your arguments.
The only advantages Windows XP has over Windows 2000, when you eliminate superficial changes, are some kernel tweaks and the addition of (and updates to) several DLLs. Much of what separated the two in other ways has been backported in Windows 2000 service packs.
Someone would do well to inform the owner of that blog that his horrible abuse of accented characters, Icelandic characters, and a dagger only signifies to the casual and informed reader alike just how mentally deficient he or she is. There's creativity, and then there's just plain stupidity.
This topic leads the reader to conclude that there are only a narrow set of options. Readers should consider this from a broader perspective, and recognize the principles of a free market and a free society.
The ESRB is not perfect. No organization consisting of human beings can possibly be perfect. But the ESRB does do its job pretty well, when you consider its track record. Its mistakes have been minor, and it has more than bent over backward to try to correct them (the Hot Coffee fiasco, for example). The ESRB cannot be expected to end the exposure of violence, sexual activity, profanity, or drug abuse to impressionable young viewers. That's not its job. Its job is to assess the content of games and rate them. It is the job of a child's parents or guardians to enforce those ratings, should they choose to do so.
Nor is it the government's job to regulate the ESRB in some ill-fated attempt to "protect our children." Children are exposed to violence because their parents let them buy (or buy for them) games that have been clearly labelled as containing violent content. It is not the responsibility of the government to perform parents' jobs for them. The ratings are there, they're more than adequate, and the rest is up to the consumers. The idiots in congress want people to believe that the ESRB isn't up to the task. Not only is it up to the task, but has met it more than adequately. It cannot be held responsible if people do not heed its notices.
Should you trust the ESRB? Not blindly, but they have earned a large degree of trust.
Should you trust the government? That's the question you should be asking. The ESRB is liable to the market and the direct feedback of consumers. Your representatives, on the other hand, have a very high incumbency rate and serve two or six year terms.
How very right you are. But no English-speaking country (of which I am aware, anyway) uses the comma, and most (native) English speakers don't recognize it.
And just as a side note, the.de top-level domain is for Germany; the Netherlands uses.nl.
Did the person who submitted this have a serious affliction for Standard English usage?
"82.4 km" not "82,4 km" (which is about 51.2 miles, something people living in the country that contains Arizona would be more familiar with) "Sam Wittingham's record" not "Sam Wittinghams record" "Rob English's diary" not "Rob English' diary" "are not even close yet" should probably be "have not even been met yet" or something like that
The point of having editors is to edit, not just to copy and paste.
OpenBSD has held that title for the past twelve years. Windows lags far, far behind. If Vista can beat OpenBSD's record (a tough task, to say the least), then they can crown it champion--not before it's even released.
Try looking at Netcraft's "Active Sites" data. It falls in line with what you're saying, and Netcraft makes full disclosure that the basic web server survey is unreliable for any sort of worthwhile statistics.
You have clearly demonstrated your lack of understanding in the English language, while attempting to illustrate that someone else lacks understanding in another area. The proper word is "effect", not "affect", which is a verb.
The oft-maligned wireless networks are not much more insecure than their LAN counterparts. And a wireless network secured with WPA or WPA2 can be more secure than most of its wired counterparts. Few people take the time to implement things like IPsec on the wired networks, so anyone with an Ethernet cable and port can connect. Of course, it's not the same as someone squatting outside of the building, but it's still not very secure.
Slashdot Mirror
Tim C's comment was correct in interpreting what I meant by "new information"--that is, information that was not previously discarded.
I honestly have never tried re-encoding from AAC to AAC (or MP3, Vorbis, etc.) because I've read in many places that the resulting quality is terrible. I was merely regurgitating information from other sources with that particular point.
When I get some free time, I'll fool around with it (hopefully in a way that doesn't cost me a CD-R for every seventy minutes worth of music).
I didn't see the connection between AAIF and AIFF--merely a typo, of course, but I didn't make the connection. Though, technically speaking, it's still not true--it's like saying DVDs store video in AVI format.
According to the article,
... for the benefit of third parties." This is just false. The CD Audio "happily" produced by iTunes is simply uncompressed AAC audio. That means that all the data that was discarded by the encoder when the file was created is still lost, but the file is back to its original size (a lose-lose scenario, only useful for playing on standard CD players). It's foolish to try to recompress the data--even in AAC format--because new information will be discarded, and the quality will be even less (probably far less) than the original AAC file.
"Because iTunes happily converts protected AAC songs into standard, unprotected AAIF CD files when burning a CD, there isn't much point for a user trying to attack the system or steal its keys. The main reason for trying to defeat FairPlay is to exploit the system for the benefit of third parties."
I have no idea what AAIF means. Redbook CD Audio is just a set of raw PCM streams.
That aside, my real complaint lies in the statement that "the main reason for trying to defeat FairPlay is
That's where the value of the unencrypted AAC file lies: it can be used just like an MP3 or similar file in any capable player. The file retains the benefit of the much smaller size, and it can be used on other platforms (like Linux) and on compatible players (like newer car/home stereos, many portable media players). The main use is not for the benefit of third parties, but just so I can play music I payed for in a manner of my choosing (a right protected by existing copyright law).
The author of the article may understand DRM, but he doesn't seem to grasp the usefulness of the unencrypted AAC file vs. uncompressed CD audio.
Is it just me or does the "Harmonization Office" sound like something straight out of a George Orwell novel? Its name vaguely reminds me of the Ministry of Peace from Nineteen Eighty-Four. Should we call it HarmOff in Newspeak?
And both deserve the same treatment: immediate abolition.
It is NOT the government's job to be the parent. If you do not know what your kids are doing and how they are doing it, it is YOUR FAULT, not THEIRS, nor ANYONE ELSE'S. That is, you are responsible for monitoring your children. MySpace does not need to provide a "back door" for parents--they have every right to march right in the front door. If your child does not allow you to view their online activity, then you punish him/her. This doesn't have to be violent--not that a little smack would hurt--but it needs to get the point across. Set boundaries and enforce them. Stop whining and DO SOMETHING.
Small correction: 25GB for single layer and 50GB for double layer (see Wikipedia)
And it is certainly a compelling argument. But the article discusses how Google Earth is being used to target weak spots in the British bases. Roadside bombs create collateral damage--carefully targeted and aimed explosives do not.
The phrase "collateral damage" refers to unintended casualties (esp. civilians) resulting from a military operation. I don't mean to be disrespectful, but the British soldiers are the intended targets--there's nothing collateral about them being killed.
I'm not sure if all of this has been posted before, but this is my take:
First, compression does not have to be lossy. There exist lossless codecs, the major open-source one being FLAC. But there are also more proprietary, DRM-supporting formats like Apple Lossless and WMA Lossless.
Second, the modern lossy compression algorithms, when used with a quality encoder, can produce relatively high quality audio at reasonable bit rates (~128 to ~192kbps). Variable bit rate is inherently better, but the encoder is what makes the difference. LAME produces quality MP3, aoTuV produces quality Vorbis, Nero produces quality AAC, etc. For most people, lossy compression is not something to scorn--it can generally produce high-quality audio at a fraction of the bit rate of CDs (1411kbps), and barely a hint of the uber-quality 32-bit float, 96kHz audio that makes digital audiophiles drool (over 6000kbps).
As for the issue of whether or not lossless audio should be available from iTunes and the like, I think they avoid it because of the fear that some users will always use just lossless--which will certainly use more bandwidth (even the best lossless compression usually only cuts the bit rate by 50%). Now, it might not be a bad idea to sell two "versions" of the song--say 0.99 USD for just the lossy, 1.49 USD for the option of either. They get more money to pay for more bandwidth, and users who want the lossless can get it, albeit on a song-per-song basis.
I also think they should offer more formats, either lossy or lossless, but that's another discussion.
Who exactly certified them in the first place? Shouldn't there have been some sort of requirements for accuracy, accountability, and security?
I think the word intended was rationale.
The simple answer is no, you should not vote. In the simplest terms, an uninformed vote is an irresponsible choice, and as such is one that you should not make.
To take things beyond the black-and-white, voting is a fundamental right. The founders hoped that Americans would make informed, responsible decisions. But they knew that would not always be the case.
If you are going to vote, take twenty minutes and do some Google searches. Know the candidates, know their positions, and know their records. Remember that you don't have to vote in every race: you may have strong feelings about governor, but might not know anything about the clerks of the courts. That's okay; you can choose to vote in one race and not another.
There is a difference between being informed and being influenced: there is a lot of propaganda, a lot of nonsense. You must remember that every candidate wants your vote, and will likely do whatever it takes to get it. They want party hacks, leaning moderates, and even crazies. They'll appeal to whomever they can, and you must be wary of it. I find that these tactics can be useful in your decision-making process, but not exactly how the candidates intended. If candidates run particularly dirty campaigns, focusing all of their attention on smearing and belittling their opponents, then that may be a mark of how they will conduct themselves in office.
And remember, there are not always massive differences between parties. There's a lot of overlap. Often, you'll find that you agree with both candidates some of the time and disagree with them some of the time. In order to make a decision with which you would be comfortable, you'll have to arrange some mental priorities: Is the economic situation important to me? Is the social situation important to me? Is foreign policy important to me?
I hope that some of this might help. I would not discourage anyone from voting: it is a right, and there is no reason why you should not exercise it. But it is a big decision, and it does carry consequences. Know before you go, and be comfortable with what you do. If you make a mistake, then you'll be better informed for next time!
First, let me say I have compulsive foot-in-mouth disease.
That said, one particular thing was sticking in my head. The networking stack causes (some, all?) system calls and/or applications to hang until all addresses are acquired via DHCP and all persistent network drives are mapped (with like a one or two minute timeout).
I was sitting waiting for my system to acquire an address (the wireless router had in fact died right after authentication) and couldn't do anything with the computer. So it stuck in my mind when it finally did acquire its address and I got on slashdot.
I haven't noticed any other problems that needed fixing, but my comment about useless crap remains (it applied to Windows XP over Windows 2000, too).
Neither, apparently, was fact-checking. The operating system, QDOS (Quick and Dirty Operating System), which you implicitly mention, is itself based on CP/M (Control Program for Microcomputers), and so the Seattle company that created it was not by any means original. And the original Windows code was entirely developed at Microsoft--if you mean concepts, then again their originator was (for the most part) Xerox, whose managers never saw a use for the technology. And there is no "patent" covering Windows--in fact, many of the patents that could be construed to define the modern operating system are held by Apple. As for the "copied the basic coding of KDE, and have emulated Gnome", neither of those statements are true. While Windows may (or may not) incorporate BSD code, it certainly does not incorporate code from either KDE or GNOME. In fact, GNOME could be said to emulate Windows--simplified user interface, integrated network architecture, and centralized system configuration, among others. While I do agree that there is no compelling reason to upgrade to Vista--they fixed nothing that needed to be fixed and added more crap than Congress--please try to validate your arguments.
The only advantages Windows XP has over Windows 2000, when you eliminate superficial changes, are some kernel tweaks and the addition of (and updates to) several DLLs. Much of what separated the two in other ways has been backported in Windows 2000 service packs.
Someone would do well to inform the owner of that blog that his horrible abuse of accented characters, Icelandic characters, and a dagger only signifies to the casual and informed reader alike just how mentally deficient he or she is. There's creativity, and then there's just plain stupidity.
This topic leads the reader to conclude that there are only a narrow set of options. Readers should consider this from a broader perspective, and recognize the principles of a free market and a free society.
The ESRB is not perfect. No organization consisting of human beings can possibly be perfect. But the ESRB does do its job pretty well, when you consider its track record. Its mistakes have been minor, and it has more than bent over backward to try to correct them (the Hot Coffee fiasco, for example). The ESRB cannot be expected to end the exposure of violence, sexual activity, profanity, or drug abuse to impressionable young viewers. That's not its job. Its job is to assess the content of games and rate them. It is the job of a child's parents or guardians to enforce those ratings, should they choose to do so.
Nor is it the government's job to regulate the ESRB in some ill-fated attempt to "protect our children." Children are exposed to violence because their parents let them buy (or buy for them) games that have been clearly labelled as containing violent content. It is not the responsibility of the government to perform parents' jobs for them. The ratings are there, they're more than adequate, and the rest is up to the consumers. The idiots in congress want people to believe that the ESRB isn't up to the task. Not only is it up to the task, but has met it more than adequately. It cannot be held responsible if people do not heed its notices.
Should you trust the ESRB? Not blindly, but they have earned a large degree of trust.
Should you trust the government? That's the question you should be asking. The ESRB is liable to the market and the direct feedback of consumers. Your representatives, on the other hand, have a very high incumbency rate and serve two or six year terms.
How very right you are. But no English-speaking country (of which I am aware, anyway) uses the comma, and most (native) English speakers don't recognize it. And just as a side note, the .de top-level domain is for Germany; the Netherlands uses .nl.
Did the person who submitted this have a serious affliction for Standard English usage?
"82.4 km" not "82,4 km" (which is about 51.2 miles, something people living in the country that contains Arizona would be more familiar with)
"Sam Wittingham's record" not "Sam Wittinghams record"
"Rob English's diary" not "Rob English' diary"
"are not even close yet" should probably be "have not even been met yet" or something like that
The point of having editors is to edit, not just to copy and paste.
OpenBSD has held that title for the past twelve years. Windows lags far, far behind. If Vista can beat OpenBSD's record (a tough task, to say the least), then they can crown it champion--not before it's even released.
I fail to see how this tag applies!
Try looking at Netcraft's "Active Sites" data. It falls in line with what you're saying, and Netcraft makes full disclosure that the basic web server survey is unreliable for any sort of worthwhile statistics.
You have clearly demonstrated your lack of understanding in the English language, while attempting to illustrate that someone else lacks understanding in another area. The proper word is "effect", not "affect", which is a verb.
The oft-maligned wireless networks are not much more insecure than their LAN counterparts. And a wireless network secured with WPA or WPA2 can be more secure than most of its wired counterparts. Few people take the time to implement things like IPsec on the wired networks, so anyone with an Ethernet cable and port can connect. Of course, it's not the same as someone squatting outside of the building, but it's still not very secure.