I know this is a common myth, but truly, trust me. There is a big difference between Vista's graphics and OSX. And I am not so much talking about the UI, the the driver model, the WPF technologies and all the other things OSX or any other OS will simply just not do.
No, I don't trust you. Everything in Windows Vista's graphics architecture is derivative from that of Mac OS X.
Here's a handy buzzword translation guide for you: Windows Vista technology - Mac OS X technology Direct3D - OpenGL WPF (Windows presentation Foundation, "Avalon") - Quartz WDDM (Windows Display Driver Model) - Quartz Extreme XPS (XML Paper Specification, "Metro") - PDF Aero Glass - Aqua Flip/Flip 3D - Expose ClearType - (generic) sub-pixel rendering, "Font Smoothing."
Now name something...anything...that Windows Vista can do that can't be done already in Mac OS X.
Satisfied PowerBook owner here, and yes, it was suffering.
That so many people would choose a PowerBook over an Pentium-M notebook speaks more to the appeal of Apple's OS than the strength of the G4. A 167MHz bus limit, glacial progress in advancing clock speed, and no clear successor chip mean that the G4 can't remain competitive for very long. Certainly not in the face of the 2GHz Core Duo notebooks that are starting to hit the market.
Wanna take bets as to which system will win in a test of wills???
According to current, public knowledge of mathematics, a well-designed algorithm, implemented properly, can be secure against any sort of known multi-room mega-computer.
That is, a BlueGene/L-class system (or even something 1000 times more powerful) using any known factoring algorithm, would not be able to crack AES-encrypted traffic in any reasonable amount of time.
Of course there is always the risk that the NSA has a functioning quantum computer, and/or a nice O(n) prime factorization algorithm. But that's not so much a test of wills as a test of the limits of science.
my 18-month old son was in the ER for a respiratory infection when the doctor offered to give him a flu shot.
The odd thing is, the correlation between mercury and autism is essentially zero. Your son is more likely to die of influenza than to suffer from autism as a result of some vaccination.
In the specific case of Disney's direct-to-video sequels, these films were never intended to be of theatrical-release quality. These films are mostly assembled with a formulaic storyline, second-rate voice talent, and a bare minimum of animation artistry, all on a shoestring budget. The management at Disney never intended for these to be comparable to the originals in any capacity. They never even had a chance to be great.
I haven't seen Bambi II yet, but I guarantee you it won't come close to the quality of the original. I can make that judgement without having seen it, because of the manner in which it was conceived.
Plenty of Hollywood sequels (Godfather II, Empire Strikes Back, and yes, even Toy Story 2) have been acclaimed more highly than their predecessors. In most cases, this was because they were guided by the same director and/or creative team, who in turn were allowed their freedom by the studio. Too often, the studio management elects to make a sequel without the input of the first film's creators, and often there is an artificial pressure to do it quickly, while the first film is still "fresh." Most importantly, film studios are notoriously risk-averse, which is not usually a creative asset. Disney's animation department, of late, has exemplified these traits, and so I can say without hesitation that Toy Story 3 would have sucked.
This raises the question of whether, now that Pixar will be a division of Disney, Pixar features will continue to enjoy this level of special treatment (and the Pixar division will continue to enjoy this level of artistic control), or whether Disney will now revert to its customary practices when it comes to Pixar sequels.
Good question. For example, I've heard that Disney was putting Toy Story 3 into production. Wonder how that's going?
OMG WTF TEH RIAA SAYS SHARING ANY FILE IS ILLEGAL!!!1!
The entire "article" (blog posting) that started this ruckus says
"In opposition papers served yesterday in Elektra v. Barker in Manhattan federal court, the RIAA has argued that merely making files "available for distribution" is in and of itself a copyright violation.
Were the courts to accept this misguided view of copyright law, it could mean that anyone who has had a shared files folder, even for a moment, that contained copyrighted files in it, would be guilty of copyright infringement, even though the copies in the folder were legally obtained, and even though no illegal copies had ever been made of them.
I am one of the attorneys for Ms. Barker." (emphasis mine)
The RIAA is not claiming that sharing, for example, a file placed in the public domain is illegal, the RIAA is claiming that if you make a copyrighted file available, you are violating the law. (Even if the file is never actually downloaded.) Ordinarily, you have to prove that infringement (ie, downloading by an unauthorized party) has actually occurred. The RIAA is claiming that creating the opportunity for infringement is sufficient.
If the workstation vendors had picked a chip...any chip...they might have had a chance. Their combined investment might have countered Intel's, and their combined volume might have increased their economies of scale to the point where workstation price/performance remained competitive. (In the early days, this actually happened...around the Motorola 6800, which most vendors used, and which, for a while, held the x86 world in awe.)
In reality, each company had its pet chip, and both management and engineers were too caught up in not-invented-here to survive.
In the very-small-town my parents live in, there are two places to work: the Post Office, and the bait-and-tackle store (no kidding.) In the larger-small-town nearby, there are a couple of gas stations, bank branches, a curio shop or two, and five or six restaurants and bars. A hardware and small grocery store. Maybe an insurance agent, I forgot.
Probably 75% of the (employed) population of the larger-small-town has to drive to the local Small City (Pop. 100k) every day for work. Virtually all of the residents of the very-small-town work there. (Probably 40% of households in both towns are retired or semi-retired.) At least for these small towns, there are two career paths: Retail/Foodservice, and Small City Commuter. They are little more than suburbs, their economies entirely dependent on the Small City and the pensions of the retired residents.
The future of these two small towns is pretty obvious. The farmland is being carved up and sold off. The roads into the Small City are being improved and widened. Residents of the Small City are moving in, as are baby-boomer retirees. Taxes are rising, traffic is worsening, construction filth are is cluttering the landscape and no doubt the criminal element will follow.
"Saving" a small town does not mean turning it into a bustling urban metropolis. It means keeping it from being swallowed by one.
And why would they be willing? Why move from Aston Martin to Fiat?
Doubtless that would be one of the things a savvy manager would consider before selling. Jobs wants a return on his investment, and Disney wants to retain the people its paying for. That's easy enough to do: Salary, bonuses, and other benefits go a long way. For creative people, give them assurances that they will have creative control over their work for Disney. For key managers, directors, and writers, offer a contract that gives them guarantees in exchange for x number of films.
After all, Aston Martin was bought out by Ford Motor years ago.
Irony? I don't see what is unexpected about this. The PPC chips used in Apple computers weren't all that powerful relative to their new x86 chips. On the other hand, x86 computers are at least comparable in power to the IA64 architecture chips. Emulation of worse chips is easier than emulation of better ones... at least when it comes to real time performance.
You've been listening to too much Apple "2-3x faster" marketing hype.
For instance, there are now quite a few benchmarks of the Core Duo iMac. There's the Ars one that was shown on Slashdot a while ago, and the Macintouch one.
The Core Duo iMac, with two x86 cores, is a very small improvement over the single PPC970. Compared to a two-and-a-half-year-old dual-CPU Power Mac G5, the Core Duo iMac is pathetic. And this is running Intel-native applications like QuickTime and iTunes.
Since this is a stock-for-stock deal, Steve would have to be reasonably sure that the Disney stock he'd be getting would appreciate faster than the Pixar stock he'd be giving up. So I'm sure he'd talk things over with Pixar's "talent" to make sure that they'd be willing to stay and work under Disney before selling.
Compared to the old floppy-spread viruses, modern internet worms are a flash in the pan. The older ones had staying power, and could wait patiently on a floppy for half a decade and then become active again.
This had nothing to do with "double" brain cancer.
Say you survey a million people. Of your million people, half a million use cell phones. Half a million don't. Of the half-million cell phone users, 10 have brain tumors. Of these, nine have tumors on the phone side. One has a tumor on the non-phone side. Of the half-million non-cell phone users, 10 have brain tumors. [The above data was entirely made up.]
You'd expect that an ordinary group of brain cancer victims would report a tumor on the left side ~50% of the time, and a tumor on the right ~50% of the time. Instead, the survey found that cell-phone-using cancer victims reported a tumor on the phone side more often than on the non-phone side.
But, there was no overall increase in cancer rates. So in other words, cell phones both promote same-side tumors and inhibit opposite-side tumors, but the effects perfectly cancel each other out so that the overall cancer rate is the same. Either that, or the cancer victims weren't reporting accurately.
Is it possible for a one cent piece to be worth more than one cent?
No, I think that's right. A penny (the coin) may be worth more than its face value (1 cent, US$ 0.01.) This is already true of older pennies among coin collectors. You can pull, say, a "wheat" penny out of ordinary circulation and get several cents for it, if it's in good condition.
Many decades ago, the refrigerator-sized box that contained the whatsits that did logical operations (it was not a "microprocessor" back then) was called the CPU. It was the Central Processing Unit, because it was the unit in the center of the room where all the processing was done.
As time progressed and technology advanced, this refrigerator-sized box shrank to the point where it could fit underneath a desk. Eventually, it could even fit on top of the desk, and had enough empty space inside to accommodate storage devices. But historically, "CPU" is the correct term for the box that holds the whatsits, however small the actual whatsits inside have become.
Yes it is a rootkit, but you missed the point of how it GOT on the Macs without someone installing it, that is where the problem is, it doesn't matter what rootkit or trojan was being dropped in using the exploit it used.
Exactly. In order for the rootkit/trojan to get onto the Mac, one of four things must have happened:
A) The Mac had an unsafe network configuration (firewall off, services enabled, weak password, possibly an unpatched remote vulnerability)
B) A malicious user had physical access to the machine
C) A malicious user was authorized to use the machine (special case of B, really)
D) The machine's owner deliberately installed the rootkit, and forgot about it.
No antivirus application yet devised would have protected the user against any of these scenarios, regardless of OS. The idea that the Opener/Renepo rootkit somehow validates antivirus software on OS X is laughable.
If that were the case, then the only possible name for the computer would be "Apple MacBook INTEL INTEL CORE DUO INTEL INTEL INTEL!!!1!ONE!"
If Dell can ship PowerEdge servers and still get Intel Inside marketing support, then surely Apple can ship a PowerBook without diluting Intel's marketing "signal."
Find one of the old Blue and White G3 or Graphite/Quicksilver/MDD G4 towers. Those things are tough. I could definitely stand or walk on one. I've read of two situations in which those machines survived building fires, and one was thrown across a room in a car crash (the one on the floor.)
I can't speak for the G5 towers, and the various iMacs generally aren't exceptionally durable. The eMac is at least tough enough for middle schools. As for Apple's laptops, they're not ruggedized by any stretch of the imagination, but seem to fail from natural causes far more often than accidents.
I accept that governments have legitimate reasons for keeping secrets from their populace.
However, I think that there is an important bit of self-examination that needs to take place on the part of those in government. This can be summed up in one question: If the people of this country were to find out tomorrow what I've been doing, would they approve?
Developing things like the SR-71 or other advanced defense technologies would probably be seen as legitimate by most of the U.S. population. On the other hand, developing, say, biological weapons to use against civilians would probably not. Sooner or later, every secret will get out. The Blackbird did, the F-117 did, the Trinity project did, Watergate did, and the testing of Syphilis study on poor Blacks did, the use of the Navajo language as a code in WWII did. Secrecy is temporary, but some revelations are met with approval, and some with outrage.
If you are a politician, military leader, intelligence operative, or anything of the sort, consider: Sooner or later, your child or grandchild will learn about what you did, When that happens, will you be proud? If everyone in government asked him/herself this every day, a lot of scandals would be averted.
The thing is, The "Power" in "PowerBook," as others have noted, had nothing to do with "PowerPC." The first PowerBook laptops used 680x0 processors; it was never about the Power platform.
Hell, if I can get a magnetic power cord in a rice cooker, why should I get this Apple thingy? Just because it looks cool?
Apple seems to think that their fancy "Dual-core processors," "Unix-based OS," "Bundled multimedia and productivity software," "Integrated full-motion webcam," and "remote control" are useful features. All people really want is a quick-disconnect power cord (and maybe some capability for heating food.) Apple may be riding high on the strength of the iPod now, but sooner or later everyone except the elitist beret-wearing arts majors will realize that they can get a magnetic cord for thousands less. When that happens, mark my words, Apple's stock price will crash to earth.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, at least I didn't post an ad-hominem attack with no facts whatsoever.
*wink*
I know this is a common myth, but truly, trust me. There is a big difference between Vista's graphics and OSX. And I am not so much talking about the UI, the the driver model, the WPF technologies and all the other things OSX or any other OS will simply just not do.
No, I don't trust you. Everything in Windows Vista's graphics architecture is derivative from that of Mac OS X.
Here's a handy buzzword translation guide for you:
Windows Vista technology - Mac OS X technology
Direct3D - OpenGL
WPF (Windows presentation Foundation, "Avalon") - Quartz
WDDM (Windows Display Driver Model) - Quartz Extreme
XPS (XML Paper Specification, "Metro") - PDF
Aero Glass - Aqua
Flip/Flip 3D - Expose
ClearType - (generic) sub-pixel rendering, "Font Smoothing."
Now name something...anything...that Windows Vista can do that can't be done already in Mac OS X.
Satisfied PowerBook owner here, and yes, it was suffering.
That so many people would choose a PowerBook over an Pentium-M notebook speaks more to the appeal of Apple's OS than the strength of the G4. A 167MHz bus limit, glacial progress in advancing clock speed, and no clear successor chip mean that the G4 can't remain competitive for very long. Certainly not in the face of the 2GHz Core Duo notebooks that are starting to hit the market.
Wanna take bets as to which system will win in a test of wills???
According to current, public knowledge of mathematics, a well-designed algorithm, implemented properly, can be secure against any sort of known multi-room mega-computer.
That is, a BlueGene/L-class system (or even something 1000 times more powerful) using any known factoring algorithm, would not be able to crack AES-encrypted traffic in any reasonable amount of time.
Of course there is always the risk that the NSA has a functioning quantum computer, and/or a nice O(n) prime factorization algorithm. But that's not so much a test of wills as a test of the limits of science.
my 18-month old son was in the ER for a respiratory infection when the doctor offered to give him a flu shot.
The odd thing is, the correlation between mercury and autism is essentially zero. Your son is more likely to die of influenza than to suffer from autism as a result of some vaccination.
In the specific case of Disney's direct-to-video sequels, these films were never intended to be of theatrical-release quality. These films are mostly assembled with a formulaic storyline, second-rate voice talent, and a bare minimum of animation artistry, all on a shoestring budget. The management at Disney never intended for these to be comparable to the originals in any capacity. They never even had a chance to be great.
I haven't seen Bambi II yet, but I guarantee you it won't come close to the quality of the original. I can make that judgement without having seen it, because of the manner in which it was conceived.
Plenty of Hollywood sequels (Godfather II, Empire Strikes Back, and yes, even Toy Story 2) have been acclaimed more highly than their predecessors. In most cases, this was because they were guided by the same director and/or creative team, who in turn were allowed their freedom by the studio. Too often, the studio management elects to make a sequel without the input of the first film's creators, and often there is an artificial pressure to do it quickly, while the first film is still "fresh." Most importantly, film studios are notoriously risk-averse, which is not usually a creative asset. Disney's animation department, of late, has exemplified these traits, and so I can say without hesitation that Toy Story 3 would have sucked.
This raises the question of whether, now that Pixar will be a division of Disney, Pixar features will continue to enjoy this level of special treatment (and the Pixar division will continue to enjoy this level of artistic control), or whether Disney will now revert to its customary practices when it comes to Pixar sequels.
Good question. For example, I've heard that Disney was putting Toy Story 3 into production. Wonder how that's going?
OMG WTF TEH RIAA SAYS SHARING ANY FILE IS ILLEGAL!!!1!
The entire "article" (blog posting) that started this ruckus says
"In opposition papers served yesterday in Elektra v. Barker in Manhattan federal court, the RIAA has argued that merely making files "available for distribution" is in and of itself a copyright violation.
Were the courts to accept this misguided view of copyright law, it could mean that anyone who has had a shared files folder, even for a moment, that contained copyrighted files in it, would be guilty of copyright infringement, even though the copies in the folder were legally obtained, and even though no illegal copies had ever been made of them.
I am one of the attorneys for Ms. Barker." (emphasis mine)
The RIAA is not claiming that sharing, for example, a file placed in the public domain is illegal, the RIAA is claiming that if you make a copyrighted file available, you are violating the law. (Even if the file is never actually downloaded.) Ordinarily, you have to prove that infringement (ie, downloading by an unauthorized party) has actually occurred. The RIAA is claiming that creating the opportunity for infringement is sufficient.
That's pretty much the way it went.
If the workstation vendors had picked a chip...any chip...they might have had a chance. Their combined investment might have countered Intel's, and their combined volume might have increased their economies of scale to the point where workstation price/performance remained competitive. (In the early days, this actually happened...around the Motorola 6800, which most vendors used, and which, for a while, held the x86 world in awe.)
In reality, each company had its pet chip, and both management and engineers were too caught up in not-invented-here to survive.
In the very-small-town my parents live in, there are two places to work: the Post Office, and the bait-and-tackle store (no kidding.) In the larger-small-town nearby, there are a couple of gas stations, bank branches, a curio shop or two, and five or six restaurants and bars. A hardware and small grocery store. Maybe an insurance agent, I forgot.
Probably 75% of the (employed) population of the larger-small-town has to drive to the local Small City (Pop. 100k) every day for work. Virtually all of the residents of the very-small-town work there. (Probably 40% of households in both towns are retired or semi-retired.) At least for these small towns, there are two career paths: Retail/Foodservice, and Small City Commuter. They are little more than suburbs, their economies entirely dependent on the Small City and the pensions of the retired residents.
The future of these two small towns is pretty obvious. The farmland is being carved up and sold off. The roads into the Small City are being improved and widened. Residents of the Small City are moving in, as are baby-boomer retirees. Taxes are rising, traffic is worsening, construction filth are is cluttering the landscape and no doubt the criminal element will follow.
"Saving" a small town does not mean turning it into a bustling urban metropolis. It means keeping it from being swallowed by one.
And why would they be willing? Why move from Aston Martin to Fiat?
Doubtless that would be one of the things a savvy manager would consider before selling. Jobs wants a return on his investment, and Disney wants to retain the people its paying for. That's easy enough to do: Salary, bonuses, and other benefits go a long way. For creative people, give them assurances that they will have creative control over their work for Disney. For key managers, directors, and writers, offer a contract that gives them guarantees in exchange for x number of films.
After all, Aston Martin was bought out by Ford Motor years ago.
Irony? I don't see what is unexpected about this. The PPC chips used in Apple computers weren't all that powerful relative to their new x86 chips. On the other hand, x86 computers are at least comparable in power to the IA64 architecture chips. Emulation of worse chips is easier than emulation of better ones... at least when it comes to real time performance.
You've been listening to too much Apple "2-3x faster" marketing hype.
For instance, there are now quite a few benchmarks of the Core Duo iMac. There's the Ars one that was shown on Slashdot a while ago, and the Macintouch one.
The Core Duo iMac, with two x86 cores, is a very small improvement over the single PPC970. Compared to a two-and-a-half-year-old dual-CPU Power Mac G5, the Core Duo iMac is pathetic. And this is running Intel-native applications like QuickTime and iTunes.
Pixar is majority-owned by one particular black-turtleneck-wearing shareholder who happens to be CEO. So unless he's willing to sell, you can't buy Pixar.
Since this is a stock-for-stock deal, Steve would have to be reasonably sure that the Disney stock he'd be getting would appreciate faster than the Pixar stock he'd be giving up. So I'm sure he'd talk things over with Pixar's "talent" to make sure that they'd be willing to stay and work under Disney before selling.
Compared to the old floppy-spread viruses, modern internet worms are a flash in the pan. The older ones had staying power, and could wait patiently on a floppy for half a decade and then become active again.
This had nothing to do with "double" brain cancer.
Say you survey a million people.
Of your million people, half a million use cell phones. Half a million don't.
Of the half-million cell phone users, 10 have brain tumors.
Of these, nine have tumors on the phone side. One has a tumor on the non-phone side.
Of the half-million non-cell phone users, 10 have brain tumors.
[The above data was entirely made up.]
You'd expect that an ordinary group of brain cancer victims would report a tumor on the left side ~50% of the time, and a tumor on the right ~50% of the time. Instead, the survey found that cell-phone-using cancer victims reported a tumor on the phone side more often than on the non-phone side.
But, there was no overall increase in cancer rates. So in other words, cell phones both promote same-side tumors and inhibit opposite-side tumors, but the effects perfectly cancel each other out so that the overall cancer rate is the same. Either that, or the cancer victims weren't reporting accurately.
Is it possible for a one cent piece to be worth more than one cent?
No, I think that's right. A penny (the coin) may be worth more than its face value (1 cent, US$ 0.01.) This is already true of older pennies among coin collectors. You can pull, say, a "wheat" penny out of ordinary circulation and get several cents for it, if it's in good condition.
Many decades ago, the refrigerator-sized box that contained the whatsits that did logical operations (it was not a "microprocessor" back then) was called the CPU. It was the Central Processing Unit, because it was the unit in the center of the room where all the processing was done.
As time progressed and technology advanced, this refrigerator-sized box shrank to the point where it could fit underneath a desk. Eventually, it could even fit on top of the desk, and had enough empty space inside to accommodate storage devices. But historically, "CPU" is the correct term for the box that holds the whatsits, however small the actual whatsits inside have become.
"This is the thirty-third floor. Going up."
...
They actually had one of these in a building I worked in. It was only in the freight elevator, and it wasn't a very tall building.
But then, there's the morning rush.
"This is the second floor. Going up."
"This is the third floor. Going up."
"This is the fourth floor. Going up."
Talk about annoying.
Yes it is a rootkit, but you missed the point of how it GOT on the Macs without someone installing it, that is where the problem is, it doesn't matter what rootkit or trojan was being dropped in using the exploit it used.
Exactly. In order for the rootkit/trojan to get onto the Mac, one of four things must have happened:
A) The Mac had an unsafe network configuration (firewall off, services enabled, weak password, possibly an unpatched remote vulnerability)
B) A malicious user had physical access to the machine
C) A malicious user was authorized to use the machine (special case of B, really)
D) The machine's owner deliberately installed the rootkit, and forgot about it.
No antivirus application yet devised would have protected the user against any of these scenarios, regardless of OS. The idea that the Opener/Renepo rootkit somehow validates antivirus software on OS X is laughable.
If that were the case, then the only possible name for the computer would be "Apple MacBook INTEL INTEL CORE DUO INTEL INTEL INTEL!!!1!ONE!"
If Dell can ship PowerEdge servers and still get Intel Inside marketing support, then surely Apple can ship a PowerBook without diluting Intel's marketing "signal."
Find one of the old Blue and White G3 or Graphite/Quicksilver/MDD G4 towers. Those things are tough. I could definitely stand or walk on one. I've read of two situations in which those machines survived building fires, and one was thrown across a room in a car crash (the one on the floor.)
I can't speak for the G5 towers, and the various iMacs generally aren't exceptionally durable. The eMac is at least tough enough for middle schools. As for Apple's laptops, they're not ruggedized by any stretch of the imagination, but seem to fail from natural causes far more often than accidents.
I accept that governments have legitimate reasons for keeping secrets from their populace.
However, I think that there is an important bit of self-examination that needs to take place on the part of those in government. This can be summed up in one question: If the people of this country were to find out tomorrow what I've been doing, would they approve?
Developing things like the SR-71 or other advanced defense technologies would probably be seen as legitimate by most of the U.S. population. On the other hand, developing, say, biological weapons to use against civilians would probably not. Sooner or later, every secret will get out. The Blackbird did, the F-117 did, the Trinity project did, Watergate did, and the testing of Syphilis study on poor Blacks did, the use of the Navajo language as a code in WWII did. Secrecy is temporary, but some revelations are met with approval, and some with outrage.
If you are a politician, military leader, intelligence operative, or anything of the sort, consider: Sooner or later, your child or grandchild will learn about what you did, When that happens, will you be proud? If everyone in government asked him/herself this every day, a lot of scandals would be averted.
The thing is, The "Power" in "PowerBook," as others have noted, had nothing to do with "PowerPC." The first PowerBook laptops used 680x0 processors; it was never about the Power platform.
Hell, if I can get a magnetic power cord in a rice cooker, why should I get this Apple thingy? Just because it looks cool?
Apple seems to think that their fancy "Dual-core processors," "Unix-based OS," "Bundled multimedia and productivity software," "Integrated full-motion webcam," and "remote control" are useful features. All people really want is a quick-disconnect power cord (and maybe some capability for heating food.) Apple may be riding high on the strength of the iPod now, but sooner or later everyone except the elitist beret-wearing arts majors will realize that they can get a magnetic cord for thousands less. When that happens, mark my words, Apple's stock price will crash to earth.
that software which rules your music collection
Meaning it puts it in folders?
one which is in some ways spyware (reporting back to apple what you listen to)
No...it doesn't.
At what point will MP3s become unsupported unless digitally signed by some Authorized Party such as Apple or the RIAA?
Any minute now, I'm sure.