That was my point. It made sense back in 2001, but not any more. In fact they need a fast ARM chip just to decrypt the iTunes database now, and the encryption serves no purpose other than blocking interoperability.
Translation: Booh-Hooh, Apple keeps backwards compatibility instead of throwing everything over board!
Why don't you stick to that the next time discussing anything regarding Apple , okay?
I have a PMP that you load music onto like an external hard drive. It also has an internal database that it keeps updated, so that it's used in the same manner as the ipod. (Philips GoGear Vibe, so it's not a pricey one by any stretch).
When you've finished changing the files you just unplug from the PC, the device automatically takes about 15 seconds to scan the files on it and rebuild its database, and that's it.
It also supports MTP.
I had an older Sandisk model that ran of a AAA cell about 9 years ago that operated in the same way. You never had to navigate the filesystem to play media - it was just there to make syncs easier.
Wow, just 7 years after the iPod came out, MPs are able to run a SQLite database - I guess if Apple would just have waited 6 years, they could have done that instead of wasting their time with the iPod.
Playlists don't, and never have, copied files or required sole access to them. All of the common playlist formats are basically just text files with a list of filenames - you can open & edit them in Notepad!
So they break when somebody moves or renames the files. Wasn't the whole point being able to "manage your files" - which then breaks things?
There will be. Unfortunately, those who would take over our computers do not share our lack of imagination.
The question is: will those case already be fixed by the existing "fast" patches? At least the first patch (that everybody but Apple rushed out) was nothing but duct tape over the big visible hole. It certainly didn't fix the underlying problem.
That's not a "dirty secret". Having a single component that launches all daemons is a laudable improvement over the adhoc, multiple methods that had grown up in Unix like OSs.
Linux has political problems between Linus and the systemd team, and systemd may be overreaching. None of which is relevant to OSXs entirely different component launchd.
And if anyone thinks there's any copying going on here, take note of the direction - OSX launchd dates back to 2005. Linux systemd to 2010.
Not to mention that launchd is Open Source.
They noted less sea ice, they noted the walruses, they noted AGW, and just linked A to B to C without bothering to any science in between. That is my problem.
It's probably completely bogus. The sea ice isn't far from normal for this time of year, and higher than in other recent years. It's higher than in 2005, not quite as high as 2006.
Why do you bring up all of the Arctic to tell us there must be sea ice around Alaska - there fucking isn't: http://pafc.arh.noaa.gov/ice.p...
Or, to quote TFA: "In recent years, sea ice has receded north beyond shallow continental shelf waters and into Arctic Ocean water, where depths exceed 2 miles and walrus cannot dive to the bottom."
But nooo, the walrus are just taking a hiatus on the beach because they are imagining things. When they should be swimming north a couple hundred miles.
If someone says, "oh look, it's warm out, that proves global warming," they are a warmist. If someone says, "oh look, it's cold out, that disproves global warming," they are a denialist. Neither side is scientific.
And if somebody is saying "Oh look, there is no warming. It's a 'hiatus'", they are falling for the golden mean fallacy.
Ok you want real science? Here is what the Zoologist Dr. Susan Crockford has to say on the subject: Mass haulouts of Pacific walrus and stampede deaths are not new, not due to low ice cover AGW may have severe effects on the environment (18 year pause anyone?), but THIS is not one of them.
This is the usual "Banks have been robbed even before I was born, so I couldn't have possibly robbed this one" tactic the deniers love so much.
Zoologist Dr. Susan Crockford
Quite an unfortunate name - until you consider she's financed by the Heartland Institute. Quite fitting, actually.
Targeting and suppression of people using a tech device isn't news that matters? Seriously go fuck yourself and stop speaking for everyone on slashdot like you're our representative.
So pointing out that to suppress people they would have to jailbreak their iPhones is useless information that just aids in the suppression, but not even mentioning the existence of Android apps related to the Trojan is utterly okay.
How is it FUD that protesters in Hong Kong are being targeted for malware? You might not have to worry about it with a no jailbreak phone, but you probably also don't have to worry about it if you aren't in Hong Kong protesting the Chinese Government hand selecting candidates for the elections.
Feel free to go back to sticking your head in the sand and not worrying about the troubles of people around the globe as long as things are rosy in your neighborhood.
And somehow you think the protestors are not to worry about the (older) Android Trojan that shares the same C&C servers. Which for some reason seem to be located in South Korea?
As usual some ass hat doesn't read the article before commenting.
The article itself doesn't mention the jail break portion. How do you expect the poster to?
This is Slashdot, most don't even bother reading the summary, let alone the article to the part where the real info is hidden.
If this ruling sticks then a major adjustment in AAPL's price is coming down the tracks. Should be good for roughly a 15-20% drop. At 16, AAPL's p/e is looking a little pricey in any case. Other tech perps are no doubt peering anxiously over their shoulders but AAPL is the standout bad actor.
Then please do short Apple - this should be fun.
Meh, corporations will simply set up mailboxes on Mars, much like they do in Luxembourg or Lichtenstein,
You are confusing that with Delaware. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... - this single-story building is the (US-) residence of 6,500 corporations, and more than 200,000 businesses.
But if the Irish laws supported Apple what's the legal basis for trying to claim back taxes?
I believe that the claim is that *both* Apple and the Irish government colluded to bypass Irish laws (derived from EU directives). In that case the Irish government is also going to be in trouble, treaty-wise.
You, like most her, completely misunderstood what's going on. QTFA: "While the companies themselves aren't under investigation, their input is being sought because they would be required to return any unpaid taxes."
I repeat: Apple is not under investigation, they will not be fined. The worst that can happen to them is be required to pay taxes saved. It's only Ireland who is in trouble (and the other countries under investigation).
Old programmers never die, they just become managers.
