Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Wait, what? (Score 1) 161

by UnknowingFool (#48617197) Attached to: Former iTunes Engineer Tells Court He Worked To Block Competitors

Obviously, since those two terms are exactly the same, but this did not circumvent DRM. Perhaps you need to explain what you think that term means because all of the digital rights management was preserved, not circumvented.

I don't think you know what ,a href="">DRM means.

Digital Rights Management (DRM) is a class of technologies that are used by hardware manufacturers, publishers, copyright holders, and individuals with the intent to control the use of digital content and devices after sale; there are, however, many competing definitions. With first-generation DRM software, the intent is to control copying; with second-generation DRM, the intent is to control executing, viewing, copying, printing, and altering of works or devices. The term is also sometimes referred to as copy protection, copy prevention, and copy control, although the correctness of apply DRM is in dispute.

How can DRM be preserved if the there was loss of control?

Oh right yes and if you dont like Microsoft having proprietary APIs in Windows you should just build your own operating system. It is the same anti-competitive behavior and the same dirty tactics, but they may be able to get away with it if they can prove they didnt have market power.

Now it is not. You are aware that everyone including MS did exactly as Apple did; build their own system. And how many different OS did Dell sell on their PCs? Only Windows. Apple to oranges. Having market power != monopoly.

It makes perfect sense to any person but an Apple apologist! The formats were fine, it was Apple's DRM layer that was the problem. Real allowed users to play music and maintained the DRM required by the publishers, Apple just didn't like that there was another competitor.

The standard for music still is MP3 and AAC, not Harmony, not FairPlay. Apple does not have to support another company's DRM. In cars there are standards for oil; although some cars and models use specialized blends. If Ford accepts 5W30 and their own blend for their cars, your point is that Ford must also accept GM's blend. That is ludicrous.

Wrong, there is no "standard" but Apple controlled the digital music market with iTunes+iPod so whatever they used was the defacto standard and they prevented any other companies from inter-operating. This is anti-competitive.

Assertion without fact or evidence. The vast majority of music was MP3. Even now most players default to this although AAC is starting to become more accepted. The fact that you could put any MP3 or AAC song onto an Apple device and play it defeats your silly anti-competitive argument.

Comment: Re:Wasn't there a book about this? (Score 1) 138

by UnknowingFool (#48617119) Attached to: How Birds Lost Their Teeth

Teeth or Beaks are binary in nature, we don't see any creatures with both. Your rant about binary nature is flawed, because while nature isn't binary, sometimes the results are.

You are aware that chicks have teeth right? It's how they break out of their eggs. They lose their tooth quickly after being hatched but they do have teeth for a short period. As for them not having teeth generally, this evidence shows they lost their teeth over millions and millions of years. I'm not sure where you get the idea of "temporary."

As for rants, keep stating that A must become B. That's not nature. A can still remain as A while a population of A becomes C. That's how most species evolve. You never did answer the question: Are whales half fish? Aren't they AB in your book? What about dogs? They are subspecies of wolves yet you never seen a wolf the size of a chihuahua. Yet dogs and wolves can still mate. This doesn't even encompass the many transitional forms found in fossils.

Comment: Re:Deals? (Score 1) 191

by UnknowingFool (#48612993) Attached to: Apple Wins iTunes DRM Case

For the most part Apple does what they always do: they work to make things easy for the consumer. Before Apple, you could buy music online. The sites were terrible to navigate and sometimes it wasn't even easy to pay. Pricing was ludicrous. Then you had to get your music software to authorize and then sync it to your device. PlaysForSure was almost an ironic name back then.

So here comes Apple: Consumers use iTunes for everything. payment, navigation, downloading are all integrated. All songs are the same price. Syncing your iPod was seamless. It's no small wonder that people were throwing their money at Apple as Apple made it ridiculously easy to buy music.

Comment: Re:Huh? (Score 1) 191

by UnknowingFool (#48612945) Attached to: Apple Wins iTunes DRM Case
So Apple can automagically remove all DRM from music you owned? What thinks Apple has the right to do so? As for existing DRM music they will continue to work; you could strip them manually if you want if you want to transcode from one lossy format to another. Or you could pay the music companies an additional fee to strip it and upgrade your music to a higher bit rate. I personally avoided DRM as much as possible so my upgrade price was a few dollars when the time came to remove it.

Comment: Re:I'm shocked. (Score 1) 191

by UnknowingFool (#48612925) Attached to: Apple Wins iTunes DRM Case

Microsoft's software stack is proprietary yet they got pinged for private APIs (which Apple does) and for bundling a web browser (which Apple does). It is the same anti-competitive behavior but Apple gets away with those dirty tactics because they dont technically have a monopoly.

You seem to miss some relevant details. First of all, Apple's browser can be removed. MS argued that they couldn't remove IE or it would break Windows. Second, the core components of Apple's browser was built on open source. Chrome is built on these components. How anti-competitive is it to not only choose open source for their browser but release additional parts beyond what was mandated by the license (JavaScriptCore and WebCore)? And you call those tactics "dirty"?

Comment: Re:Quoted from TFA (Score 5, Informative) 200

by UnknowingFool (#48608665) Attached to: NASA's $349 Million Empty Tower
And you 100% they didn't?

Since then, it’s spent an additional $57 million to keep building it, according to a February 2013 report by the agency’s inspector general, Paul Martin. Testifying before the House space subcommittee in September, Martin highlighted the A-3 as an example of how lawmakers, looking to keep federal dollars flowing to their states, can block efforts to cut unnecessary spending. “The political context in which NASA operates often impedes its efforts to reduce infrastructure,” he said."

This was reported by BusinessWeek almost a year ago.

Comment: Re:Wasn't there a book about this? (Score 1) 138

by UnknowingFool (#48607177) Attached to: How Birds Lost Their Teeth

Animals have A or B, but AB is not evolutionary advantageous to survive.

Your binary thinking is a major flaw in your thinking. Nature is not necessarily binary and you asserting AB is not advantageous without evidence. There are many examples of gradients like the fact that humans have remnants of a third eyelid. Transitional forms are not AB entirely.

This is not goal, it is a simple statement of what exists. The explanation is that A moves to B along an evolutionary line, where none of the AB survive long term.

Again, what? You are stating as a fact that none of AB survive long term. You don't know that. The fossil record clearly shows that transitional forms have existed and do exist like the giant panda..

This is a result, not a goal. Further evidenced by lack of any animals that progressed from B back to A (result, not goal).

Again stating something as fact when the fossil record says otherwise.

Do you understand the difference between goal and result?

Do you? All your arguments are about A marching towards B. That is not how evolution works.

Evolution is all about results of traits towards viability.

Again this is flawed understanding of evolution. You keep stating using the term "results" when you mean goals. There are no goals in evolution. There are no results in viability. A species is viable if it lives.

Viability is the "goal" ;)

You just contradicted yourself

In my sentance, I clearly show that A progress towards B in such a way that AB doesn't remain behind.

Again evolution is not a ladder from A to B with AB in the middle. There could be C, D, E, F, and G which all are in between and become their own species.

That is a result, not a goal.

You contradicted yourself above.

The viability of AB is what I am questioning, since there is no such thing long term. Viability of half stages is in question.

Again your binary thinking is frustrating. Everything is not 1/2 steps. Again dolphins and whales are not half fish.

A mutates and starts progressing towards B, it either stops and reverts at some point, staying A or it continues to B. However, the AB stage is temporary, thus indicating long term viability of AB is limited if it exists

What? Your understanding of evolution is highly flawed. A is not mutating towards B as some sort of goal. A will mutate. B may eventually come out of it. Any steps in between isn't temporary if it lasts millions of years. C, D, and E could result. That is what is in the fossil record. See cats. See dolphins.

The Term Superiority is one of resultant progression. As far as I know, B never revered back to A

AGAIN, B is not the end goal. "Superiority" is a judgement. There is no such thing as reverting back because evolution always takes place. Take for example the cheetah. By your logic, the cheetah must be faster to keep evolving. That is not understanding of evolution. They cheetah could evolve to become a longer distance runner or ambush by stealth like jaguars. You cannot say that either method of killing is better.

Dogs and wolves are both Canines, and not enough differences exist to support your hypothesis.

No, dogs descended from wolves. The DNA proves it. Unless you are serious denial of facts (which at this point I don't doubt). And my hypothesis is not a hypothesis; it is a fact that wolves had advantages over dogs and disadvantages over dogs.

I've seen tamed wolves and wild dogs, to the point where the wild dogs were more dangerous to humans than tamed wolves.

If you want to keep a tame wolf around your family, then you are an idiot. As for dogs being tamed by humans, please don't conflate the subject. Wild dogs are not tamed and you know it.

Comment: Re:Wasn't there a book about this? (Score 2) 138

by UnknowingFool (#48605417) Attached to: How Birds Lost Their Teeth

The problem I see with many people is that they see evolution as binary. Everything must be an advantage to be passed on and that mutations are bad. No, mutations are normal with some providing advantages and some are disadvantages. And as you pointed out, some traits have no effect whatsoever. Other traits appear to be a disadvantage or an advantage given the right environment. Fair skin, for example, is advantage in places like Norway where more vitamin D is produced with less light. It is a terrible disadvantage in places of high sunlight like the Sahara, American Southwest, etc.

And some traits are both an advantage and disadvantage like sickle cell anemia. It cuts the lifespan by years and is painful to deal with. However genetically it provides those with the genes an advantage when it comes to malaria which can cause death.

Comment: Re:Wasn't there a book about this? (Score 1) 138

by UnknowingFool (#48605319) Attached to: How Birds Lost Their Teeth

Evolution is results driven, not goal driven that is true. Now figure out how the results of two partial stages has an advantage over surviving that doesn't last for any length of time.

Again, evolution is not goal driven. Your second sentence contradicts your first admission. A trait survives when it provides or benefit or is neutral. You keep forgetting a trait that provides no advantage can be passed. The issue is really if a trait that proves to be a disadvantage affects a species ability to procreate.

No animals have A and B, but somehow we are supposed to believe that animals having A/B existed and had enough advantage to beat out those having A, on their way to having B, but the A/B didn't beat out those who ended up B only.

I can take from your long-winded and illogical sentence that you're never seen a dolphin or whale in your life? ,a href="">Cetaceans are water animals yet they breathe air. Again, you keep insisting goal driven results of advantages.

This would indicate that B is evolutionary superior(advantageous) to A, such that many animals starting at A, and developing B, ended up at B, while completely replacing the A/B combinations.

Again, evolution is not goal driven. You keep insisting that B must be "superior" to A will surely mean that all As dies. In many ways dogs are "superior" to wolves but yet wolves still exist. They exist because "superior" is a judgement not science. Wolves have advantages over dogs and disadvantages over dogs. One of the main disadvantages is that dogs can live with humans whereas wolves cannot; however, wolves are much better suited to living in the wild than dogs.

The clash of ideas is the sound of freedom.