Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Update — No DRM In New iPod Shuffle

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the nothing-to-see-here dept.

Media (Apple) 264

An anonymous reader writes "BoingBoing Gadgets has updated their story from yesterday on DRM contained in the new iPod Shuffle. (We also discussed this rumor last week.) It's a false alarm. There is a chip in the headphone controls but it is just an encoder chip. There is no DRM and no reason to believe that third party headphones wouldn't work with the new Shuffle. (Apple would still prefer you to license the encoder under the Made for iPod program, but with no DRM, there is no DMCA risk to a manufacturer reverse engineering it.) The money quote: 'For the record, we do not believe that the new iPod headphones with in-line remote use DRM that affects audio playback in any way.'"

cancel ×

264 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

i have mod points but fp i guess (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27222027)

:) fp!!

or not?

phirst poast tsarkon YODA GREASE (-1, Offtopic)

tsarkon (635349) | more than 4 years ago | (#27222033)

Second Poast? Tsarkon Reports 9 Step Yoda Grease 9 steps to greasing your anus for Yoda Doll Insertion!
v 4.50.3
$YodaBSD: src/release/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/yodanotes/9stepprocess.sgml,v 4.50.3 2009/03/12 05:52:25 tsarkon Exp $
  1. Defecate. Preferably after eating senna, ex lax, prunes, cabbage, pickled eggs, and Vietnamese chili garlic sauce. To better enhance the pleasure of this whole process, defecation should be performed in the Return of the Jedi wastebasket for added pleasure. [homestead.com]
  2. Wipe ass with witch hazel, which soothes horrific burns. (Rob "CmdrTaco" Malda certifies that his lips, raw like beaten flank steak from nearly continuous analingus with dogs, are greatly soothed by witch hazel.)
  3. Prime anus with anal ease. [cduniverse.com] (Now Cherry Flavored for those butthole lick-o-phillic amongst you - very popular with 99% of the Slashdotting public!)
  4. Slather richly a considerable amount of Vaseline and/or other anal lubricants into your rectum at least until the bend and also take your Yoda Doll [theswca.com] , Yoda Shampoo bottle [homestead.com] or Yoda soap-on-a-rope [homestead.com] and liberally apply the lubricants to the Doll/Shampoo/Soap-on-a-rope.
  5. Put a nigger do-rag [firstlinemfg.com] on Yoda's head so the ears don't stick out like daggers!
  6. Make sure to have a mechanism by which to fish Yoda out of your rectum, the soap on the rope is especially useful because the retrieval mechanism is built in. [homestead.com]
  7. Pucker and relax your balloon knot several times actuating the sphincter muscle in order to prepare for what is to come.
  8. Slowly rest yourself onto your Yoda figurine. Be careful, he's probably bigger than the dicks normally being shoved up your ass! [thegreenhead.com]
  9. Gyrate gleefully in your computer chair while your fat sexless geek nerd loser fat shit self enjoys the prostate massage you'll be getting. Think about snoodling [urbandictionary.com] with the Sarlaac pit. Read Slashdot. Masturbate to anime. Email one of the editors hoping they will honor you with a reply. Join several more dating services - this time, you don't select the (desired - speaks English) and (desired - literate). You figure you might get a chance then. Order some fucking crap from Think Geek. Get Linux to boot on a Black and Decker Appliance. Wish you could afford a new computer. Argue that cheap-ass discount bin hardware works 'just as well' as the quality and premium hardware because you can't afford the real stuff. Make claims about how Linux rules. Compile a kernel on your 486SX. Claim to hate Windows but use it for World of Warcraft. Admire Ghyslain's courage in making that wonderful Star Wars movie. Officially convert to the Jedi religion. Talk about how cool Mega Tokyo is. Try and make sure you do your regular 50 story submissions to Slashdot, all of which get rejected because people who aren't fatter than CowboyNeal can't submit. Fondle shrimpy penis while making a Yoda voice and saying, use the force [toysrgus.com] , padawan, feeel the foooorce [toysrgus.com] , hurgm. Yes. Yes. When 900 years you reach [lemonparty.org] , a dick half as big you will not have. [toysrgus.com]

All in a days work with a Yoda figurine rammed up your ass.

I HAVE A GREASED UP YODA DOLL SHOVED UP MY ASS!

GO LINUX!!

Tux is the result after trimming Yoda's ears off so that Lunix people don't rip themselves a new Asshole

What you can do with you ass after sitting on a GREASED UP YODA DOLL. [gayfistingjournal.com]

y______________________________YODA_ANUS__- [hotlinkfiles.com]
o_________________.'_:__`.________________y [hotlinkfiles.com]
d____________.-.'`.__;___.'`.-.___________o [hotlinkfiles.com]
a___________/_:____\_;__/____;_\__________d [hotlinkfiles.com]
s_,'__""--.:__;".-.";:_:".-.":__;.--""__`,a [hotlinkfiles.com]
e_:'_`.t""--.._'/@.`;___',@\`_..--""j.'_`;s [hotlinkfiles.com]
x______`:-.._J_'-.-'L___`--_'_L_..-;'_____e [hotlinkfiles.com]
________"-.___;__.-"__"-.__:___.-"________x [hotlinkfiles.com]
y____________L_'_/.------.\_'_J___________y [hotlinkfiles.com]
o_____________"-.___"--"___.-"____________o [hotlinkfiles.com]
d______________.l"-:_TR_;-";._____________d [hotlinkfiles.com]
a_________.-j/'.;__;""""__/_.'\"-.________a [hotlinkfiles.com]
s_______v.'_/:`._"-.:_____.-"_.';__`.v____s [hotlinkfiles.com]
e____.-"__/_;__"-._"-..-"_.-"__:____"-.___e [hotlinkfiles.com]
x_.+"-.__:_:______"-.__.-"______;-.____\__x [hotlinkfiles.com]
_v;_\__`.;_; I Yoda Have A _____:_:_"+._;__ [hotlinkfiles.com]
y_:__;___;_;_Greased Up ME In __:_;__:_\:_y [hotlinkfiles.com]
o_;__:___;_:_MY ASS! This Goes__;:___;__:_o [hotlinkfiles.com]
d:_\__;__:__; On FOREVER!______:_;__/__::_d [hotlinkfiles.com]

Ground Control to Yoda Doll Ballad : "Soddity"

Synopsis: --Major Tom goes to the bathroom and shoves a Yoda doll up his ass, and then gimps back to his desk to post AC Trolls on Slashdot. -Yoda Doll to Major Tom. - Yoda Doll to Major Tom. - Take your ex-lax bars and put my do-rag on. - Yoda Doll to Major Tom. - Commencing countdown, rope is on. - Begin insertion and may Goatse's love be with you. -- This is Yoda Doll to Major Tom, - You've rectally been flayed! - And the papers want to know whose shirts you wear. - Now it's time to leave the crapper if you dare. -- This is Major Tom to Yoda Doll, - I'm stepping through the door. - And I'm farting in a most peculiar way! - And my ass looks very different today. - For here... - Am I shitting in the tincan? - Far...too busy posting trolls. -- Slashdot censors you... and there's nothing I can do. -- Uploading one hundred thousand files, - I'm feeling very ill. - I don't think my feces know which way to go. - I can't tell my intestines from spaghetti- - code. Yoda Doll to Major Tom, your prostate's dead, there's something wrong, - Can you hear me, Major Tom? - Can you hear me, Major Tom? - Can you hear me, Major Tom? Can you hear... Am I shitting in the tincan? - My ass like a baboon's - Slashdot censors you - and there's nothing I can do.


The Yoda Pledge

I pledge Allegiance to the Doll
of the Greased Up States of Yodarica
and to the Republic for which it shoves,
one nation under Yoda, rectal intrusion,
with anal lube and ass grease for all.

hello.mpg lyrics.
I'm doin' this tonight ,
You're probably gonna start a fight .
I know this can't be right .
Hey baby come on,
I loved you endlessly ,
When you weren't there for me.
So now it's time to leave and make it alone .
I know that I can't take no more
It ain't no lie
I wanna see you out that door
Baby , bye, bye, bye...

A picture of your ass after YODA. [bmezine.com]

Re:phirst poast tsarkon YODA GREASE (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27222081)

If only there was a +1, Offtopic...

Places Apple still have DRM. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27222045)

* Mobile phones & Ipods (make sure user can't run Apps which haven't paid the Apple tax)
* In their O/S (Check it's installed on correct hardware)
* ITMS (video)
* Video out of Iphone (make sure you can't use third party docks to watch ipod/iphone vids on your TV.

So frankly, DRM on Apple products was not surprising - it was a natural assumption to make.

Re:Places Apple still have DRM. (2, Informative)

spankyofoz (445751) | more than 4 years ago | (#27222085)

So...no DRM, only ARM.

They are still trying to lock you into their crappy products, or 3rd party products that have paid the Apple tax for certification and pass those costs onto you.

Why does it always get so complicated every time Apple try to reinvent simplicity?

Re:Places Apple still have DRM. (1, Interesting)

abhi_beckert (785219) | more than 4 years ago | (#27222105)

Why does it always get so complicated every time Apple try to reinvent simplicity?

The whole point of electronics is to take something really complicated and make it simple. "Made for XXX" is a perfect example of taking something complicated and making it simple:

      I have an iPod, I need something with "Made for iPod"

vs

      I have an iPod, I need something with a 3.5mm headphone jack, and a button with a chip capable of sending the right signals to my iPod.

Lots of other companies do "made for xxx" stickers, and it takes time to certify that something really is compatible, so you have to charge for it, even if you're not looking for a new revenue stream.

Re:Places Apple still have DRM. (0, Flamebait)

jack2000 (1178961) | more than 4 years ago | (#27222171)

Those of us who know what they are doing would take the specs everytime over "made for X".
Then again those of us who know what they are doing would never buy apple hardware.

Re:Places Apple still have DRM. (4, Insightful)

vux984 (928602) | more than 4 years ago | (#27222199)

Those of us who know what they are doing would take the specs every time over "made for X".

Right, because we buy something based on the specs, try it, and find out that despite claiming various specs, they've done an incompatible implementation and it doesn't actually work rebliably, if it works at all. And then we troubleshoot it until we are sure it doesn't actually work, and then we return it in frustration and get something else, until we find something that works.

That is how those of who know what they are doing operate.

Oh, sure, if we're late to the party we can look at what other people tried and follow their successes. But how is that really any different than following a 'made for X' sticker? In either case we wait for someone else to vet compatibility.

And if we don't have that, its just trial and error. No amount of knowing what you are doing is going to magically give you foresight on which hardware is really compatible vs which just should be compatible based on the specs.

Re:Places Apple still have DRM. (1)

feepness (543479) | more than 4 years ago | (#27222761)

Oh, sure, if we're late to the party we can look at what other people tried and follow their successes. But how is that really any different than following a 'made for X' sticker? In either case we wait for someone else to vet compatibility.

So how is waiting any different except that instead of paying Apple extra for vetted and slightly outdated hardware you buy the vetted and slightly outdated hardware for less from the vendor of your choice in the exact configuration you like?

Re:Simplicity (5, Insightful)

spankyofoz (445751) | more than 4 years ago | (#27222237)

What I mean is the standard 3.5mm jack is simple, and works brilliantly for it's intended role. So why mess with it?

"Made for 3rd generation iPod shuffle" is fairly simple, but 99% of people would have no idea what generation their iclod is (/. crowd aside).

"Plug these in, hear music" is even more simple, and how it should be.

Re:Simplicity (3, Insightful)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 4 years ago | (#27222613)

What I mean is the standard 3.5mm jack is simple, and works brilliantly for it's intended role. So why mess with it?
I guess that would be because 3.5mm jacks don't carry remote control signals. Really this whole argument is a joke â" we're complaining at apple because they put a remote interface on their headphones, something that other companies have been doing since god knows when. Not only that, but apple have a good history of allowing 3rd parties to see those specs and get verified as producing a decent quality remote that actually does the right thing.

When was the last time you saw a third party remote for a random mp3 player? If you did by some chance, when was the last time you saw one that didn't go through the exact same process as apple are using here?

Re:Simplicity (2, Informative)

theeddie55 (982783) | more than 4 years ago | (#27222811)

yes, other companies have been putting inline controls in headphones for years, but that's in addition to the controls on the unit, not instead of, most of these devices would still work just as well with standard headphones.

Re:Simplicity (2, Interesting)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 4 years ago | (#27222835)

And so will the shuffle. Plug in 3.5mm headphones, turn on, listen to music.

Re:Simplicity (2, Informative)

theeddie55 (982783) | more than 4 years ago | (#27222963)

By "work just as well" i mean you'd still have all the controls available, with no controls available when using standard headphones, that's not working just as well.

Re:Simplicity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27222987)

it's very loud, how do I turn it down? oh, that's right, I cant

Re:Simplicity (1)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 4 years ago | (#27223367)

Use any standard analog inline volume adapter, or set of headphones with such a thing in the cord ;)

Re:Simplicity (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27223257)

My Creative Muvo MP3 player came with a pair standard ear-buds. They were too big for my ears, though, so I replaced them with another pair of standard ear-buds, with no loss in functionality of anything.

This is the same player that uses a standard AAA battery.

But then, I went shopping for something that worked, rather than something popular.

Re:Simplicity (1)

ihavnoid (749312) | more than 4 years ago | (#27222715)

As many others said, the simple reason is because the headphone is meant to work as a remote controller, so that Apple can eliminate all controls from the surface of the iPod. Nothing so innovative - we had CD players and tape recorders with remotes for years. The remotes disappeared because, I think, the media players got compact enough, so that they no longer need to have remotes to control the players that previously had to stay somewhere inside a pocket or some kind of bag.

Just think of the smallest media players - they are already as small as the remote controllers we used decades ago. why in world do we need a remote when the media player itself is small enough? Looks like a flawed design decision.

Nah, I'll never buy it anyway.

Re:Places Apple still have DRM. (5, Insightful)

Archimonde (668883) | more than 4 years ago | (#27222557)

This is a complete inverse logic here.

"Made for X" is inverse of "make it simple" (aka works with 99.8% players in the market). For all intents and purposes, that 3.5mm jack on the shuffle isn't standard at all. They could have made the connector in a say, magsafe style and call it a revolution. In either way you need an (unreleased) adapter (to connect normal headphones) or "made for X" headphones to use the shuffle properly. This is analog to putting apple "enhanced" usb ports on apple computers. "Well it works great if you have apple hardware connected to the usb ports, but if you want to use your usb printer/memory stick/whaterver, you should buy just this small adapter (link to apple store)." It is a lock-in coupled with royalities (which are transferred to you and me) plain and simple.

How fun would be to go into a store wanting to buy some pair of earphones, but you have to buy only sony XLX branded ones because you only have compatible sony player. Or you want to buy that excellent sounding Shure headphones, but alas, those work only with yamaha pianos. Or you want to buy computer keyboard for your dell, but the store only has "made for hp" ones.

I don't want to live in that world, world of lock-in (I'm not saying that there is no lock-in today too, quite the reverse), high prices and most of all completely unnecessary and artificial limitations. But lock-in is ultimately for consumers good isn't it?

Re:Places Apple still have DRM. (0, Flamebait)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 4 years ago | (#27222623)

Yes, that's right, because your sony remote works with your iRiver player... wait... no. Bottom line â" 3.5mm jack carries audio, on the iPod and all other devices with in-headphone remotes it still carries audio. There is no standard, and has never been a standard for transmitting control signals back to the player though, and apple is doing no differently from any other company in creating a remote control standard. The difference is, Apple has a good track history of letting 3rd parties build the remotes.

Re:Places Apple still have DRM. (4, Informative)

mobby_6kl (668092) | more than 4 years ago | (#27222827)

No, the remote on my Sony discman (probably, IIRC the connectors were similar) wouldn't work with my SAFA CD/MP3 player, but when a classmate stepped on my Sony's remote and made most buttons useless (there were of course separate buttons for next and previous tracks, play/pause as well as volume control and remote lock instead of the ridiculous morse code bullshit) I could still use my discman with ANY headphones I had. From $2 shitty earbuds from a cheap walkman knockoff to my ER-4s, the only difference being that I had to use the controls on the device itself. Also, while the remote was still in one piece, I could again use any of my headphones with the remote by unplugging the Sony earbuds from the top of the remote and plugging the ER-4s in.

Does that clear it up? Discman: no remote, no remote functionality. Shuffle: no remote, no functionality. At least not until you buy an adapter for half the price of the player [apple.com] itself.

Re:Places Apple still have DRM. (0, Flamebait)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 4 years ago | (#27222839)

Let me correct that: Shuffle: no remote, plug in headphones, turn on, listen to music.

Re:Places Apple still have DRM. (4, Insightful)

Choad Namath (907723) | more than 4 years ago | (#27223087)

...and have no control over volume or what track you're listening to. That's a pretty stunning lack of functionality.

Re:Places Apple still have DRM. (1)

ion.simon.c (1183967) | more than 4 years ago | (#27223131)

Heh. Crank the volume up to max, lose the special earbuds, and get a 3.5" analog inline volume adapter. It's almost as if you've hired your own DJ and radio station!

Re:Places Apple still have DRM. (1)

ion.simon.c (1183967) | more than 4 years ago | (#27223115)

The topic at hand isn't "Inline non-standard [0] volume/playback controls suck." We already know this. Bearing that in mind, I don't see how you've done anything more than restating beelsebob's point. :)

[0] What standard?

Re:Places Apple still have DRM. (2, Insightful)

intheshelter (906917) | more than 4 years ago | (#27223389)

I don't think that is complicated at all. I think it's more likely you want to complain about Apple and so you make a big deal about nothing to try and get people to think it is complicated.

Re:Places Apple still have DRM. (2, Insightful)

anti-pop-frustration (814358) | more than 4 years ago | (#27222735)

*They also encrypt firmware on all new ipods, specifically to prevent people from installing alternate firmware such as Rockbox [rockbox.org] .

Seriously, encrypting firmware? How evil is that? How can apple apologists even try to justify that?

Re:Places Apple still have DRM. (3, Informative)

Nursie (632944) | more than 4 years ago | (#27223135)

Not just that, but there's also now some sort of crypto signature on the index files the newer iPods create/read. If it's not present then the iPod refuses to recognise any of the music.

This seems to be there solely to destroy interoperability with any non-iTunes software (Amarok). Great, thanks Apple.

(Sightly OT - as linux user, with a 40+ GB music collection, mostly in mp3 format, what is the best current high capacity media player? 32GB Xen X-fi with an additional SD Card? Or is there anything else non-Apple that can store all my music?)

Re:Places Apple still have DRM. (1)

that this is not und (1026860) | more than 4 years ago | (#27223273)

Apple is just doing the same sort of stuff that Microsoft has always done, too.

Boing Boing Unreliable (5, Insightful)

CountBrass (590228) | more than 4 years ago | (#27222049)

Is the real story.

What disappoints me is that Boing Boing get on the front page of /. for lying, and then a second time for admitting they lied.

The real story is Boing Boing is an unreliable site: who'd have thought that on the interwebs there would be dishonest sites *shock* *horror*!

CountBrass Hysterical Apple Fanboi. (-1, Flamebait)

tpgp (48001) | more than 4 years ago | (#27222083)

Is the real story of the post above.

What disappoints me is that Boing Boing get on the front page of /.

Wrong. It was iLounge & CNET. BoingBoing did not make the front page of slashdot.

for lying,

Oh grow up fanboy. They linked to someone elses story, with caveats. They were wrong & admitted it. Making a mistake is not lying.

The real story is Boing Boing is an unreliable site:

This at least is true.

Re:CountBrass Hysterical Apple Fanboi. (1)

sympathy (1492055) | more than 4 years ago | (#27222581)

Ok well why you think Boing Boing being on the front page of /. means that they're not on the front page of slashdot is beyond me. The article starts out, "BoingBoing Gadgets" then links to BoingBoing. How is that not being on the front page of slashdot? iLounge and CNET are equally culpable since they're nothing but crap rags that do this stuff all the time. The only ones who got it right the first time and checked their sources were MacWorld. "Hysterical Apple Fanboi" indeed. More like Hysterical Cory Doctorow fanboy, i.e.: you. Then you agree to Boing Boing being an unreliable site after defending to the death in all the comments here just so you look like you're rolling along instead of fantasizing about licking Cory's naked body. You make me sick.

Re:CountBrass Hysterical Apple Fanboi. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27222651)

Then you agree to Boing Boing being an unreliable site after defending to the death in all the comments here just so you look like you're rolling along instead of fantasizing about licking Cory's naked body. You make me sick.

Sounds like you've thought it through a little farther than necessary, there, pardner

hysterical Hatorade drinkers with bum eyes (4, Insightful)

Uberbah (647458) | more than 4 years ago | (#27223393)

Oh grow up fanboy. They linked to someone elses story, with caveats.

Oh pull your head out. The Boing Boing headline [boingboing.net]

Manufacturer confirms chip: iPod headphones now have the Apple Tax

Remember that old saw about how "a lie travels around the world before the truth has a chance to put it's shoes on"? The original liar obviously deserves most of the blame, but that doesn't absolve everyone who spread the lie of responsibility.

Re:Boing Boing Unreliable (1)

syousef (465911) | more than 4 years ago | (#27222131)

What disappoints me is that Boing Boing get on the front page of /. for lying, and then a second time for admitting they lied.

You'd prefer they just left the "lie" out there? Where I come from admitting your mistakes and taking responsibility for them is a good thing and to be encouraged. If you honestly believe they misled everyone despite knowing the purpose of the chip in the first place, please present your evidence.

Re:Boing Boing Unreliable (5, Insightful)

CountBrass (590228) | more than 4 years ago | (#27222177)

The problem is I don't believe it was an honest mistake, so I'd rather they didn't lie in the first place.

All this has taught BoingBoing is that they can lie, get the publicity, then admit they lied and get more publicity. As to evidence: I'd point to the fact that they had no evidence whatsoever to back-up their claim and yet they made it any way. The onus isn't on me.

Re:Boing Boing Unreliable (2, Interesting)

syousef (465911) | more than 4 years ago | (#27222289)

The problem is I don't believe it was an honest mistake, so I'd rather they didn't lie in the first place.

As I said, present your evidence.

As to evidence: I'd point to the fact that they had no evidence whatsoever to back-up their claim and yet they made it any way.

As has been pointed out to you, there were other sites reporting the same.

The onus isn't on me.

Actually it is, since you're the one accusing them of lying with no evidence. They may have said something that turned out to be wrong but they've retracted it. You still insist on accusing them with no proof and nothing to back you, yet you don't seem to realise the irony.

Re:Boing Boing Unreliable (2, Interesting)

p0tat03 (985078) | more than 4 years ago | (#27222579)

Very well, then I will accuse BoingBoing and any other sites who reported on this to be grossly incompetent at basic first-year electrical engineering.

Anyone can figure this, even yours truly (who isn't even trained as an electrical engineer: Apple has added extra pins to the headphone jack in order to support things as simple as a single-button headset control on the iPhone. Clearly it was not feasible for Apple to keep just adding pins onto a short headphone jack in the hopes of cramming more buttons in.

It's patently obvious that in this case, given the number of buttons and gestures that the Shuffle supports, there needs to be more complex signals than merely having button-mapped pins into the device. And lo and behold, this is exactly what it turned out to be - an encoder chip so that the input signals can be fed into the Shuffle.

Anyone even familiar with rudimentary electronics would come to this conclusion at first glance. To go the "OMG DRM" route was either trolling, or sheer incompetence.

Re:Boing Boing Unreliable (1, Insightful)

tpgp (48001) | more than 4 years ago | (#27222419)

The onus isn't on me.

Yes it is. You're the one who made a claim (BoingBoing is lying).

How do you propose we prove the negative?

Re:Boing Boing Unreliable (0, Troll)

sympathy (1492055) | more than 4 years ago | (#27222555)

By reading Boing Boing on a semi-regular basis and seeing how much of a rag they are. Why don't you blow Cory's dick a little harder?

Re:Boing Boing Unreliable (1)

dogzilla (83896) | more than 4 years ago | (#27223381)

Well, there's no question that BoingBoing *wanted* to believe this - they're pretty strong anti-DRM crusaders and they're supposedly very anti-Apple because of this. But I'm pretty sure BoingBoing is, if not the most read, then certainly in the top 10 blogs read, so I honestly doubt they did this for more traffic.

But there is a strong whiff of hypocrisy around BoingBoing. For example - Cory Doctorow leaves the US because it invades personal freedoms and moves to...London? The most surveilled city in the world? And they make a big deal about not having ads on their site...except for the ads packed on the right column of the site for Cory's books and "friend organizations".

Re:Boing Boing Unreliable (3, Insightful)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | more than 4 years ago | (#27222311)

What disappoints me is that Apple gets (buys?) a ridiculous amount of publicity in so called "news" stories for inferior and overpriced products while much better and cheaper alternatives hardly ever get a mention - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00126V8WU [amazon.com]

Re:Boing Boing Unreliable (1)

Aranykai (1053846) | more than 4 years ago | (#27222889)

I felt exactly the same way, except I pointed to my old(or ancient depending on your perspective) creative MoVu. It had 1GB of storage AND a display for half the price of the shuffle, and months before apple ever released it. Oh yeah, and it had an input jack, a microphone, a FM tuner and connected via Mini USB.

But alas the marketing team at Apple is the real reason they own most of the market, not the merit of their product.

Re:Boing Boing Unreliable (1)

that this is not und (1026860) | more than 4 years ago | (#27223309)

I use an RCA player. It was $20 at Frys (but not in the same section of the store as the iPods) and has provision to plug in SD cards.

I figure the faddish fools should buy the Apple product, and I'll stick to what works as well or better for my purposes. Some people need flash and bling in their lives. It is a bit disappointing that they've joined us here at Slashdot.

Re:Boing Boing Unreliable (1)

Uberbah (647458) | more than 4 years ago | (#27223295)

while much better and cheaper alternatives

Then why does Apple still have 80% of the mp3 player market. And don't give us that BS about advertising; if Apple's marketing was all-powerful, then why are they behind Dell & HP in marketshare.

Re:Boing Boing Unreliable (4, Insightful)

MoellerPlesset2 (1419023) | more than 4 years ago | (#27222385)

I wouldn't call it lying. But I would call it very, very, very bad 'reporting' (and did so at the time). Basically the 'story' amounted to "We heard there was DRM in the iPod, so we opened the headphones and found this unknown chip!" As if proprietary chips with strange numbers was an unusual thing. And as if the chip they found could really concievably be used for DRM (it's a simple chip that doesn't look anything like a DSP or microcontroller. IMHO, hardly likely to be a DRM decoder of any sort). More importantly, why didn't they just draw up the schematic and try to deduce what the thing did? And look at the signals with a logic analyzer or similar? The answer seems to be 'because they simply didn't know what they were doing'. Really, I think any halfway competent Electrical Engineer with the right tools should probably be able to fully reverse-engineer those headphones in very little time. I know I probably could, and I'm just an electronics hobbyist. Lesson here is: "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

Re:Boing Boing Unreliable (1)

sympathy (1492055) | more than 4 years ago | (#27222533)

I was going to post something along the lines of:

"Wait a minute! You mean to say that Boing Boing overreacted and misrepresented the story while MacWorld and Engadget had it right the whole time?? Holy crap!"

But your non-sarcastic, reasoned approach is a little better I suppose. I agree that Boing Boing shouldn't be on the front page of /. Why is Cory Doctorow considered an "expert" again? He's proved himself time and time again to be nothing more than a blowhard and a fool. Put Boing Boing articles where you put the rest of the trash.

Re:Boing Boing Unreliable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27222645)

Reading this story on /. gives my heart lift. I thought I was alone in thinking Doctorow was a smug, know-nothing c*nt.

I'm pretty sure this was an orchestrated publicity grab by Doctorow and the EFF. Getting unwarranted attention is just about all Doctorow is good at. It certainly isn't writing Science Fiction that's for sure. They had to know it would turn out not to be DRM. If they didn't then Doctorow is a bigger idiot than I thought.

Even it was an authentication chip it still wouldn't have DRM. He was just happy to use and emotionally laden yet incorrect term to further his agenda. You know, like the RIAA/MPAA do when they refer to copyright infringement as stealing.

Why is Doctorow is considered an expert? Well if you tell a lie often enough and loud enough people start believing it. Bit like this story really.

Re:Boing Boing Unreliable - we already knew this (1)

master811 (874700) | more than 4 years ago | (#27222535)

It was pretty obvious last week, and anyone with common sense would see it wasn't DRM in the first place, it was just BB being sensational.

Re:Boing Boing Unreliable (1)

SoupIsGoodFood_42 (521389) | more than 4 years ago | (#27222593)

I think this has less to do with Boing Boing being dishonest and more to do with a bad journalism. I have many problems with news sites and professional journalists today (especially most IT journalists), but they do have a very good point when it comes to many bloggers. When your site becomes as popular as Slashdot or Boing Boing, where you make enough money to live off it, shouldn't you also be doing a better job than most of other bloggers when it comes to basic journalistic principles?

I like both sites, and still visit them, but I do get annoyed at all the basic mistakes I see too often. It's almost like they don't even care, as they're more than capable of doing a better job.

weasel words (1)

bukuman (1129741) | more than 4 years ago | (#27222051)

"that affects audio playback in any way"

hmm - but might affect you ability to sell an interoperable device?

Muzak (0, Offtopic)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 4 years ago | (#27222063)

Screw the iPod. Just give me a DIY kit on making a vacuum tube AM radio (I'm a talk radio buff). Sometimes it's nice to get away from the digital realm for awhile.

Uhoh, you gave fanbois vindication (1)

poity (465672) | more than 4 years ago | (#27222101)

prepare for smug flood.

Authentication chip != DRM (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27222145)

Please stop calling authentication chips DRM. DRM = digital rights management, its for digital content, you cant physically have DRM on a headphone cord.

Re:Authentication chip != DRM (3, Insightful)

broken_chaos (1188549) | more than 4 years ago | (#27222179)

This is no place for sensible discussion! (I kid. Mostly.)

The point was brought up several times by several people, myself included, in the last discussion. (Interestingly enough, many of those posts got modded up and down about a dozen times each.) It's a lock in, and only partially - you need an adapter or specially manufactured headphones, but there's nothing to stop reverse engineering, or from using unlicensed headphones/adapters.

On a side note, I wonder if the EFF is going to retract their statement, or issue some sort of apology...

Re:Authentication chip != DRM (2, Interesting)

Killer Orca (1373645) | more than 4 years ago | (#27222435)

On a side note, I wonder if the EFF is going to retract their statement, or issue some sort of apology...

They already have http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/03/apple-adds-still-more-drm-ipod-shuffle [eff.org]

Re:Authentication chip != DRM (1)

broken_chaos (1188549) | more than 4 years ago | (#27222665)

Interesting, thanks. Still a bit slanted, but that's expected with the EFF and any similar organizations.

On a related note, I cannot find iLounge issuing a retraction or apology anywhere for their mistake setting off this whole thing.

Re:Authentication chip != DRM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27222935)

[quote]It's a lock in, and only partially - you need an adapter or specially manufactured headphones, but there's nothing to stop reverse engineering, or from using unlicensed headphones/adapters.[/quote]

Are you sure Apple hasn't patented the physical format of the plugs necessary for the adapter?

Re:Authentication chip != DRM (4, Insightful)

Firehed (942385) | more than 4 years ago | (#27222187)

It would be rights management on a digital device. But more to the point, DRM has become a catch-all term for any form of vendor lock-in, specifically lock-in which when avoided is punishable by the DMCA.

Re:Authentication chip != DRM (1)

Hal_Porter (817932) | more than 4 years ago | (#27222451)

I dunno. Calling this "DRM" irritates me. Then again Apple constantly finding ways to stop third party accessories working irritates me too, so terminology aside these stories do have a point.

Now I don't buy Apple stuff, but it's interesting from technical point of view how they manage to lock out third party stuff without adding much to the cost of the device.

Re:Authentication chip != DRM (1)

base3 (539820) | more than 4 years ago | (#27223133)

The shoe fits. It's a digital restrictions (disingenuously referred to as "rights") management device to make it difficult for customers to use third party headphones.

Re:Authentication chip != DRM (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 4 years ago | (#27223185)

You can use any standard third party headphones.

Just don't complain when those headphones don't work with Apple's view of controlling their DAP.

retractions? (2, Insightful)

socsoc (1116769) | more than 4 years ago | (#27222151)

So are all those sites that posted rumors going to retract? iLounge, Consumerist, Engadget, Gizmodo, etc. The only honest source during this whole controversy was boingboing, who said that they are not electrical engineers and can't be sure of what it does.

Re:retractions? (2, Insightful)

MoellerPlesset2 (1419023) | more than 4 years ago | (#27222433)

The only honest source during this whole controversy was boingboing, who said that they are not electrical engineers and can't be sure of what it does.

I don't see what's honest about that. Why didn't they ask an electrical engineer then, rather than engage in wild speculation?
Because anyone who did know anything about electronics could immediately tell you that you should expect to find a chip in there; something the people at BoingBoing gadgets made a big deal out of. With three button states to send over a single wire, you'd expect at least a shift register.

From the looks of it, this is not a complicated chip, much less a DRM chip. I'd wager it isn't anything much more than a shift register, perhaps with some timer for button-bounces and stuff built in. Nothing I think it would take an electrical engineer long to find out.

Re:retractions? (1)

sympathy (1492055) | more than 4 years ago | (#27222615)

Actually MacWorld had it right from the start and Engadget has no reason to retract because they never made those claims and stuck to MacWorld's info for the most part. See ya.

Why all the fuss? (4, Insightful)

abhi_beckert (785219) | more than 4 years ago | (#27222153)

If a company wants to make an MP3 player with buttons on the headphone cable, instead of on the device, why is that evil?

Why is everyone going mental? So you can't use the headphones you already have, so what? Just buy a different MP3 player!

Lots of people don't care much what headphones they have, they just wanna listen to music while exercising, and they want a small light device to do that. By the end of the month there will even be a handful of other headphones to choose from.

There's no standard way to control a device from a standard headphone jack, and you'll be buried in lawsuits if you do it the same as someone else is doing it, so a new approach had to be made. Why is this such a big deal? We're stifling innovation by making a scene over stuff like this.

Re:Why all the fuss? (-1, Redundant)

Higaran (835598) | more than 4 years ago | (#27222193)

LOL, you missed the point entirely. I'ts not about the buttons on the earphones instead of the device. It was about having DRM built into the earphones, so you could only listen to songs from ITUNES and not ones you rip from your own cds or download from somewhere else. Head phones that have DRM built into them them are the perfect example of stopping innovation. Basically the general consesus around here is tha DRM is BAD, the only people pushing it are the music industry execuvites, so that they can charge you 100 times for the same song. If I forgot something some one please post it.

Re:Why all the fuss? (2, Insightful)

lothos (10657) | more than 4 years ago | (#27222241)

When has itunes or the ipod ever stopped you from listening to a cd that you've ripped?

Re:Why all the fuss? (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 4 years ago | (#27222247)

You forgot that now they have an RIAA lapdog very likely pulling the DOJ to their favor.

Re:Why all the fuss? (1)

fermion (181285) | more than 4 years ago | (#27222215)

I agree. In particular there was a time when many people had the radio build into a pair of headphones. The only reason I see why we don't build an MP3 player into a pair of headphones is because the industry has moved away from the big earphones to the tiny ear buds, at least for MP3 players.

That said, I wish that Apple would have designed the player so that when any pair of headphones were inserted it would just start to play. This is possible because the headphones are removed it stops. I can get it to sometimes work with anohter pair of headphones, but not always. There is realy no reasn why we should not be able to do this. Once the volume is set, i often just want to go through a playlist, so controls are not absolutely neccesary.

Re:Why all the fuss? (1)

FleaPlus (6935) | more than 4 years ago | (#27222227)

The only reason I see why we don't build an MP3 player into a pair of headphones is because the industry has moved away from the big earphones to the tiny ear buds, at least for MP3 players.

I'm not sure if this is what you meant, but there's actually a large selection of MP3 players built into headphones, sunglasses, etc.

http://www.google.com/products?q=headphones+built-in+mp3+player [google.com]

Re:Why all the fuss? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27222525)

I'm not sure how practical your idea would be since the player would either have to be turned on when you plugged in the headphones or it would have to constantly use battery power to monitor the headphone jack. If you're turning on the player manually it's not much harder to just hit the play button.

Re:Why all the fuss? (1)

mokus000 (1491841) | more than 4 years ago | (#27223229)

I'm not sure how practical your idea would be since the player would either have to be turned on when you plugged in the headphones or it would have to constantly use battery power to monitor the headphone jack. If you're turning on the player manually it's not much harder to just hit the play button.

I'm sorry, but this is just plain wrong. Headphone jacks that sense the presense of a plug generally do so by a mechanical switch. Just like a power button, this switch does not have to be "monitored".

Even if such a switch did not already exist in every iPod in production, how hard could it possibly be for your average EE to figure out how it could be done, given that the user is already plugging a piece of metal into their iPod every time they plug in the earphones?

Re:Why all the fuss? (1, Insightful)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 4 years ago | (#27222641)

That said, I wish that Apple would have designed the player so that when any pair of headphones were inserted it would just start to play.
Of note, the only control left on the device is the power/shuffle switch. You can plug in any headphones you like, turn it on, and it plays. This is a giant load of rubbish over absolutely nothing.

A new way of doing remote control of players, which will more than likely (looking at apple's track record) be open to industrial partners to duplicate.

Re:Why all the fuss? (5, Insightful)

syousef (465911) | more than 4 years ago | (#27222519)

If a company wants to make an MP3 player with buttons on the headphone cable, instead of on the device, why is that evil?

- It isn't standards compliant. When standards disintegrate the consumer pays.

- It promotes vendor lock in. It isn't inter-operable with other equipment. Consider digital SLRs. Once you buy into a brand and you've invested in enough equipment you're stuck with that brand unless you sell it all and start again.

- People who are replacing an older model may not realize there is new lock in until they've actually bought the product.

Why is everyone going mental? So you can't use the headphones you already have, so what? Just buy a different MP3 player!

When a market leader pulls this crap, others do too and pretty soon all the MP3 players you can buy have this "feature".

Lots of people don't care much what headphones they have, they just wanna listen to music while exercising, and they want a small light device to do that.

That's nice. They get what they want. What about those that do care about the headphones? What about those who can't use ear buds due to hearing or ear problems?

By the end of the month there will even be a handful of other headphones to choose from.

- Not if there's a patent on the tech and Apple wants to lock them out

- If they aren't locked out there's a licensing fee which drives the price up of all the headphones

There's no standard way to control a device from a standard headphone jack

Sounds like a good argument to develop a standard rather than applaud this bad behaviour.

you'll be buried in lawsuits if you do it the same as someone else is doing it, so a new approach had to be made

Don't you see there's something very very wrong with that? At this point it's not innovative so why are people afraid of being buried in lawsuites? Sounds like an argument for IP law reform.

Why is this such a big deal? We're stifling innovation by making a scene over stuff like this.

This is innovation? Seriously? Controlling a player externally via a proprietary cable? Really??? If this is considered innovation, there's a real problem.

Re:Why all the fuss? (0, Flamebait)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 4 years ago | (#27222653)

When a market leader pulls this crap, others do too and pretty soon all the MP3 players you can buy have this "feature".
Wake up already, "other vendors" have been doing this since 1990. Headphone cable remotes have existed for many many many years.

There's no vendor lock in going on here, just yet another way of connecting a remote control to a device, which hundreds of manufacturers have been doing for many years.

Apple (going on their track record) even have the decency to let 3rd parties build the remotes, something which can't be said for most other vendors.

Re:Why all the fuss? (1)

syousef (465911) | more than 4 years ago | (#27222723)

Apple (going on their track record) even have the decency to let 3rd parties build the remotes, something which can't be said for most other vendors.

THAT is the problem. How decent of them to let people use their product without paying 10x what it should cost.

You're telling me to wake up??? Sheesh!

Re:Why all the fuss? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27223021)

it's not a "remote control" when it's the sole method of control

Re:Why all the fuss? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27222755)

This is innovation? Seriously? Controlling a player externally via a proprietary cable? Really??? If this is considered innovation, there's a real problem.

Well, it seems to fit the definition of innovation perfectly well. according to the Oxford English Dictionary to innovate means - "make changes in something established, esp. by introducing new methods, ideas, or products". 3.5mm headphones are something established and Apple have added a new apparatus allowing you to control your music player through them.

I agree with your call for standardization, but it is ludicrous to expect Apple to not add to their products something that greatly benefits their customers until there is a standard (whichmay take decades).

blah blah blah (1)

Uberbah (647458) | more than 4 years ago | (#27223243)

If you don't like the new headphones - don't frikkin buy a new shuffle.

You're telling me to wake up??? Sheesh!

He was being nice. I'd tell you to pull your head out, as there are no set standards for you to whine about. If Apple wants to release an mp3 player that only works with an infrared remote control and bluetooth headphones, that's their business. And you of course are free to take your business elsewhere.

Re:Why all the fuss? (1)

itsdapead (734413) | more than 4 years ago | (#27223253)

That's nice. They get what they want. What about those that do care about the headphones?

Er, they won't buy 3rd Gen iPod Shuffles and Apple won't make any money out of them? I don't see the problem.

The only problem is if you have built up a huge library of iTunes music: So don't do that, then! If you like the design of the iPod, then iPod/iTunes will work quite happily with a music library of un-DRM'd MP3 files.

Re:Why all the fuss? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27223325)

What a bunch of whinny ass babies on /. Buy a different fucking mp3 player then and STFU. This is a hobby for alot of you, bashing apple because you can't built your own open source fucking headphones or some other tear jerker of the week.

Ohhh, evil fucking apple... trying to destroy the whole galaxy again with this evil little remote thingy, and the diabolical itunes master program of mankind manipulation. Quick hide behind that stack of zunes.. which can be loaded with the wonderful savior of the universe..... open source linux.

Re:Why all the fuss? (1)

American Terrorist (1494195) | more than 4 years ago | (#27223129)

Because I hate iTunes and I want to share my hate with the rest of the /. crowd. The iPod Shuffle is an overpriced PoS that no one should ever buy, the headphones make it worse. Imagine how much better the world would be if WinAmp worked with iPods. Apple had one good product(everyone has to admit iPod UI is genius) and now they're using it to leverage iTunes on the the rest of us. iTunes is a combination of all the worst parts of MS Internet Explorer and Real Player with a polished Apple UI.

Oh right, proprietary headphones needed (4, Interesting)

ricelid (1383657) | more than 4 years ago | (#27222173)

I was just thinking about buying an iPod shuffle. Good thing I read this article that reminds me that I have to use the headphones that come with it, and I don't like those headphones nearly as much as I like my headphones. Hmm, I could probably splice the cable without tooo much trouble.

Re:Oh right, proprietary headphones needed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27222359)

To be honest, I'm not sure why you'd go to all that trouble just to get a Shuffle. Sansa Clip or Zenstone Plus, both of them have screens and both are a good bit cheaper than an iPod Shuffle with the same capacity.

Re:Oh right, proprietary headphones needed (1)

Archimonde (668883) | more than 4 years ago | (#27222491)

I spliced the cable of my mobile phones headphones which had control buttons on the cable as well. It was great PITA. Those wires inside the cable are extremely tiny and are joined with nylon thread (probably for endurance) which makes those signal wires almost impossible to handle by hand. So unless you have some special tools and alot of patience I can't recommend cutting the cables.

Re:Oh right, proprietary headphones needed (3, Informative)

bloodninja (1291306) | more than 4 years ago | (#27223329)

Those wires inside the cable are extremely tiny and are joined with nylon thread (probably for endurance) which makes those signal wires almost impossible to handle by hand. So unless you have some special tools and alot of patience I can't recommend cutting the cables.

That special tool is called fire! Half a second under flame and the nylon fibers ball up near the bottom, and the copper wires can then be twisted together. Everything has those fibers now, and you need this technique to modify everything from a cellphone charger to a bluetooth headset to a standalone DVD player.

Re:Oh right, proprietary headphones needed (1)

CrankyFool (680025) | more than 4 years ago | (#27222591)

I thought of doing this, but I suspect you'll likely find this very hard for a myriad of reasons, least of which is that the control part is actually about 3" below the right headphone earpiece -- so you'll have to do at least two splice jobs, one for each ear. I had hoped you could actually adapt the built-in headphones into an adapter, but I fear that's unlikely to be feasible.

Not DRM but still Evil? (4, Funny)

Macrat (638047) | more than 4 years ago | (#27222211)

While this was a false alarm, Slashdot will still consider Apple evil, right?

Re:Not DRM but still Evil? (1)

spankyofoz (445751) | more than 4 years ago | (#27222267)

Yes, but you need to remember the ranking.

Less evil than Google
More evil than Microsoft

Re:Not DRM but still Evil? (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 4 years ago | (#27223223)

I think you have that backwards....

Re:Not DRM but still Evil? (1)

mokus000 (1491841) | more than 4 years ago | (#27223249)

Yes, but you need to remember the ranking.

Less evil than Google
More evil than Microsoft

I lived through the OS/2 wars. "More evil than Microsoft" is not a phrase I can allow to *exist* unchallenged.

A new cold war with Russia... (1)

retech (1228598) | more than 4 years ago | (#27222307)

...a failing world economy, an ecosystem being taxed to it's limits.

...and a fucking ipod the most important thing people have to discuss.

Apple +1, Universe -1

Re:A new cold war with Russia... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27222925)

You have been found in violation of the BUZZWORD PROTECTION ACT OF 2009 and are hereby under arrest. You have no right to a lawyer, nor right to a trial by your peers.

Please report to the nearest government prison facility for processing.

Cory and Xeni (1)

retech (1228598) | more than 4 years ago | (#27222317)

They're just pissed their voices aren't THE VOICES of the new shuffle.

Re:Cory and Xeni (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27222675)

I know your joking but Xeni is about the only Boing Boing contributor who hasn't stuck her oar in over this. Presumably because unlike 'the clones' she is smart enough to know to keep her mouth shut about things she has little knowledge of.

Dear Slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27222397)

I would like to sincerely apologise for my knee-jerk baseless mouth-frothing over the DRM boogeyman that I seem to see everywhere. My remarks were totally unfounded and uncalled for; in short, I was a total douche.

Yours in shame,
A vocal minority of reactionary fuckwits.

boing boing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27222413)

Slashdot will still consider Apple evil, right?
  I could probably splice the cable without tooo much trouble.

No DRM .. until you find it (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27222489)

And a few hours later, some clever basement denizen in a Scandinavian country runs into the DRM while trying to cross blend the iDevice with a more obscure Linux distro. The intertubes was horrified to discover the Truth about DRM, again.

Aargh, they're back! Keep them away! Those men in dark robes, with hoods over their heads: chanting, chanting....

It's DRM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27222625)

It's a digital chip to restrict rights. DRM.

In this case it's to prevent companies copying the cable. But it's the same problem with Apple, a lock-in that ends up costing you lots of money.

Give this rubbish player a miss.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>