Apple Music and Breaking Home Sharing

Apple appears to have killed some of the old with the roll out of all the new music related items yesterday:
Apple removed Home Sharing support for music in iOS 8.4
from all devices except the Apple TV.

    The reason for the removal of Home Sharing for music in iOS 8.4 most likely centers around the licensing agreements concerning Apple Music. It’s entirely possible that Apple doesn’t have the rights to allow content obtained via Apple Music to be streamed over WiFi like Home Sharing requires.

Given the current intellectual property environment this is fine.

But what about  music that was not obtained via Apple Music. For example, all the music I have bought over the years and uploaded into iTunes?  This is and will likely continue to be 100% of my music.

Eliminating all of our music from Home Sharing is throwing the baby out with the bath water.

    The obvious solution to the problem is to switch to Apple Music’s family plan, which allows families of up to 6 to access Apple’s catalog of content for $14.99 per month. Home Sharing originally launched in 2011 as part of iOS 4.3.

This may be solution for music sourced from Apple Music. It is not, though, a solution for music sourced from anywhere else.

The obvious solution is to allow Home Sharing for all tracks except for those with DRM sourced from Apple Music and that have not been purchased.

Is this step backward the beginning of the end of the nice ecosystem that Apple had been building?

Forgotten Story of the Original iPhone

The Forgotten Story of the Original iPhone Released in 1998

    And thus, the iPhone technology—or, more crucially, the iPhone name and trademark—passed on to Cisco. Cisco would briefly use the iPhone name to market a line of VOIP telephones under the Linksys brand.

I can remember when the Cisco sales team added this stuff to their best, greatest, you must buy now  list though I think they didn’t like to have to peddle the Linksys stuff.

Bristol Bay Walruses Live

Check out this new live cam showing Bristol Bay, Alaska walruses!

male-walruses-at-round-island_Fotor-1024x576

According to Explore.org:

Each year, while female walruses and their young pups follow the receding ice north, the males “haul-out” to laze around the warmer beaches of Alaska’s Bristol Bay. It’s basically a pinniped bachelor pad of belching and fighting. These guys might not be pretty, but you won’t look away: Round Island is so remote and difficult to access that our live cams offer otherwise unseen warts-and-all walrus action.

More details and some geography at Quartz!

Speaking to a group?

Giving a talk?  Or some other form of public speaking?

Jeremy Fox’s post at Dynamic Ecology provides some excellent advice that should not be limited to ecologists! These are useful lessons for all public speakers. I particularly like this idea:

“That’s also why I start my synchrony talk by talking about Huygens’ clocks and synchronized swimming: it’s a way of conveying essential information while holding the audience’s attention with something unexpected.”

For some more guidance on various types of public speaking consider these tips.

Also, all you folks out there who speak in public should spend a year or two with one or more of your local Toastmasters clubs.

Picking a Bone With Some Carbon Numbers

The following appeared earlier this month at Canadian Energy Issues:

It takes roughly 7.8 billion metric tons of CO2 dumped into the global air to increase the concentration by one part per million (according to the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center at the Oak Ridge lab in Tennessee). One year ago the global concentration hit 400 ppm for the very first time. So for it to have gone from 400 to 404.65 ppm means we humans have, collectively, in the space of a single year, dumped 36.27 billion tons of the stuff into our air.

I see two possible issues with this.

First, it makes the assumption that the increase in carbon concentration is completely due to human activity. There are other sources of CO2 emissions, e.g., respiration, decay, volcanoes and ocean diffusion.

Second, it does not appear to take into account any CO2 sequestration that may be happening.  The oceans are currently a net absorber of CO2. Plants absorb CO2.

Is it true that all other sources and sinks of CO2 balance so that any net change in atmospheric carbon is due to an increase or decrease human “dumping?”

What am I missing?

Quote via The Next Big Future and which quoted this paragraph without question.

NB: I am not questioning the idea that humans are having a negative impact just the numbers.  We humans need to quite fouling our nest!