"Anyone who says that hasn't actually tried to do it."
Sorry, but that isn't true at all.
"There's really no substitute for professional recording gear"
And what exactly is professional recording gear nowadays? Not all, but quite a bit is software combined with high-end digital interfaces. To what? An "off the shelf computer".
An MOTU 896 will plug into anything with firewire. An M-Audio Delta series (like a 1010) can be had for $150-$600 depending on how many inputs you want. An RME Hammerfall or Multiface? Same deal, a little more money. (BTW, both the RME and M-Audio cards have linux drivers in ALSA, and advertise the fact with the product.) This stuff is 24bit 96KHz pro recording gear. And what the heck do you think Pro-Tools runs on? That's right, an off-the-shelf computer.
Wanna go cheap? $150 for a 4 channel M-Audio Delta44, and $40 for a copy of N-Track on windows. On linux make do with SLab for now, or try Ardour (from CVS).
"and a well designed room to record it."
Of course. Not to mention you might need good microphones, pre-amps, and maybe a mixer. (Pre-amps are sometimes built in to the interface, and always in a mixer if you have one. Never as good as nice standalones, but they're probably OK.)
But nobody said you don't need a good recording space. They just said you could record it into a computer.
"And there is the matter of expertise of the person mixing."
Again, of course that's a factor. Though it's hard to get experience doing something if you can never afford the equipment. (Can't learn to play a guitar if you never get to hold one in your hands.) Read a lot. Experiment a lot. Practice, practice. Fail. Get better. Just like learning anything else. You'll start out sucking rocks, but you'll get better.
" I wish what you said were true, but it's not that simple."
Of course it's not "that simple". I don't think he was saying it was simple. He was saying that you could do a lot on a computer nowadays, and the cash price of entry for doing it yourself is pretty good. Especially if you already have a computer.
You still have to put some money into a decent interface, a proper space, and some outboard gear... but not near as much as it used to be. You still have to put a lot of time and effort in to learning, but that is time and effort... not 10's of thousands of cold, hard dollars.
And you're right. Some of that has already been discussed.
Put your info in here:
http://www.dylanreinhardt.com/plug
Sign up to mailing lists here:
https://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo
There is stuff on the main list, and some more on the edu list. There are web archives you can erad up on, too. (To see what has been said, contact those that are involved with various parts.)
This is the (hasty, but had to be that way) volunteer database that a PLUG member started. And yes, I'm on that list. Not visible on that page is REAL contact info that is actually in the db.
You're asking people to put up or shut up. There you go.
(Note: I didn't say anything about auto-downloading. I just care that the problems are fixed and the fixes are made available. The original poster did, and I agree that is more akin to a feature improvement warranting a purchase.)
I just think that they should make an attempt at giving people what they already paid for. Like every other industry does. They do to an extent... but not near enough. I say the product IS defective.:)
Something may work as advertised... but that doesn't mean it can't fail miserably to live up to reasonable expectations of performance.
Let's say I buy a new Corvette. And it is advertised as "great handling, fast, convertible, leather interior, rides nicely, etc".
Now let's say when the top is down, and the car is driven over 30 miles an hour, that the hood will sometimes fly open. Forcing me to stop the car (If I don't wreck first) and close it. The next year's model has a redesigned latch that doesn't.
Should Chevy not fix it? At no cost? Or should I be forced to buy the new one?
The car does everything advertised. But definitely falls short of being safe and reliable. A fix is available... can I not get it without buying a new car? Hell, can I even BUY the fix without buying a whole new car?
My point is simply that for some reason commercial software plays under completely separate rules than anything else you buy. Cripe, if I buy a bag of peanuts and they are bad there's a gripe line on the bag to complain to. (Which will usually offer you a refund or better peanuts.) I mean, how bad is that... they can't even offer means of customer satisfaction at the same level of a peanut packager!
(Maybe the light bulb in glove box catches on fire whenever you turn the headlights on. A third party can offer an automatic extinguisher, and another can give me a new wiring harness. Does that mean the manufacturer isn't at fault that the damn thing catches on fire? Especially since you sometimes drive other cars that don't do that?)
I don't think I need to get over a "free to me" mentality, as I simply don't have one. (Note, I'm not the original poster replied to. I also own a corvette, so I can't be THAT much of a penny pincher.:)
However, I definitely have a "If I paid money, it needs to live up to some minimum quality expectations" attitude. Many software (esp. Microsoft) products do not.
I work with both Linux and Windows. I hate most Windows. Win2K is almost tolerable, though. I hate Word. I'd use Notepad and HTML before it. Or install Abiword. I do love Excel. If it is there I'll use it. If not, I'd probably use OpenOffice. On a linux box Gnumeric is an adequate replacement. I prefer linux machines and free software, but have one Win2K machine with some commercial audio software (all bought and paid for). When Ardour is finished, I may switch that as well.
My point... that NO, I'm not afraid to pay money for stuff. But won't if I don't have to. Who would?
On the other hand, your alternative isn't that bad of an idea. In fact, at work we have a piece of software sortof like that. Except that it wasn't all that expensive anyway. We do pay a (small/reasonable) fee for annual support, but it isn't required to keep the software working or get updates. (But they'll do custom programming and tweaks on the spot if you are on support. Pretty nice...) It isn't some huge expensive deal either. Pretty decent business model if you ask me... perhaps not sustainable on a huge scale.
I don't think it's really expecting everything to be free.
It is expecting a product (paid for with good money, no less) to perform properly. Without constant malfunction.
Why shouldn't one expect purchased software to be at least REASONABLY free from defects? The same way one does for most other products.
If an individual product is crap, one expects it to be fixed or replaced. On the provider's bill, because it is their fault.
If the entire product line is defective, the provider needs to recall/refund or replace/etc it on their bill too. Or provide a fix.
And not just a patch buried someplace that most of the customers will never see. I hear recall notices on the radio all the time... so what is the big deal? When a lot of software I use has a major problem, the patch/fix/whatever is right on the front page of their website, begging me to upgrade it. If they have my email addy, I get an email telling me about it.
Why the hell can't MS do that? Or something like it? (Cuz they don't give a rat's hiney about their customers, that's why. Cuz they want to squeeze them to pony up for the latest/greatest.)
Brand new versions of software, with lots of new functionality and features... that is what they should be charging for.
Bug and security fixes for a defective product within it's supported lifetime? Hell, no that shouldn't cost. The customer already paid for a working product. If they have to jump over the moon to make it do what it was supposed to do to begin with, then that's what they should try to do. Or give the poor sod their money back.
Oh, wait. "But WE didn't sell it to you! OEM Joe did. And he can't do anything for you either, cuz it worked fine when we sold it to him. Sucks to be you, huh?" Looks like they've wiggled out of that expectation, too.:)
It's actually not intended for querying so much as it is for "standardizing" records, and saving libraries the time it takes to create a new record from scratch.
Downloading a complete record (to be loaded into your own catalog/database) actually costs 50 cents a pop, I believe. There are other price plans, too. I'm pretty sure it is a non-profit cooperative, and the charges fund the operation. (Equipment, location, staff, and everything.)
It sounds expensive, but the charges to use this "shared" system don't come close to what it would cost any library (in staff time) to do complete cataloging on their own. Multiply that worktime by the number of member libraries, and it's pretty obvious why it is done that way.
Probably not something usable for individuals, but if you really do have a library (and have to pay employees to maintain it) it's a pretty good way to go.
Re:Would be good for small libraries worldwide
on
Internet Book Database?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
As a matter of fact... that is actually not that far off from how OCLC works.
From the site...
At the center of OCLC services is the WorldCat database, which:
* Is the most consulted database in higher education * Holds over 47 million cataloging records created by libraries around the world, with a new record added every 15 seconds * Spans over 4,000 years of recorded knowledge with 400 languages represented * Includes 840,637,829 location listings
I'm not a librarian (I'm the sysadmin... the technical services librarian just left for the day or I'd just ask her) but I work in one and I believe the records are all submitted by member libraries.
Anyway, go to the site for more info. I gotta get back to work.:)
The commentary track is by the 3 main actors (and band members), which is no biggie.
But the whole thing is done completely IN CHARACTER. As the band, commenting on the DVD as if it is still a real documentary. Complaining about this and that, ripping the "director" to shreds, filling you in with "backgroud stories" and telling you about the "stuff that got cut out".
It's like a whole new Spinal Tap movie, all over again. Funniest damned thing I've ever seen.
Make it known that people really don't like this stuff. This might cost a little more than going out to a movie or something but is likely to prove more entertaining.
1. Go to your favorite music store. 2. Find crappy copy-protected CD and take it to the sales counter. 3. Ask (not exactly quietly) "Is this the one that won't play in a computer?" and wait for them to say yes. 4. Purchase the CD. 5. Pull flat piece of wood out of bag/backpack and place it on the floor. Place CD on top of it. 6. Pull large mallet or hammer (a mini steel sledge is perfect, especially for the visual effect) out of the same bag/backpack. 7. Proceed to bash your newly purchased CD to tiny bits. (Be careful not to appear to endanger anyone else, or any other property in the store. Just your CD. The wood should protect their floor.) 8. Put your tools away in your bag, clean up your mess, and politely ask where you might dispose of the bag of broken pieces. 9. Say thank you, and mention that you'd be happy if they would be sure to let you know if any more defective CD's come to market and may be found in thier store. Perhaps leave them a pre-printed explanation for them to ponder over while you walk away.
WARNING: Spoilers ahead, in an attempt to address these questions.:)
>You are teaching a kid to believe a single source of information, not to make research.
It actually did just the opposite. (Many of the things you are talking about are taken into account, and were problems the creator wrestled with while designing it.) As a result, it didn't so much teach "information" as much as it encouraged personal growth, critical thinking, and problem solving.
Information was limited mostly to pure raw facts, such as one might find in an encyclopedia or dictionary. In that regard it acted as a reference book... but that wasn't the primary function.
One of the most interesting things about the book (both the Diamond Age and the primer itself) was the teaching style employed. It was in the form of a story, where the girl is a character in the story... and is continually presented with problems of increasing difficulty of every kind. The girl could pause the story at any point to use the primer more like a reference book (to do some research/get more information to help her out), and she could also back up and try again a different way. But the story of the girl (in the primer) continued and developed more complexity the entire time she was growing up. In a word, it was the ultimate choose-your-own-adventure book, with an emphasis on overall personal development.
>The kid becomes isolated, as he has no need to ask his parents/friends/teachers any question.
This really wasn't the case, because it wasn't TOTALLY interactive. It was a book, and as such it could be put down. And she had a most interesting life outside of it. (Lessons learned through trial and error in the primer helped a LOT with her real life.) It was more of a supplemental education, than an outright replacement.
Also, there was an element of real teaching involved. The voice in the primer was that of a real person (an actor working on a contract basis) reading a real-time generated script. The actor eventually figured out that she was basically raising a small girl... and became pretty emotionally involved even not knowing her.
In addition... her father was dead, and her mother was in an extremely abusive relationship. The young girl was pretty much forced to run away from the situation, and had to fend for herself. (I hope I'm not giving too much of the story away... but I do want to try to address your concerns.) Not to mention the fact that she actually become MORE inclined to ask questions of adults... very pointed, intelligent questions that would often catch them off-guard.
>The kid can become antisocial, autistic or just not learn to speak well, since the machine comunicates with "mediaglyphs" and not words.
It started out with mediaglyphs (which another poster mentioned were in common use in the setting of the book), but the very first thing it did was use them to teach the girl how to read, and how to use the primer itself. At that point, it was primarily text based. It could read to her if she chose, but she often preferred to read it herself, since she had learned how. (She ended up more literate and "eloquent" than most adults.)
It's an absolutely wonderful book, although the ending has always felt a little weird. Still worth it, though. Highly reccomended, if you ask me.:)
Yes, we did bring our dead home in Korea. Frozen Chosin, man! Chesty not only brought out every single man (healthy and wounded of course, and ALL of the dead) but all of the equipment, too. (
anks, trucks, you name it.) Plus, he did the same thing for some Army units that were stranded out there. Collected all of them (including the dead and equipment) up and brought them out too.
And what a hellhole he pulled them out of... 1 Marine Division surrounded by 10 Chinese divisions.
Some of my favorite Chesty quotes:
"So they've got us surrounded, good! Now we can fire in any direction, those bastards won't get away this time!"
"Gentlemen, we are not retreating. We are merely attacking in a different direction."
You know what? I just changed my mind. I just looked at the license page in the manual. Not only do they not give any credit (which could perhaps be an oversight) they explicitly claim EVERYTHING. Here it is:
License and Warranty Provisions
This manual and the product described in it have been protected internationally by
copyright and other applicable laws with all rights reserved. You may not remove or
conceal any trademark, patent or copyright notice appearing on the product or this
manual. Microtest remains the sole owner of the software programs that are part of this
product. Microtest grants you a nonexclusive license to use these software programs.
This license is for a single fileserver only. You may not make any copies of the software
other than as a backup copy for your own use. You may not sell, rent, lease, lend,
distribute or otherwise transfer copies of the software or this manual to others, except
that you may permanently transfer all copies of the software in your possession
(including any backups) and all related materials as a set to another person who
accepts the terms of this license agreement. You may not modify, transcribe, translate,
decompile, reverse engineer or reverse assemble the software, or create any derivative
works from it. Microtest may terminate this license at any time without notice if you
breach any of these terms. If any provision of this license is held to be unenforceable or
contrary to any applicable law, the validity of the remaining provisions shall not be
affected.
Here's the particlar part of that turns me:
Microtest remains the sole owner of the software programs that are part of this
product.
This sucks, and that is just plain stupid. I figure that a standard boilerplate license got slapped on it, and there may be some miscommunication/disconnection between the developers and the legal department. (Who knows, maybe thats why they discontinued and sold the entire division?)
Just wanted to note that I just now saw BRTB's post where he said he did see the logs, and all of that. (I wonder if these new "xStore" guys are just a bunch of jerks and won't give out any info? I checked out their site and it totally sucks. There's almost nothing there. The support page for these things on Microtest's site was great. There's no comparison at all... what a shame.)
... jumping all over Microtest. I've had good experiences working with them and this product.
First off... we have one of these. I love the darned thing. Easy to admin. Always seems to work... no fuss at all. (In a fairly heavily NT environment, no less.)
Some things I am wondering:
Do we know that there is actually modified code, or is that just a guess? It seemed to me that they just used a linux system and related software as the OS for a network appliance. I don't think the GPL has a problem with that, unless they modify the software. If there is any violation, (it does look like ther is) it is simply not mentioning its use and possibly not making the source of the programs distributed in the product available upon request. (Did anyone ask them for it, and did they refuse when asked? Or was it simply assumed they would refuse because it wasn't advertised with the product... which it probably should have been... but I see those as different severities of violation.)
As far as his problems go... is he running the latest firmware for the Zerver? He didn't say.
Another thing... the fact that this is a linux box is not exactly hidden. The case is not sealed, and you can see that it is simply a tiny PC with flash memory. And if you simply look at the logs (through the web interface... just click on a link) it is blaringly obvious. It is just a standard syslog, listing all of the programs and kernel messages in all of their glory. (If they were trying to hide the fact that it was a linux machine with GPL/other licensed software on it, I doubt they'd give you a simple link to look at the real syslog.)
Lastly... I have no idea who this new company is, or what their support is like. But Microtest was (at least back then) outstanding. The few times I needed to talk to them, I got a person who knew what they were talking about immediately. They were responsive, answered all questions, and fixed everything I needed. I even talked to them about how the log looked like it was a linux box... and they were like "yeah, it works great and does exactly what we need!". I asked about whether the SMB server was samba, and the web server was apache, and so on. They gave a "yes" to all of those questions, were up completely up front with all information, and were quite excited about it all. (This was back when the product was fairly new, and before the big "linux craze" hit a year or two ago.)
Anyway, from my impression of working with them (Microtest) and this product, I'm not so sure this is an maliciously intentional license violation. I'm not saying there isn't one (It does look like there is) but I suggest talking to them first before getting serious about getting on their case. They just never appeared to be trying to hide anything from what I could tell. I frankly wouldn't be suprised if they just said "Oh! sorry. Completely forgot about that. Here you go..." and that was it. (If I'm wrong... well, I'm wrong. Jump on their ass big time.)
Perhaps I should've asked them about the source code back then... I didn't because I didn't need it, and the product worked.
I dunno... they just seemed like a good company with good people and a good product. If they're really screwing us over for real, then hang 'em high, I guess. Perhaps the people I worked with are gone. But I just thought I should share this before they get put on trial.:)
We should use the combined "J.R.R.T." rune that is used on the spine on most of his published works.
The two capital "R"s are symmetrically back to back. The center of the combined "R"s is also the stem for both the crossbar top making a "T", and the hook on the bottom making a "J".
I do like the idea of the ring... but while the LOTR and Hobbit are his most popular works they are by no means the whole. Perhaps crown the "JRRT" rune with the ring? (Or does that bring bad associations, considering what the ring stood for?) Perhaps the ring with the inscription... followed by the JRRT. I dunno.
I like the rune all by itself the best, I think. He was a linguist, and I think it would be quite appropriate.
>With suse and progeny, the process of getting >updates and security fixes isn't very clear from >the website.
In the case of Progeny, no, it isn't very clear at all... but it is there, and is actually the same process as Debian.
Add this to your sources list...
deb http://archive.progeny.com/progeny updates/newton/
Then do the usual apt-get update, apt-get upgrade.
(On the website, go to "development", then "Progeny Debian", then "Debian Security Advisories". The info is all there. I think the website needs a redesign... a bit of an adjustment to accomodate users of their distro a little better. It's quite sparse at the moment.)
Exactly... and that was in fact a big part of the final discussion that turned Lewis.
I'd try to explain, but that is sort of pointless considering I'm home now, and can actually quote the source.:)
Here was his argument...
"We have come from God, and inevitably the myths woven by us, though they contain error, will also reflect a splintered fragment of the true light, the eternal truth that is with God. Indeed only by myth-making, only by becoming a `sub-creator' and inventing stories, can Man ascribe to the state of perfection that he knew before the Fall. Our myths may be misguided, but they steer however shakily towards the true harbour, while materialistic `progress' leads only to a yawning abyss and the Iron Crown of the power of evil."
Lewis replied "You mean that the story of Christ is simply a true myth, a myth that works on us in the same way as the others, but a myth that REALLY HAPPENED? In that case, I begin to understand."
The biographer goes on to say that here Tolkien stated the center of his entire philosophy as a writer... the element of truth inherent in all mythology. Of which he considered the myth of Christ to be no less a myth, but at the same time it was also the actual truth of what happened.
(I got this from "Tolkien", an authorized biography by Humphrey Carpenter. A footnote on the page states that the account of the conversation is based on Tolkien's poem `Mythopoeia', of which one of the manuscripts is marked `For C.S.L.'. It is a very good book, if you have any interest in Tolkien. I found it nearly as interesting as some of his actual works.)
(Major spoiler warning, for those who don't want to know some details!!!)
Have you read the Silmarillion? (Well, you must have... considering you don't even get to see that stuff in the other works.)
I actually find it to be a fascinating mixture of both pagan and Christian ideas.
There is a pantheon of gods (primarily the Valar, and to an extent the lesser Maiar), having individual traits and attributes... and mythological stories to go with them. Very pagan type of structure, similar to the classic Greek/Roman/Norse/Celic pagan mythologies.
But at the same time even they are subject to a Great Creator (Iluvatar). Whom is as much God in relation to them as they are to anyone else. The Valar run things day to day and have their exploits... but the overall picture is run by Iluvatar (God) and even they don't ever fully grasp it, or see the direction.
Kind of a weird combination of both mono and polytheism. There are a few aspects that approach actual Christian ideas, too...
Elves and Men - Actually children of Iluvatar, albeit with different destinies.
The chaining of Melkor (Satan) - Achieved by the Valar, but ultimately due to intervention by Iluvatar. He is the great evil, but after the close of the 1st age he needs an agent to act in his stead. (Sauron, his former leiutenant.)
The sending of the Istari (wizards, in particular Gandalf) - Actually Maiar... to help "save" middle earth from Sauron (probably a Maiar himself). The actual mission being to organize and inspire... not actually do the job. (Gandalf accomplished much himself, but primarily followed this ideal... Saruman did not, resulting in his fall.) Not exactly synonomous with a Christ figure, but with enough similarites to have been noticed by many. Probably as somewhat of a "savior" element, which is present in many mythologies, not just Christianity.
Anyway, Tolkien was not fond of allegory, and not intending any by his writing. But he drew on many ideas for his works, and tended to lean towards concepts (and the emotions created by them) found in mythology, including all those named above. I think he did a pretty good job of that, with the result being unique in its own right.
A bit of trivia... Tolkien was a devout Catholic. And his Christian-mythology-writing buddy that you mentioned... C.S. Lewis. Most people know that. But did you know that "Jack" Lewis had at one time been essentialy atheist, and had come around to being essentially agnostic right about the time he met Tolkien? And that he became an actual Christian as the end result of many arguments/discussions with Tolkien? (And another friend that used to walk with them... don't recall the name right now.) I didn't know that until recently, and it suprised me quite a bit. But very interesting, considering the reputation Lewis made for himself afterwards.
(No, I'm not a raving looney... I hope! My sources are both his and his son's published works, and a biography I read recently. Would give the author, but I don't remember and it's at home.:)
Tascam. why? No reason in particular. But their new digital audio workstation (more like a compact pro studio) is built on BeOS. Looks to be quite an interesting product...
Pure speculation on my part, and even I am guessing it's dead off. But it's a thought, anyway...
No, it's more like McDonalds trying to tell me I'm not allowed to dip my McNuggets in any sauce except theirs.
Or that I MUST take their sauce, and dip my nugget in it before each bite. Even if I prefer to use my own sauce, or just plain don't like them with sauce at all.
It's also like them telling me that I can't take their nasty tomato off of their burger, even if I want to put a slice from one of my homegrowns on it instead. I'm permitted to put my nice tomato on it if I like, but the slimy razor-cut one they provide must stay. (Their tomato will be on the burger, or there will be no tomatoes at all.)
It's also like a local burger shop buying their buns from McDonalds (wholesale or whatever) only to discover they come with the "special sauce" pre-smeared on them. And they're not allowed to try to scrape it off. (Not to mention that nobody else sells buns that their burgers will fit on... because McDonalds sends jackbooted lawyers to scare the bejeezus out of any local bakery that tries. They have a patent on buns, you see...)
I eat what I hunt. In fact I agree that not doing so (in the case that the game is edible) is wrong.
If one is so stupid (and unsafe) that they "blow themselves out of the gene pool", then good riddens. They are a danger to everyone else around them, and they shouldn't be out there. (Or handling weapons.)
Why would you complain about someone not being vegetarian? Because you have issues with the industry? Do you listen to music, or watch TV and movies? Please don't tell me you don't have issues with those industries. And food ranks a little higher on the "needs" scale than most other industries. (I'm not denying any problems, I'm simply disagreeing with your logic. And agriculture has it's own bucket of problems too, if you want to look into it.)
Now, go look in a mirror and get a look at your teeth. Incisors, canines and molars. Perfectly suited for processing both plant and animal tissue. We're omnivores, designed from the get-go with the ability to eat just about anything capable of providing energy. I don't complain about where you choose to get yours, so don't complain about where I get mine. God/Nature/whoever gave me the tools to do so... who are you to argue?
In order to live, we require energy from food. Unless you are very green (and have flowers in your hair naturally) you have to kill other living things to get it. Plant or animal, it has to die. So either we're both murderers, or we're both dead. Don't give me any BS about it being fuzzy and cute, either. I happen to think artichokes are very beautiful plants... but I'm not going to whine if you chop off its head, boil it, and eat it. (I'd happily do the same.) Like it or not, you're a part of nature and the cycles of life just like everything else.
Besides, what does going out in the woods to hunt, kill, and eat a wild animal have to do with supporting the meat industry? It sounds like the best way to provide oneself with meat while NOT supporting the industry. If you have a beef (:p) with the industry, you should be applauding the poster for serving their dietary needs by a means that avoids them. That might be more appropriate, and gain more support for your cause than chastizing them for not sharing your particular dietary habits.
Released from reservouirs and channeled through hydro-electric dams. Making lots of juice.
Guess where a lot of that juice went?
Down to sunny California to help out with their little "problem".
So I'd guess a good good handful of Slashdotters are sitting around using up the results of our water as we speak. (So don't talk to Oregonians about "subsidizing". They might get a little irritated, and cast a menacing glare southwards.:)
In reference to the "Oregon Draught", in both this post and another below:
Geez. You guys dont' really know anything about what is going on out here, do you? It's almost funny to read your comments on it.
1. There is NOT a 10 year draught going on here. (For crying out loud, we're generally known for our "more than adequate" rainfall. Yes, the eastern half of the state is quite dry, which is normal. And we are having a draught... this year. (You should see the pictures of some of the reservoirs... they look like bomb craters. But they're not empty yet, and we'll make it through the summer OK. A little tight, but that's because we're used to not worrying about water at all. Ever.)
2. The problem you're referring to is in the Klamath basin. (Sort of south central OR. There's other places having trouble, but they've got the worst of it.) It's not that there isn't water that can be used... although it IS lower than normal. The problem is that THE WATER SUPPLY HAS BEEN CUT OFF BY THE GOVERNMENT. Why? Because an "endangered fish" needs the water. (Regardless of the fact that this particular fish has been around for ages, and is capable of surviving draughts by holing up in mud. Drain the water lower, and it may hurt the population some, but not much. There's been draughts worse than this in the last million years, I'm sure.)
This is not an issue of farmers asking for handouts or "blaming the government for a 10 year draught". (What freakin' hat did you pull that one out of, I wonder?) The government is interfering with their lives by cutting off their water supply. Without that water, the fields dry up, there are no crops, there is no money. Not just for farmers, but for other industries in the area. (No one shops for anything when they don't have money to spend. So the problem ripples around to everybody. Every business is going broke.)
And no, you don't just move away to do something else. The rain will be back. Considering this is OREGON we're talking about, it'll be back in droves. This is a temporary problem, caused by a draught.
SUMMARY: The government shut off the water, and it's choking out the entire region. They want one of two things:
1. Turn the water back on
2. If the government insists on keeping it turned off, they should pay for the damages.
Neither seems to be happening... so they've decided on a big "F-U". They've rounded up hundreds of people and gone out there with buckets and hauled water by hand. (More as a demonstration than anything else.) They broke down they gates and turned the water back on, while the local sherriff looked on in approval. US Marshals came in, and turned it back off. (Note, there is no violence going on here. A lot of tension, but no one wants anyone to get hurt. They just want the water on.) So they snuck around and laid pipe to route around the gate. Now they're heading up there with heavy equipment to do a better job of it. And the governor is talking about readjusting the water level ratings in the region as a way to get water to them legally without violating the endangered species act. (Note, this is a very environmentally conscious governor, so don't get your panties in a bunch about that.)
So don't give me this "government hand-out" crap. They want the government the hell out of the area, so they can continue normal life on their own terms.
Apologies for the rant, and no offense meant to any of you... but I wanted to clear up a little misconception that appeared concerning my home state. I encourage you to look into it more... it's quite an interesting story.:)
Two Serial ports
One Parallel port
One IR port
Two USB ports
PS/2 Mouse & Keyboard ports
Also, it has video, audio, and 10/100 ethernet onboard. So you can knock $151 off of that an spend that on a modem, firewire, SCSI card, or whatever if you like.
Warranty? Probably standard parts warranty from the manufacturer. Usually just as good as an OEM (including Apple).
Support? Who needs it. I don't, at least. And unless they've improved in the last few years (I hope so... I used to work for an Apple VAR, so I speak from a LOT of experience here) it doesn't make all that much difference. People needing support end up getting help from the VAR (or person selling the stuff) anyway. Or even more likely, from a friend/reletive that knows what they're doing.
Time to put together? Maybe an hour tops for the hardware. Add Debian or something in 30 min. or so. My time is worth plenty to me. But any machine of mine will get plenty of time spent on it anyway... what's another 90 minutes?
You do get what you pay for, but nowadays the PC has an edge price/performance. Apple builds outstanding hardware, but to get the higher performing machines the premium is a lot higher.
Don't feed me the "don't look at MHz" line, either. I'm well aware of that, and not stupid. I used to support and sell Macs, remember? Not to mention one of the nicer benefits with Macs is gone. SCSI everything rocked. No IDE. Till recently, anyway. Paying more for that used to be worth it, but now they're primarily IDE drive machines too. Bummer.
And to get a really good PC, my opinion is you HAVE to build it yourself. (An OEM will skimp all over when they can get away with it. I can pick every single little part and end up with similar quality as you get with a Mac.) I would've given different hardware choices than what you replied to... check out ars-technica and read their system guides if you want to put together a good PC machine.
I'd love to own a Mac, and to try out OS X. I may even do it. But to argue bang for the buck, it really depends on what you are doing. For most things, you can get more power and similar quality with a PC for the same price, if you do it yourself. (Provided you don't use windows.:) Or similar performance for less.
Macs still win the "Grandma Test" hands down, though.:)
>All "starving musicians" should make their >recordings available on MP3.com. You can sell >CD's for what they are worth, not inflated >record cartel prices, and still get a good >royalty
I'd have to disagree with you there. Not all "starving artists" should make their recordings available on MP3.com. Particularly because while MP3.com is well known and popular, there are better channels than that available. (That give artists a better deal, and more actively promote artists. MP3.com may be good, but I've heard there are better ones. Besonic is supposed to be good.) Basically, I agree with your overall idea. But find your particular solution too limiting.:)
There's alternatives to all of that mess described for the recording process, also. (Though it does sound familiar, and quite true.)
1. Screw the studio. Get some good equipment. Learn how to use it. It's amazing how much you can get for your money these days. (Digital audio workstations, both stand-alone and computer based. Good mixers and mics. Good, used analog equipment -maybe from a small studio- on ebay. Creative recording/room-setup techniques. Don't buy it all at once. Just as you can afford it, over a few years.)
2. Don't take 2 weeks off of work to do it. Get together on a weeknight or two, occasionally on weekends, over the period of a year or two. Hell, if you're a musician you're doing it anyway. Do it in your sound-treated garage/studio with your own recording gear handy. No need to prep for a major studio session. Write material. Record it. Listen to it at work looking for improvements. Let inspiration for new parts or changes come naturally. Try them out next practice. Every once in a while focus on nailing a good tune and getting a full-on pro-quality recording of it. Eventually you'll have a CD (or two or three) worth, and you will have been playing them forever. If you want to do a pro-studio session, you won't spend 3/4 of the time dicking around trying to figure out what to. You'll just be repeating what you practiced on better equipment. Get in, get it done, get out. Don't try 300 takes of each part to get it perfect. Total waste of time. Only fix major screwups, and there shouldn't be too many if you've been practicing enough.
3. Get your own PA system. Your own van. Don't rent. Visit venues on your own ahead of time to check out the gear so you know whether to bring it or not. Plus you can play parties anytime... free publicity.:)
4. Put your stuff on your own website. And a link to order a real CD. (Burned, not stamped. Offer it cheap, since it's not as good of course.) Do the same on an online service, like MP3.com or Besonic. Dump it all on Napster and all equivalents. Why not?:) Send a burned CD to a couple stations. (Blanket a thousand stations? What a waste. They even admitted likelyhood of it being played as minimal. Targeted advertising is key.:)
Does it take longer? Yep. Does it allow you to do what you love, and give the creativity an outlet? Yep. Can you keep your day job? Yep. Are your chances of success much less than in the scenario given in the example? Probably not. Unless you want to count an impending bankruptcy as success.:)
I'm not just talking out my butt here. I'm somewhere along in various parts of this process. (Lots of practice, good live sound gear, really crappy recording equipment, etc, etc.) Will it make me a high-falutin' rock star? Uh, no. But it's fun and I enjoy doing it enough to put time, effort, and money into doing it. (Like any proper hobby, only with potential weekend income, and a slighter chance of going pro than a model train collector.:)
Slashdot Mirror
"Anyone who says that hasn't actually tried to do it."
Sorry, but that isn't true at all.
"There's really no substitute for professional recording gear"
And what exactly is professional recording gear nowadays? Not all, but quite a bit is software combined with high-end digital interfaces. To what? An "off the shelf computer".
An MOTU 896 will plug into anything with firewire. An M-Audio Delta series (like a 1010) can be had for $150-$600 depending on how many inputs you want. An RME Hammerfall or Multiface? Same deal, a little more money. (BTW, both the RME and M-Audio cards have linux drivers in ALSA, and advertise the fact with the product.) This stuff is 24bit 96KHz pro recording gear. And what the heck do you think Pro-Tools runs on? That's right, an off-the-shelf computer.
Wanna go cheap? $150 for a 4 channel M-Audio Delta44, and $40 for a copy of N-Track on windows. On linux make do with SLab for now, or try Ardour (from CVS).
"and a well designed room to record it."
Of course. Not to mention you might need good microphones, pre-amps, and maybe a mixer. (Pre-amps are sometimes built in to the interface, and always in a mixer if you have one. Never as good as nice standalones, but they're probably OK.)
But nobody said you don't need a good recording space. They just said you could record it into a computer.
"And there is the matter of expertise of the person mixing."
Again, of course that's a factor. Though it's hard to get experience doing something if you can never afford the equipment. (Can't learn to play a guitar if you never get to hold one in your hands.) Read a lot. Experiment a lot. Practice, practice. Fail. Get better. Just like learning anything else. You'll start out sucking rocks, but you'll get better.
" I wish what you said were true, but it's not that simple."
Of course it's not "that simple". I don't think he was saying it was simple. He was saying that you could do a lot on a computer nowadays, and the cash price of entry for doing it yourself is pretty good. Especially if you already have a computer.
You still have to put some money into a decent interface, a proper space, and some outboard gear... but not near as much as it used to be. You still have to put a lot of time and effort in to learning, but that is time and effort... not 10's of thousands of cold, hard dollars.
Cool. Thanks!
And you're right. Some of that has already been discussed.
Put your info in here:
http://www.dylanreinhardt.com/plug
Sign up to mailing lists here:
https://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo
There is stuff on the main list, and some more on the edu list. There are web archives you can erad up on, too. (To see what has been said, contact those that are involved with various parts.)
This many are not giving lip service:
:)
http://www.dylanreinhardt.com/plug
This is the (hasty, but had to be that way) volunteer database that a PLUG member started. And yes, I'm on that list. Not visible on that page is REAL contact info that is actually in the db.
You're asking people to put up or shut up. There you go.
Your turn.
I guess we just differ in opinion, there.
:)
:)
(Note: I didn't say anything about auto-downloading. I just care that the problems are fixed and the fixes are made available. The original poster did, and I agree that is more akin to a feature improvement warranting a purchase.)
I just think that they should make an attempt at giving people what they already paid for. Like every other industry does. They do to an extent... but not near enough. I say the product IS defective.
Something may work as advertised... but that doesn't mean it can't fail miserably to live up to reasonable expectations of performance.
Let's say I buy a new Corvette. And it is advertised as "great handling, fast, convertible, leather interior, rides nicely, etc".
Now let's say when the top is down, and the car is driven over 30 miles an hour, that the hood will sometimes fly open. Forcing me to stop the car (If I don't wreck first) and close it. The next year's model has a redesigned latch that doesn't.
Should Chevy not fix it? At no cost? Or should I be forced to buy the new one?
The car does everything advertised. But definitely falls short of being safe and reliable. A fix is available... can I not get it without buying a new car? Hell, can I even BUY the fix without buying a whole new car?
My point is simply that for some reason commercial software plays under completely separate rules than anything else you buy. Cripe, if I buy a bag of peanuts and they are bad there's a gripe line on the bag to complain to. (Which will usually offer you a refund or better peanuts.) I mean, how bad is that... they can't even offer means of customer satisfaction at the same level of a peanut packager!
(Maybe the light bulb in glove box catches on fire whenever you turn the headlights on. A third party can offer an automatic extinguisher, and another can give me a new wiring harness. Does that mean the manufacturer isn't at fault that the damn thing catches on fire? Especially since you sometimes drive other cars that don't do that?)
I don't think I need to get over a "free to me" mentality, as I simply don't have one. (Note, I'm not the original poster replied to. I also own a corvette, so I can't be THAT much of a penny pincher.
However, I definitely have a "If I paid money, it needs to live up to some minimum quality expectations" attitude. Many software (esp. Microsoft) products do not.
I work with both Linux and Windows. I hate most Windows. Win2K is almost tolerable, though. I hate Word. I'd use Notepad and HTML before it. Or install Abiword. I do love Excel. If it is there I'll use it. If not, I'd probably use OpenOffice. On a linux box Gnumeric is an adequate replacement. I prefer linux machines and free software, but have one Win2K machine with some commercial audio software (all bought and paid for). When Ardour is finished, I may switch that as well.
My point... that NO, I'm not afraid to pay money for stuff. But won't if I don't have to. Who would?
On the other hand, your alternative isn't that bad of an idea. In fact, at work we have a piece of software sortof like that. Except that it wasn't all that expensive anyway. We do pay a (small/reasonable) fee for annual support, but it isn't required to keep the software working or get updates. (But they'll do custom programming and tweaks on the spot if you are on support. Pretty nice...) It isn't some huge expensive deal either. Pretty decent business model if you ask me... perhaps not sustainable on a huge scale.
Anyway, 'nuff on that topic. Gotta run.
I don't think it's really expecting everything to be free.
:)
It is expecting a product (paid for with good money, no less) to perform properly. Without constant malfunction.
Why shouldn't one expect purchased software to be at least REASONABLY free from defects? The same way one does for most other products.
If an individual product is crap, one expects it to be fixed or replaced. On the provider's bill, because it is their fault.
If the entire product line is defective, the provider needs to recall/refund or replace/etc it on their bill too. Or provide a fix.
And not just a patch buried someplace that most of the customers will never see. I hear recall notices on the radio all the time... so what is the big deal? When a lot of software I use has a major problem, the patch/fix/whatever is right on the front page of their website, begging me to upgrade it. If they have my email addy, I get an email telling me about it.
Why the hell can't MS do that? Or something like it? (Cuz they don't give a rat's hiney about their customers, that's why. Cuz they want to squeeze them to pony up for the latest/greatest.)
Brand new versions of software, with lots of new functionality and features... that is what they should be charging for.
Bug and security fixes for a defective product within it's supported lifetime? Hell, no that shouldn't cost. The customer already paid for a working product. If they have to jump over the moon to make it do what it was supposed to do to begin with, then that's what they should try to do. Or give the poor sod their money back.
Oh, wait. "But WE didn't sell it to you! OEM Joe did. And he can't do anything for you either, cuz it worked fine when we sold it to him. Sucks to be you, huh?" Looks like they've wiggled out of that expectation, too.
I'm not sure.
It's actually not intended for querying so much as it is for "standardizing" records, and saving libraries the time it takes to create a new record from scratch.
Downloading a complete record (to be loaded into your own catalog/database) actually costs 50 cents a pop, I believe. There are other price plans, too. I'm pretty sure it is a non-profit cooperative, and the charges fund the operation. (Equipment, location, staff, and everything.)
It sounds expensive, but the charges to use this "shared" system don't come close to what it would cost any library (in staff time) to do complete cataloging on their own. Multiply that worktime by the number of member libraries, and it's pretty obvious why it is done that way.
Probably not something usable for individuals, but if you really do have a library (and have to pay employees to maintain it) it's a pretty good way to go.
As a matter of fact... that is actually not that far off from how OCLC works.
:)
From the site...
At the center of OCLC services is the WorldCat database, which:
* Is the most consulted database in higher education
* Holds over 47 million cataloging records created by libraries around the world, with a new record added every 15 seconds
* Spans over 4,000 years of recorded knowledge with 400 languages represented
* Includes 840,637,829 location listings
I'm not a librarian (I'm the sysadmin... the technical services librarian just left for the day or I'd just ask her) but I work in one and I believe the records are all submitted by member libraries.
Anyway, go to the site for more info. I gotta get back to work.
http://www.oclc.com/about/
Spinal Tap.
You know, the hilarious mock-rockumentary?
The commentary track is by the 3 main actors (and band members), which is no biggie.
But the whole thing is done completely IN CHARACTER. As the band, commenting on the DVD as if it is still a real documentary. Complaining about this and that, ripping the "director" to shreds, filling you in with "backgroud stories" and telling you about the "stuff that got cut out".
It's like a whole new Spinal Tap movie, all over again. Funniest damned thing I've ever seen.
Make it known that people really don't like this stuff. This might cost a little more than going out to a movie or something but is likely to prove more entertaining.
1. Go to your favorite music store.
2. Find crappy copy-protected CD and take it to the sales counter.
3. Ask (not exactly quietly) "Is this the one that won't play in a computer?" and wait for them to say yes.
4. Purchase the CD.
5. Pull flat piece of wood out of bag/backpack and place it on the floor. Place CD on top of it.
6. Pull large mallet or hammer (a mini steel sledge is perfect, especially for the visual effect) out of the same bag/backpack.
7. Proceed to bash your newly purchased CD to tiny bits. (Be careful not to appear to endanger anyone else, or any other property in the store. Just your CD. The wood should protect their floor.)
8. Put your tools away in your bag, clean up your mess, and politely ask where you might dispose of the bag of broken pieces.
9. Say thank you, and mention that you'd be happy if they would be sure to let you know if any more defective CD's come to market and may be found in thier store. Perhaps leave them a pre-printed explanation for them to ponder over while you walk away.
WARNING: Spoilers ahead, in an attempt to address these questions. :)
:)
>You are teaching a kid to believe a single source of information, not to make research.
It actually did just the opposite. (Many of the things you are talking about are taken into account, and were problems the creator wrestled with while designing it.) As a result, it didn't so much teach "information" as much as it encouraged personal growth, critical thinking, and problem solving.
Information was limited mostly to pure raw facts, such as one might find in an encyclopedia or dictionary. In that regard it acted as a reference book... but that wasn't the primary function.
One of the most interesting things about the book (both the Diamond Age and the primer itself) was the teaching style employed. It was in the form of a story, where the girl is a character in the story... and is continually presented with problems of increasing difficulty of every kind. The girl could pause the story at any point to use the primer more like a reference book (to do some research/get more information to help her out), and she could also back up and try again a different way. But the story of the girl (in the primer) continued and developed more complexity the entire time she was growing up. In a word, it was the ultimate choose-your-own-adventure book, with an emphasis on overall personal development.
>The kid becomes isolated, as he has no need to ask his parents/friends/teachers any question.
This really wasn't the case, because it wasn't TOTALLY interactive. It was a book, and as such it could be put down. And she had a most interesting life outside of it. (Lessons learned through trial and error in the primer helped a LOT with her real life.) It was more of a supplemental education, than an outright replacement.
Also, there was an element of real teaching involved. The voice in the primer was that of a real person (an actor working on a contract basis) reading a real-time generated script. The actor eventually figured out that she was basically raising a small girl... and became pretty emotionally involved even not knowing her.
In addition... her father was dead, and her mother was in an extremely abusive relationship. The young girl was pretty much forced to run away from the situation, and had to fend for herself. (I hope I'm not giving too much of the story away... but I do want to try to address your concerns.) Not to mention the fact that she actually become MORE inclined to ask questions of adults... very pointed, intelligent questions that would often catch them off-guard.
>The kid can become antisocial, autistic or just not learn to speak well, since the machine comunicates with "mediaglyphs" and not words.
It started out with mediaglyphs (which another poster mentioned were in common use in the setting of the book), but the very first thing it did was use them to teach the girl how to read, and how to use the primer itself. At that point, it was primarily text based. It could read to her if she chose, but she often preferred to read it herself, since she had learned how. (She ended up more literate and "eloquent" than most adults.)
It's an absolutely wonderful book, although the ending has always felt a little weird. Still worth it, though. Highly reccomended, if you ask me.
Semper Fi, dude. Another leatherneck here...
Yes, we did bring our dead home in Korea. Frozen Chosin, man! Chesty not only brought out every single man (healthy and wounded of course, and ALL of the dead) but all of the equipment, too. (
anks, trucks, you name it.) Plus, he did the same thing for some Army units that were stranded out there. Collected all of them (including the dead and equipment) up and brought them out too.
And what a hellhole he pulled them out of... 1 Marine Division surrounded by 10 Chinese divisions.
Some of my favorite Chesty quotes:
"So they've got us surrounded, good! Now we can fire in any direction, those bastards won't get away this time!"
"Gentlemen, we are not retreating. We are merely attacking in a different direction."
You know what? I just changed my mind. I just looked at the license page in the manual. Not only do they not give any credit (which could perhaps be an oversight) they explicitly claim EVERYTHING. Here it is:
License and Warranty Provisions
This manual and the product described in it have been protected internationally by
copyright and other applicable laws with all rights reserved. You may not remove or
conceal any trademark, patent or copyright notice appearing on the product or this
manual. Microtest remains the sole owner of the software programs that are part of this
product. Microtest grants you a nonexclusive license to use these software programs.
This license is for a single fileserver only. You may not make any copies of the software
other than as a backup copy for your own use. You may not sell, rent, lease, lend,
distribute or otherwise transfer copies of the software or this manual to others, except
that you may permanently transfer all copies of the software in your possession
(including any backups) and all related materials as a set to another person who
accepts the terms of this license agreement. You may not modify, transcribe, translate,
decompile, reverse engineer or reverse assemble the software, or create any derivative
works from it. Microtest may terminate this license at any time without notice if you
breach any of these terms. If any provision of this license is held to be unenforceable or
contrary to any applicable law, the validity of the remaining provisions shall not be
affected.
Here's the particlar part of that turns me:
Microtest remains the sole owner of the software programs that are part of this
product.
This sucks, and that is just plain stupid. I figure that a standard boilerplate license got slapped on it, and there may be some miscommunication/disconnection between the developers and the legal department. (Who knows, maybe thats why they discontinued and sold the entire division?)
Throw the book at 'em.
Just wanted to note that I just now saw BRTB's post where he said he did see the logs, and all of that. (I wonder if these new "xStore" guys are just a bunch of jerks and won't give out any info? I checked out their site and it totally sucks. There's almost nothing there. The support page for these things on Microtest's site was great. There's no comparison at all... what a shame.)
... jumping all over Microtest. I've had good experiences working with them and this product.
:)
First off... we have one of these. I love the darned thing. Easy to admin. Always seems to work... no fuss at all. (In a fairly heavily NT environment, no less.)
Some things I am wondering:
Do we know that there is actually modified code, or is that just a guess? It seemed to me that they just used a linux system and related software as the OS for a network appliance. I don't think the GPL has a problem with that, unless they modify the software. If there is any violation, (it does look like ther is) it is simply not mentioning its use and possibly not making the source of the programs distributed in the product available upon request. (Did anyone ask them for it, and did they refuse when asked? Or was it simply assumed they would refuse because it wasn't advertised with the product... which it probably should have been... but I see those as different severities of violation.)
As far as his problems go... is he running the latest firmware for the Zerver? He didn't say.
Another thing... the fact that this is a linux box is not exactly hidden. The case is not sealed, and you can see that it is simply a tiny PC with flash memory. And if you simply look at the logs (through the web interface... just click on a link) it is blaringly obvious. It is just a standard syslog, listing all of the programs and kernel messages in all of their glory. (If they were trying to hide the fact that it was a linux machine with GPL/other licensed software on it, I doubt they'd give you a simple link to look at the real syslog.)
Lastly... I have no idea who this new company is, or what their support is like. But Microtest was (at least back then) outstanding. The few times I needed to talk to them, I got a person who knew what they were talking about immediately. They were responsive, answered all questions, and fixed everything I needed. I even talked to them about how the log looked like it was a linux box... and they were like "yeah, it works great and does exactly what we need!". I asked about whether the SMB server was samba, and the web server was apache, and so on. They gave a "yes" to all of those questions, were up completely up front with all information, and were quite excited about it all. (This was back when the product was fairly new, and before the big "linux craze" hit a year or two ago.)
Anyway, from my impression of working with them (Microtest) and this product, I'm not so sure this is an maliciously intentional license violation. I'm not saying there isn't one (It does look like there is) but I suggest talking to them first before getting serious about getting on their case. They just never appeared to be trying to hide anything from what I could tell. I frankly wouldn't be suprised if they just said "Oh! sorry. Completely forgot about that. Here you go..." and that was it. (If I'm wrong... well, I'm wrong. Jump on their ass big time.)
Perhaps I should've asked them about the source code back then... I didn't because I didn't need it, and the product worked.
I dunno... they just seemed like a good company with good people and a good product. If they're really screwing us over for real, then hang 'em high, I guess. Perhaps the people I worked with are gone. But I just thought I should share this before they get put on trial.
We should use the combined "J.R.R.T." rune that is used on the spine on most of his published works.
The two capital "R"s are symmetrically back to back. The center of the combined "R"s is also the stem for both the crossbar top making a "T", and the hook on the bottom making a "J".
I do like the idea of the ring... but while the LOTR and Hobbit are his most popular works they are by no means the whole. Perhaps crown the "JRRT" rune with the ring? (Or does that bring bad associations, considering what the ring stood for?) Perhaps the ring with the inscription... followed by the JRRT. I dunno.
I like the rune all by itself the best, I think. He was a linguist, and I think it would be quite appropriate.
>With suse and progeny, the process of getting >updates and security fixes isn't very clear from >the website.
In the case of Progeny, no, it isn't very clear at all... but it is there, and is actually the same process as Debian.
Add this to your sources list...
deb http://archive.progeny.com/progeny updates/newton/
Then do the usual apt-get update, apt-get upgrade.
(On the website, go to "development", then "Progeny Debian", then "Debian Security Advisories". The info is all there. I think the website needs a redesign... a bit of an adjustment to accomodate users of their distro a little better. It's quite sparse at the moment.)
Hope that helps!
Exactly... and that was in fact a big part of the final discussion that turned Lewis.
:)
I'd try to explain, but that is sort of pointless considering I'm home now, and can actually quote the source.
Here was his argument...
"We have come from God, and inevitably the myths woven by us, though they contain error, will also reflect a splintered fragment of the true light, the eternal truth that is with God. Indeed only by myth-making, only by becoming a `sub-creator' and inventing stories, can Man ascribe to the state of perfection that he knew before the Fall. Our myths may be misguided, but they steer however shakily towards the true harbour, while materialistic `progress' leads only to a yawning abyss and the Iron Crown of the power of evil."
Lewis replied "You mean that the story of Christ is simply a true myth, a myth that works on us in the same way as the others, but a myth that REALLY HAPPENED? In that case, I begin to understand."
The biographer goes on to say that here Tolkien stated the center of his entire philosophy as a writer... the element of truth inherent in all mythology. Of which he considered the myth of Christ to be no less a myth, but at the same time it was also the actual truth of what happened.
(I got this from "Tolkien", an authorized biography by Humphrey Carpenter. A footnote on the page states that the account of the conversation is based on Tolkien's poem `Mythopoeia', of which one of the manuscripts is marked `For C.S.L.'. It is a very good book, if you have any interest in Tolkien. I found it nearly as interesting as some of his actual works.)
(Major spoiler warning, for those who don't want to know some details!!!)
:)
Have you read the Silmarillion? (Well, you must have... considering you don't even get to see that stuff in the other works.)
I actually find it to be a fascinating mixture of both pagan and Christian ideas.
There is a pantheon of gods (primarily the Valar, and to an extent the lesser Maiar), having individual traits and attributes... and mythological stories to go with them. Very pagan type of structure, similar to the classic Greek/Roman/Norse/Celic pagan mythologies.
But at the same time even they are subject to a Great Creator (Iluvatar). Whom is as much God in relation to them as they are to anyone else. The Valar run things day to day and have their exploits... but the overall picture is run by Iluvatar (God) and even they don't ever fully grasp it, or see the direction.
Kind of a weird combination of both mono and polytheism. There are a few aspects that approach actual Christian ideas, too...
Elves and Men - Actually children of Iluvatar, albeit with different destinies.
The chaining of Melkor (Satan) - Achieved by the Valar, but ultimately due to intervention by Iluvatar. He is the great evil, but after the close of the 1st age he needs an agent to act in his stead. (Sauron, his former leiutenant.)
The sending of the Istari (wizards, in particular Gandalf) - Actually Maiar... to help "save" middle earth from Sauron (probably a Maiar himself). The actual mission being to organize and inspire... not actually do the job. (Gandalf accomplished much himself, but primarily followed this ideal... Saruman did not, resulting in his fall.) Not exactly synonomous with a Christ figure, but with enough similarites to have been noticed by many. Probably as somewhat of a "savior" element, which is present in many mythologies, not just Christianity.
Anyway, Tolkien was not fond of allegory, and not intending any by his writing. But he drew on many ideas for his works, and tended to lean towards concepts (and the emotions created by them) found in mythology, including all those named above. I think he did a pretty good job of that, with the result being unique in its own right.
A bit of trivia... Tolkien was a devout Catholic. And his Christian-mythology-writing buddy that you mentioned... C.S. Lewis. Most people know that. But did you know that "Jack" Lewis had at one time been essentialy atheist, and had come around to being essentially agnostic right about the time he met Tolkien? And that he became an actual Christian as the end result of many arguments/discussions with Tolkien? (And another friend that used to walk with them... don't recall the name right now.) I didn't know that until recently, and it suprised me quite a bit. But very interesting, considering the reputation Lewis made for himself afterwards.
(No, I'm not a raving looney... I hope! My sources are both his and his son's published works, and a biography I read recently. Would give the author, but I don't remember and it's at home.
Got another speculation for you...
Tascam. why? No reason in particular. But their new digital audio workstation (more like a compact pro studio) is built on BeOS. Looks to be quite an interesting product...
Pure speculation on my part, and even I am guessing it's dead off. But it's a thought, anyway...
No, it's more like McDonalds trying to tell me I'm not allowed to dip my McNuggets in any sauce except theirs.
Or that I MUST take their sauce, and dip my nugget in it before each bite. Even if I prefer to use my own sauce, or just plain don't like them with sauce at all.
It's also like them telling me that I can't take their nasty tomato off of their burger, even if I want to put a slice from one of my homegrowns on it instead. I'm permitted to put my nice tomato on it if I like, but the slimy razor-cut one they provide must stay. (Their tomato will be on the burger, or there will be no tomatoes at all.)
It's also like a local burger shop buying their buns from McDonalds (wholesale or whatever) only to discover they come with the "special sauce" pre-smeared on them. And they're not allowed to try to scrape it off. (Not to mention that nobody else sells buns that their burgers will fit on... because McDonalds sends jackbooted lawyers to scare the bejeezus out of any local bakery that tries. They have a patent on buns, you see...)
I eat what I hunt. In fact I agree that not doing so (in the case that the game is edible) is wrong.
If one is so stupid (and unsafe) that they "blow themselves out of the gene pool", then good riddens. They are a danger to everyone else around them, and they shouldn't be out there. (Or handling weapons.)
Why would you complain about someone not being vegetarian? Because you have issues with the industry? Do you listen to music, or watch TV and movies? Please don't tell me you don't have issues with those industries. And food ranks a little higher on the "needs" scale than most other industries. (I'm not denying any problems, I'm simply disagreeing with your logic. And agriculture has it's own bucket of problems too, if you want to look into it.)
Now, go look in a mirror and get a look at your teeth. Incisors, canines and molars. Perfectly suited for processing both plant and animal tissue. We're omnivores, designed from the get-go with the ability to eat just about anything capable of providing energy. I don't complain about where you choose to get yours, so don't complain about where I get mine. God/Nature/whoever gave me the tools to do so... who are you to argue?
In order to live, we require energy from food. Unless you are very green (and have flowers in your hair naturally) you have to kill other living things to get it. Plant or animal, it has to die. So either we're both murderers, or we're both dead. Don't give me any BS about it being fuzzy and cute, either. I happen to think artichokes are very beautiful plants... but I'm not going to whine if you chop off its head, boil it, and eat it. (I'd happily do the same.) Like it or not, you're a part of nature and the cycles of life just like everything else.
Besides, what does going out in the woods to hunt, kill, and eat a wild animal have to do with supporting the meat industry? It sounds like the best way to provide oneself with meat while NOT supporting the industry. If you have a beef (:p) with the industry, you should be applauding the poster for serving their dietary needs by a means that avoids them. That might be more appropriate, and gain more support for your cause than chastizing them for not sharing your particular dietary habits.
Oh, yeah... forgot to mention something.
:)
Guess where a lot of our water went?
Released from reservouirs and channeled through hydro-electric dams. Making lots of juice.
Guess where a lot of that juice went?
Down to sunny California to help out with their little "problem".
So I'd guess a good good handful of Slashdotters are sitting around using up the results of our water as we speak. (So don't talk to Oregonians about "subsidizing". They might get a little irritated, and cast a menacing glare southwards.
In reference to the "Oregon Draught", in both this post and another below:
:)
Geez. You guys dont' really know anything about what is going on out here, do you? It's almost funny to read your comments on it.
1. There is NOT a 10 year draught going on here. (For crying out loud, we're generally known for our "more than adequate" rainfall. Yes, the eastern half of the state is quite dry, which is normal. And we are having a draught... this year. (You should see the pictures of some of the reservoirs... they look like bomb craters. But they're not empty yet, and we'll make it through the summer OK. A little tight, but that's because we're used to not worrying about water at all. Ever.)
2. The problem you're referring to is in the Klamath basin. (Sort of south central OR. There's other places having trouble, but they've got the worst of it.) It's not that there isn't water that can be used... although it IS lower than normal. The problem is that THE WATER SUPPLY HAS BEEN CUT OFF BY THE GOVERNMENT. Why? Because an "endangered fish" needs the water. (Regardless of the fact that this particular fish has been around for ages, and is capable of surviving draughts by holing up in mud. Drain the water lower, and it may hurt the population some, but not much. There's been draughts worse than this in the last million years, I'm sure.)
This is not an issue of farmers asking for handouts or "blaming the government for a 10 year draught". (What freakin' hat did you pull that one out of, I wonder?) The government is interfering with their lives by cutting off their water supply. Without that water, the fields dry up, there are no crops, there is no money. Not just for farmers, but for other industries in the area. (No one shops for anything when they don't have money to spend. So the problem ripples around to everybody. Every business is going broke.)
And no, you don't just move away to do something else. The rain will be back. Considering this is OREGON we're talking about, it'll be back in droves. This is a temporary problem, caused by a draught.
SUMMARY: The government shut off the water, and it's choking out the entire region. They want one of two things:
1. Turn the water back on
2. If the government insists on keeping it turned off, they should pay for the damages.
Neither seems to be happening... so they've decided on a big "F-U". They've rounded up hundreds of people and gone out there with buckets and hauled water by hand. (More as a demonstration than anything else.) They broke down they gates and turned the water back on, while the local sherriff looked on in approval. US Marshals came in, and turned it back off. (Note, there is no violence going on here. A lot of tension, but no one wants anyone to get hurt. They just want the water on.) So they snuck around and laid pipe to route around the gate. Now they're heading up there with heavy equipment to do a better job of it. And the governor is talking about readjusting the water level ratings in the region as a way to get water to them legally without violating the endangered species act. (Note, this is a very environmentally conscious governor, so don't get your panties in a bunch about that.)
So don't give me this "government hand-out" crap. They want the government the hell out of the area, so they can continue normal life on their own terms.
Apologies for the rant, and no offense meant to any of you... but I wanted to clear up a little misconception that appeared concerning my home state. I encourage you to look into it more... it's quite an interesting story.
Here's what I found on that board.
:) Or similar performance for less.
:)
Two Serial ports
One Parallel port
One IR port
Two USB ports
PS/2 Mouse & Keyboard ports
Also, it has video, audio, and 10/100 ethernet onboard. So you can knock $151 off of that an spend that on a modem, firewire, SCSI card, or whatever if you like.
Warranty? Probably standard parts warranty from the manufacturer. Usually just as good as an OEM (including Apple).
Support? Who needs it. I don't, at least. And unless they've improved in the last few years (I hope so... I used to work for an Apple VAR, so I speak from a LOT of experience here) it doesn't make all that much difference. People needing support end up getting help from the VAR (or person selling the stuff) anyway. Or even more likely, from a friend/reletive that knows what they're doing.
Time to put together? Maybe an hour tops for the hardware. Add Debian or something in 30 min. or so. My time is worth plenty to me. But any machine of mine will get plenty of time spent on it anyway... what's another 90 minutes?
You do get what you pay for, but nowadays the PC has an edge price/performance. Apple builds outstanding hardware, but to get the higher performing machines the premium is a lot higher.
Don't feed me the "don't look at MHz" line, either. I'm well aware of that, and not stupid. I used to support and sell Macs, remember? Not to mention one of the nicer benefits with Macs is gone. SCSI everything rocked. No IDE. Till recently, anyway. Paying more for that used to be worth it, but now they're primarily IDE drive machines too. Bummer.
And to get a really good PC, my opinion is you HAVE to build it yourself. (An OEM will skimp all over when they can get away with it. I can pick every single little part and end up with similar quality as you get with a Mac.) I would've given different hardware choices than what you replied to... check out ars-technica and read their system guides if you want to put together a good PC machine.
I'd love to own a Mac, and to try out OS X. I may even do it. But to argue bang for the buck, it really depends on what you are doing. For most things, you can get more power and similar quality with a PC for the same price, if you do it yourself. (Provided you don't use windows.
Macs still win the "Grandma Test" hands down, though.
>All "starving musicians" should make their >recordings available on MP3.com. You can sell >CD's for what they are worth, not inflated >record cartel prices, and still get a good >royalty
:)
:)
:) Send a burned CD to a couple stations. (Blanket a thousand stations? What a waste. They even admitted likelyhood of it being played as minimal. Targeted advertising is key. :)
:)
:)
I'd have to disagree with you there. Not all "starving artists" should make their recordings available on MP3.com. Particularly because while MP3.com is well known and popular, there are better channels than that available. (That give artists a better deal, and more actively promote artists. MP3.com may be good, but I've heard there are better ones. Besonic is supposed to be good.) Basically, I agree with your overall idea. But find your particular solution too limiting.
There's alternatives to all of that mess described for the recording process, also. (Though it does sound familiar, and quite true.)
1. Screw the studio. Get some good equipment. Learn how to use it. It's amazing how much you can get for your money these days. (Digital audio workstations, both stand-alone and computer based. Good mixers and mics. Good, used analog equipment -maybe from a small studio- on ebay. Creative recording/room-setup techniques. Don't buy it all at once. Just as you can afford it, over a few years.)
2. Don't take 2 weeks off of work to do it. Get together on a weeknight or two, occasionally on weekends, over the period of a year or two. Hell, if you're a musician you're doing it anyway. Do it in your sound-treated garage/studio with your own recording gear handy. No need to prep for a major studio session. Write material. Record it. Listen to it at work looking for improvements. Let inspiration for new parts or changes come naturally. Try them out next practice. Every once in a while focus on nailing a good tune and getting a full-on pro-quality recording of it. Eventually you'll have a CD (or two or three) worth, and you will have been playing them forever. If you want to do a pro-studio session, you won't spend 3/4 of the time dicking around trying to figure out what to. You'll just be repeating what you practiced on better equipment. Get in, get it done, get out. Don't try 300 takes of each part to get it perfect. Total waste of time. Only fix major screwups, and there shouldn't be too many if you've been practicing enough.
3. Get your own PA system. Your own van. Don't rent. Visit venues on your own ahead of time to check out the gear so you know whether to bring it or not. Plus you can play parties anytime... free publicity.
4. Put your stuff on your own website. And a link to order a real CD. (Burned, not stamped. Offer it cheap, since it's not as good of course.) Do the same on an online service, like MP3.com or Besonic. Dump it all on Napster and all equivalents. Why not?
Does it take longer? Yep. Does it allow you to do what you love, and give the creativity an outlet? Yep. Can you keep your day job? Yep. Are your chances of success much less than in the scenario given in the example? Probably not. Unless you want to count an impending bankruptcy as success.
I'm not just talking out my butt here. I'm somewhere along in various parts of this process. (Lots of practice, good live sound gear, really crappy recording equipment, etc, etc.) Will it make me a high-falutin' rock star? Uh, no. But it's fun and I enjoy doing it enough to put time, effort, and money into doing it. (Like any proper hobby, only with potential weekend income, and a slighter chance of going pro than a model train collector.