I don't think that law should even be applied to Napster (and as far as I know, it never was). The law only comes into affect, IIRC, when some sort of certain content is eliminated based on some criteria of content itself, not how it is encoded.
Example: Phone system. They qualify as a common carrier because they don't take any say over what people send over the lines (for the most part, anyway). There are certain things it would be illegal to send over the phone lines: if you are a US citizen, voice data saying you are planning on killing the President, I think, would be illegal, or maybe using a modem to send a stolen data to someone. The legality is determined based on the content itself.
However, they do limit the *format* of what is transmitted. You can only send analog signal over the phone lines (to live in a simple world anyway, ignoring anything but simple analog phones for the sake of argument); you couldn't transmit raw ethernet frames over the phone. You can, however, modulate anything you wish to transmit over this line using a modem. So you could be sending voice data about killing the President, a song by your favorite artist in mp3, fax data containing top secret stolen documents, etc over this line, all eventualy encoded in some manner over the analog carrier. The same thing here applies to Napster. Napster only limits the format of what is transmitted (ie MP3), but doesn't care what you use mp3 to encode. It could be music--it might not be. You easily come up with a way to encode html content in an mp3, or image data in an mp3, much in the same way that you could encode arbitrary data in a gif file Granted, it isn't the best encoding format, but it would work.
Now if Napster started eliminating stolen music from the stream of transmitions, then I think they would not be a common carrier, because they would be eliminating content based on the content itself, not on the encoding.
I think the confusion here stems from the fact that almost everyone uses mp3 to encode audio, specifically because the scheme is optimized for lossy audio compression. But they are by no means limited to only audio data, it would just probably suck for anything but.
Another example would be an online discussion forum, like Slashdot (which as far as I know, would qualify as a common carrier since no posts are deleted, only ranked). Slashdot limits the form of what can be transmitted to simplistic html. I can't directly post, say, raw image data. But I could uuencode the data, and post it (granted it would be moderated down because it looks like line noise).
But then again, this is all ramblings about the spirit of the law, not the law itself. There could be loopholes. Don't bet money on any of this.
They're all over the union now, and (although I think they have shut it off due to complaints) there was even one in the cafeteria. I'm sure they're other places as well.
(I hate giving plugs to websites, but if you must have the music, this is the cheapest solution I've been able to find for new cd's.)
Back when I was buying more cd's, the best place to check was http://www.finditnow.8m.com/ for discounts.
They have links to all kinds of "coupons" at CDNOW. Go for the ones that are $10 off purchases of $14.99 or more (for any cd).
Be careful, some of them are marked for first time customers only, and a lot of them are $10 off purchases of $19.99 or more.
But you can just keep using the $10 off $14.99 until they expire. Use them over and over (last I checked anyway, which was quite a while ago). That drops the price of a cd down to $4.99. So with about $4 for shipping, that is $8.99, and it is delivered to your door.
I know my rate of cd purchase has almost gone to 0.00. CD's are just to expensive these days, and most of the stuff pushed on us by the record industry is crap.
My school put these strange TV's everywhere that play nothing but the crappy music videos the industry thinks appeals to college students. As a result I've gotten so tired of hearing the same old crap that you couldn't *pay* me to buy a cd. I guess they had the reverse effect intended.
And back in those days, Meept's trolls were artfull. Sure, there are some good ones every now and then these days, but they are drowned out by the spammers.
But then again, it all seems like a reaction to the sometimes nazish moderation that goes on around here. If we both weren't so late in this discussion, we'd both be moderated down to (-1 Offtopic) in a heartbeat. *shrug*
First of all, no self respecting unix user throws a bunch of random files (especially with no filename similarity) in a random directory. That is a pretty windows'ish way to do things. My file system is very hierarchical and orderly. So your question is biased.
But here's an answer anyway.
First off, you should know, you don't have to do mv 15 times. You can:
mv file1 file2 file3 file4/long/path/to/newdir
As long as the last argment is a directory, it knows to move all of the files to it. So that cuts the work to 1/15 of what you suggest.
Secondly, depending on the contents of the directory, use tab completion (since we stated earlier we are using bash). That allows you to type as little as the first letter of the file, then hit tab, and it completes the filename (and adds a space at the end) for you. Obviously, if they all begin with the same few letters, you will have to type those letters, plus one that is unique to the file (but since you said there was no name similarity, you can get away with just the first letter or so).
Tab completion also goes for the path to the directory. (Again, how much you type is dependent on the directories parallel to the directory being tab completed).
And that to me is much less work. Plus, I never even have to move my hands away from the keyboard to use the mouse.
But I wouldn't have gotten in to this situation in the first place.
Now for a counter point:
Try this in windows:
for i in *; do sed '/ba*r/ d' $i > $i.revised ; done
This is a really simple example, but would be pretty hard to do in windows. For every file in the current directory, it removes any lines that contain the character 'b', followed by any number of the character 'a' (including zero), followed by the character 'r', and names the new file with the name of the old file plus '.revised'. (Change the regexp to suit your needs, of course).
You could use something similar to remove all of the lines that contain some pattern you don't like from a bunch of e-mails. Or something similar to strip comments out of source, or uninteresting lines out of a log file, or whatever. In windows, you'd have to:
Start up some word processor (probably Word), wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, Finaly word starts, open every file, manualy do your editing (unless Word now supports regexp's. Wouldn't that be nice?), manualy 'Save As' every file to the new file name.
But then again, that is probably a biased challange. As a windows user you may never need to do anything like that at all.
Conclusion: You're GUI may do what you need it to do, but I find it horribly lacking when I need to get real work done.
This is why you will never eliminate the command line. Ever.
I don't care much for cats, but I would buy a robotic dog. Here's why:
From job to job, with the tiny, cramped apartments I've had, it would be very cruel to a real dog to keep it so confined. With a robotic dog, I could switch it off, and not feel bad about leaving it in the closet.
Now, granted, it would be only a temporary thing until I can get a decent house to keep a dog. (Actually, I have a real dog; she's living with my parents (since they have a house with a backyard). And I would much rather have her around than a robotic dog, but it would be a terrible thing to do to her.)
Hehehe. I'm suprised this wasn't higher. Back in my days of heavy mudding, I always played females. Cause stupid horny guys give you stuff. Yep, that's right, they *give* you stuff. For free. All you have to do is wink at them.
Pretty low, I know, but if you weren't a sneaky sonofabitch people would find a way to unfairly pk you at an early level anyway. You had to take every advantage you could just to stay alive.
I agree with you on the fact that if M$ ported to BSD, Real would very quickly follow. I don't even think it would take them a month. I can't imagine that moving Real* from Linux to BSD would take that long.
I also understand wanting to have it native. Now, I haven't tried it myself, but from what I hear from FreBSD'ers, almost nothing that runs under Linux can't be convinced to work under the emulation (short of something that needs a kernel module, and even than may be fixed now).
As long as you are running on x86 (and I assume that is what they specifically mean by releasing a "Linux" version), couldn't you run all of the Real stuff under the FreeBSD Linux-emulation?
Besides the fact they look disgusting, they are marketed by Scott Adams. I have no respect for that man after the Dilhole lawyer letter. He and his dilbert strip can jump off a cliff.
But all of this is beside the fact. They certainly do not give you 100% of your daily needs:
no caffeine no alcohol and no where near enough sugars/fat
That excludes it from being the perfect geek food.
While I'm certain you must be joking, I still can't help but respond.
Your argument doesn't exactly hold up. It is ilogical to say someone is something simply because they deny it.
If I were to call you a VB programmer, you might deny it and respond with reasons you are not. However, that in no way implies that you are a VB programmer who hasn't come out of the closet. You might be, but you might not be--the truth can't be determined from the fact you deny it.
Or maybe I'm just an addict making more denials.;)
What a narrow view of contact.
on
LonelyNet
·
· Score: 2
Being away at school, the internet is my primary means of staying in contact with friends and family who aren't attending my school. I can't afford $100+ phone bills, or try to visit everyone every weekend. It just isn't feasable.
I don't spend my time trying to meet a lot of new people online. I'm not into IRC, and just chatting with any random(joe). I prefer more private type instant messaging services like ICQ, (http://licq.wibble.net, licq is great) where I can require authorization for people to contact me. It keeps me in constant contact with anyone I choose. (And plus it isn't too hard for those not as interested in computers to use.) And then there is e-mail. Together they do a great job of keeping me in touch with people I wouldn't usually be in touch with.
Now for friends on campus, the internet is taken out of the equation, because the cost of staying in contact is far less.
As far as repeatable goes, you are correct, I didnt use that exact word. But I did speak of experimentation, and to have that, observations must be repeatable.
Could you give more info on these two supposed miracles? (I am not familiar with them.)
Have they been captured on film, in the daytime, by pro photographers? Or are they mostly witness testimony? We can discuss the falibility of "eye witness testimony" if you like. Not only could they have mispercieved it, they can also misremember it. Experiment after experiment show that memory is in fact not like a tape recorder. People who want to think something can very easily trick themselves into "remembering" it.
So, even in the face of these things, if a real event was taking place, could they not be explained by tricks of light, or somesuch? (And which of those two would be simpler? An all knowing all powerful being, or a optical affect?)
I've never heard of either of these two "miracles", so I can't say anything for sure on them without actual data. Any fact, particularly motion daytime film, would be appreciated. These events sound interesting.
There are numerous counterexamples from history (in accounts that are usually rejected as historical simply because they contain such counterexamples) and several in my personal experience. Rejecting data just because it doesn't fit the model is hardly scientific, but it happens all the time. This is another way in which science is treated as a religion.
Show me something repeatable that can't be explained without the god hypothesis.
Again, to stress, this doesn't make it untrue. I said that means most scientists won't spend much time with it.
Slashdot Mirror
IANAL.
I don't think that law should even be applied to Napster (and as far as I know, it never was).
The law only comes into affect, IIRC, when some sort of certain content is eliminated based on some criteria of content itself, not how it is encoded.
Example:
Phone system. They qualify as a common carrier because they don't take any say over what people send over the lines (for the most part, anyway). There are certain things it would be illegal to send over the phone lines: if you are a US citizen, voice data saying you are planning on killing the President, I think, would be illegal, or maybe using a modem to send a stolen data to someone. The legality is determined based on the content itself.
However, they do limit the *format* of what is transmitted. You can only send analog signal over the phone lines (to live in a simple world anyway, ignoring anything but simple analog phones for the sake of argument); you couldn't transmit raw ethernet frames over the phone. You can, however, modulate anything you wish to transmit over this line using a modem. So you could be sending voice data about killing the President, a song by your favorite artist in mp3, fax data containing top secret stolen documents, etc over this line, all eventualy encoded in some manner over the analog carrier.
The same thing here applies to Napster. Napster only limits the format of what is transmitted (ie MP3), but doesn't care what you use mp3 to encode. It could be music--it might not be. You easily come up with a way to encode html content in an mp3, or image data in an mp3, much in the same way that you could encode arbitrary data in a gif file Granted, it isn't the best encoding format, but it would work.
Now if Napster started eliminating stolen music from the stream of transmitions, then I think they would not be a common carrier, because they would be eliminating content based on the content itself, not on the encoding.
I think the confusion here stems from the fact that almost everyone uses mp3 to encode audio, specifically because the scheme is optimized for lossy audio compression. But they are by no means limited to only audio data, it would just probably suck for anything but.
Another example would be an online discussion forum, like Slashdot (which as far as I know, would qualify as a common carrier since no posts are deleted, only ranked). Slashdot limits the form of what can be transmitted to simplistic html. I can't directly post, say, raw image data. But I could uuencode the data, and post it (granted it would be moderated down because it looks like line noise).
But then again, this is all ramblings about the spirit of the law, not the law itself. There could be loopholes. Don't bet money on any of this.
They're all over the union now, and (although I think they have shut it off due to complaints) there was even one in the cafeteria. I'm sure they're other places as well.
You should come back and check it out.
(I hate giving plugs to websites, but if you must have the music, this is the cheapest solution I've been able to find for new cd's.)
:)
Back when I was buying more cd's, the best place to check was http://www.finditnow.8m.com/ for discounts.
They have links to all kinds of "coupons" at CDNOW. Go for the ones that are $10 off purchases of $14.99 or more (for any cd).
Be careful, some of them are marked for first time customers only, and a lot of them are $10 off purchases of $19.99 or more.
But you can just keep using the $10 off $14.99 until they expire. Use them over and over (last I checked anyway, which was quite a while ago). That drops the price of a cd down to $4.99. So with about $4 for shipping, that is $8.99, and it is delivered to your door.
Hope that helps some.
Or you can do like I do. Don't buy any.
I know my rate of cd purchase has almost gone to 0.00. CD's are just to expensive these days, and most of the stuff pushed on us by the record industry is crap.
My school put these strange TV's everywhere that play nothing but the crappy music videos the industry thinks appeals to college students. As a result I've gotten so tired of hearing the same old crap that you couldn't *pay* me to buy a cd. I guess they had the reverse effect intended.
And back in those days, Meept's trolls were artfull. Sure, there are some good ones every now and then these days, but they are drowned out by the spammers.
But then again, it all seems like a reaction to the sometimes nazish moderation that goes on around here. If we both weren't so late in this discussion, we'd both be moderated down to (-1 Offtopic) in a heartbeat. *shrug*
Like MySQL? I've got so many mp3's I had to start a database for them, and run queries on the database to generate a quick playlist.
Just a thought.
First of all, no self respecting unix user throws a bunch of random files (especially with no filename similarity) in a random directory. That is a pretty windows'ish way to do things. My file system is very hierarchical and orderly. So your question is biased.
/long/path/to/newdir
/long/path/to/newdir
/l[tab]/p[tab]/to/n[tab]
But here's an answer anyway.
First off, you should know, you don't have to do mv 15 times. You can:
mv file1 file2 file3 file4
As long as the last argment is a directory, it knows to move all of the files to it. So that cuts the work to 1/15 of what you suggest.
Secondly, depending on the contents of the directory, use tab completion (since we stated earlier we are using bash). That allows you to type as little as the first letter of the file, then hit tab, and it completes the filename (and adds a space at the end) for you. Obviously, if they all begin with the same few letters, you will have to type those letters, plus one that is unique to the file (but since you said there was no name similarity, you can get away with just the first letter or so).
So, if the files you want to move are:
abracadabra_MagicSpell.txt
Big_bad_wolf.JPG
catInTheHat.pdf
etc...
So what you actually type becomes:
mv[space]a[tab]B[tab]c[tab](etc...)
Tab completion also goes for the path to the directory. (Again, how much you type is dependent on the directories parallel to the directory being tab completed).
So it could then be:
mv[space]a[tab]B[tab]c[tab](etc...)
And that to me is much less work. Plus, I never even have to move my hands away from the keyboard to use the mouse.
But I wouldn't have gotten in to this situation in the first place.
Now for a counter point:
Try this in windows:
for i in *; do sed '/ba*r/ d' $i > $i.revised ; done
This is a really simple example, but would be pretty hard to do in windows. For every file in the current directory, it removes any lines that contain the character 'b', followed by any number of the character 'a' (including zero), followed by the character 'r', and names the new file with the name of the old file plus '.revised'. (Change the regexp to suit your needs, of course).
You could use something similar to remove all of the lines that contain some pattern you don't like from a bunch of e-mails. Or something similar to strip comments out of source, or uninteresting lines out of a log file, or whatever. In windows, you'd have to:
Start up some word processor (probably Word),
wait,
wait,
wait,
wait,
wait,
wait,
wait,
wait,
Finaly word starts,
open every file,
manualy do your editing (unless Word now supports regexp's. Wouldn't that be nice?),
manualy 'Save As' every file to the new file name.
But then again, that is probably a biased challange. As a windows user you may never need to do anything like that at all.
Conclusion:
You're GUI may do what you need it to do, but I find it horribly lacking when I need to get real work done.
This is why you will never eliminate the command line. Ever.
(Sorry for the long post.)
Nifty. Anyone want to explain? The post didn't look all that bad...
I don't care much for cats, but I would buy a robotic dog. Here's why:
From job to job, with the tiny, cramped apartments I've had, it would be very cruel to a real dog to keep it so confined. With a robotic dog, I could switch it off, and not feel bad about leaving it in the closet.
Now, granted, it would be only a temporary thing until I can get a decent house to keep a dog. (Actually, I have a real dog; she's living with my parents (since they have a house with a backyard). And I would much rather have her around than a robotic dog, but it would be a terrible thing to do to her.)
Hehehe. I'm suprised this wasn't higher. Back in my days of heavy mudding, I always played females. Cause stupid horny guys give you stuff. Yep, that's right, they *give* you stuff. For free. All you have to do is wink at them.
Pretty low, I know, but if you weren't a sneaky sonofabitch people would find a way to unfairly pk you at an early level anyway. You had to take every advantage you could just to stay alive.
I agree with you on the fact that if M$ ported to BSD, Real would very quickly follow. I don't even think it would take them a month. I can't imagine that moving Real* from Linux to BSD would take that long.
I also understand wanting to have it native. Now, I haven't tried it myself, but from what I hear from FreBSD'ers, almost nothing that runs under Linux can't be convinced to work under the emulation (short of something that needs a kernel module, and even than may be fixed now).
*shrug*
that they offer a version that has nothing but free software. Because if they dropped all non-free stuff, nutscrape would have been yanked too.
Could be wrong, tho.
As long as you are running on x86 (and I assume that is what they specifically mean by releasing a "Linux" version), couldn't you run all of the Real stuff under the FreeBSD Linux-emulation?
Besides the fact they look disgusting, they are marketed by Scott Adams. I have no respect for that man after the Dilhole lawyer letter. He and his dilbert strip can jump off a cliff.
But all of this is beside the fact. They certainly do not give you 100% of your daily needs:
no caffeine
no alcohol
and no where near enough sugars/fat
That excludes it from being the perfect geek food.
While I'm certain you must be joking, I still can't help but respond.
;)
Your argument doesn't exactly hold up. It is ilogical to say someone is something simply because they deny it.
If I were to call you a VB programmer, you might deny it and respond with reasons you are not. However, that in no way implies that you are a VB programmer who hasn't come out of the closet. You might be, but you might not be--the truth can't be determined from the fact you deny it.
Or maybe I'm just an addict making more denials.
Being away at school, the internet is my primary means of staying in contact with friends and family who aren't attending my school. I can't afford $100+ phone bills, or try to visit everyone every weekend. It just isn't feasable.
I don't spend my time trying to meet a lot of new people online. I'm not into IRC, and just chatting with any random(joe). I prefer more private type instant messaging services like ICQ, (http://licq.wibble.net, licq is great) where I can require authorization for people to contact me. It keeps me in constant contact with anyone I choose. (And plus it isn't too hard for those not as interested in computers to use.) And then there is e-mail. Together they do a great job of keeping me in touch with people I wouldn't usually be in touch with.
Now for friends on campus, the internet is taken out of the equation, because the cost of staying in contact is far less.
$cents+=2;
.
I don't have a Netscape file under app-defaults, so I'm not sure what has to be in it.
.Xdefaults file:
;) Maybe if I can get it figured out, I'll write one.
I assume it is like an
app*attribute: value
But what attributes are to be set? (Is there a howto on this?
by 2000, we'd all have personal jet packs and be wearing silver suits with a black V on the front.
I have to admit I'm a bit disappointed.
I felt the need to contribute at least something non-anonymously. But, I'm not quite creative enough to make an original troll.
And that Tux picture was really cool. What did you use to generate it?
As far as repeatable goes, you are correct, I didnt use that exact word. But I did speak of experimentation, and to have that, observations must be repeatable.
Could you give more info on these two supposed miracles? (I am not familiar with them.)
Have they been captured on film, in the daytime, by pro photographers? Or are they mostly witness testimony? We can discuss the falibility of "eye witness testimony" if you like. Not only could they have mispercieved it, they can also misremember it. Experiment after experiment show that memory is in fact not like a tape recorder. People who want to think something can very easily trick themselves into "remembering" it.
So, even in the face of these things, if a real event was taking place, could they not be explained by tricks of light, or somesuch? (And which of those two would be simpler? An all knowing all powerful being, or a optical affect?)
I've never heard of either of these two "miracles", so I can't say anything for sure on them without actual data. Any fact, particularly motion daytime film, would be appreciated. These events sound interesting.
There are numerous counterexamples from history (in accounts that are usually rejected as historical simply because they contain such counterexamples) and several in my personal experience. Rejecting data just because it doesn't fit the model is hardly scientific, but it happens all the time. This is another way in which science is treated as a religion.
Show me something repeatable that can't be explained without the god hypothesis.
Again, to stress, this doesn't make it untrue. I said that means most scientists won't spend much time with it.
Troll day. :)
I dont even have the guts to post an original troll, only to request that trolls be moderated up.
BSD IS THE DEVIL, PAGAN MODERATORS
YOU FUCKING BSD ASS SUCKING MODERATORS..