My suggestion is to try to avoid voting Democrat or Republican.
That was my theory until I understood the fatal flaw of plurality voting. Our vote tallying system is mathematically unsound. If everyone who was smart enough to tell that the Democrats and Republicans were crooked voted independant, the president will be chosen by idiots. This is what happened last time around.
So yes: if you're smart, you'll realize that both of the major parties are corrupt. If you're even smarter, you'll realize that you still must vote for the lesser of two evils until we can change our voting system to a Instant Runoff or Borda Count or something.
Cheers.
Re:Why does everyone alwasy gotta knock sendmail??
on
Postfix 2.1 Released
·
· Score: 1
Whatever works for you is fine. But when I had sendmail installed, I had to patch it regularly to keep my boxes safe. And even then it's not really "safe" because by the time I see a patch someone could already have exploited the hole. This happened to me twice, actually.
Since I installed qmail, I have never had to patch, and there's been no vulnerabilities for years. And it does everything I need it to.
I haven't set up PostFix myself, but several good friends recommend it. I'm comfortable with qmail for now, but I don't think I'd ever go back to sendmail.
I'm glad the solution is working well for you. Best wishes to you.
Okay -- sorry if I got a bit snippy there:)
I am curious as to what aspects of MySQL you find to be superior to Firebird or PostgreSQL?
I don't know enough about those RDBMSs inparticular to say. I like MySQL better than Oracle because it's cheaper and easier to administer. I am familiar with the more advanced features that MySQL lacks, but these have not been an issue in my experience. Since it meets my needs I haven't searched for something different. Note: I am using InnoDB tables which offer transactions, and more importantly to me row-level locking for higher concurrency.
My "best tool for the job" rating includes the fact that it is already doing the job; which is not trivial. I certainly wouldn't call anyone a fool for using PostgreSQL for a similar task, but I don't see any compelling reason to switch. If I had started with PostgreSQL (my research indicated it wasn't fast or stable enough at the time) I might be singing its praises today instead of MySQL.
My aim is not to convert anyone else to use MySQL, but rather to shoot down the meme that MySQL can't be used for real work, which comes up in every MySQL thread on slashdot.
I'm also curious about the 200 queries/sec. You have a setup with 50 inserts, updates, and deletes per second? I am indeed impressed.
Whoops - I made a mistake there: we average 81% selects -- I was looking at the current (2 second) number as opposed to the uptime average when I posted:/ Still, yes, our system often hits 50 writes per second (and higher), though that is not maintained.
This is for Zappos.com. I'm the lead engineer there, and it has grown faster than I could ever have imagined. We actually run two DB's, a primary and a replicated server. Both run on the beefiest Opteron systems you could buy last year. The primary averages 186 qps with 81% selects, and the replicated server averages 33 qps with 26% selects -- though that's misleading because it has to do all the same writes as the primary but handles only a portion of the slower reporting queries.
Most of our writes are for our recommendation engine, which tracks user viewing habits in real time to offer shoe suggestions. This feature is not promoted on the site yet, though it is live in testing.
Perl is a great tool. I never would have thought ill of you for it.
Heh... I just threw that in because I've often been told that Perl is a doomed language by the same people who tell my MySQL is a doomed database. As I said in an eariler post somewhere, I lean towards the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" school. It has served me pretty well thus far, but I still bump heads with the purists from time to time;)
I find your attitude (and most MySQL trashers) very interesting. My company is accomplishing amazing things with MySQL. Moreso than most companies ever accomplish regardless of the DB they use. But somehow you feel the need to save me. Anyways, I'll answer your direct questions:
We run about 75% selects. Our 24 hour average is bit over 200 queries per second.
I have used Oracle extensively. In fact, that's where I learned SQL and DB design. I know all about triggers, foreign keys, PL/SQL, etc. I prefer to build with MySQL.
I know it must really bug a lot of people that such a simple 80/20 database solution is proving to be the best tool for the job to so many people. Sorry.
Perl, ugly as it is, is more useful to me than Java, too.
Actually, MySQL (with InnoDB) has this as well. Each page is checksummed and any error brings the DB down. I actually had a bad memory chip once that triggered this problem a few times before we figured it out. That sucked big time... but no data was lost that we can tell.
Wow, that's really overkill unless lives are at stake. If you're just dealing with millions of dollars (like I am) MySQL has shown to be perfectly acceptable. We just passed multiple financial audits.
Really? That's odd... I've been using it on high volume sites for about 5 years now and I've never had one data corruption problem. Does my anecdotal experience cancel out yours?
(Once did have an index become corrupt, but a "repair table" command fixed it).
From what I can tell, most people who trash MySQL do so on theoretical grounds. In practice it is amazingly useful. That's all any product needs to be.
Hmmm... a $72 million a year toy? That's what the most recent company I work for had in revenues last year. Entirely built upon MySQL. I'm sure that's small change from your point of view, right?
Sorry, but practical trumps theoretical every time.
As a programmer who values practicality above theoretical purity, I don't really understand how something as incredibly useful as MySQL can be so "poor".
All I know is that I've built three highly successful, high volume websites off of MySQL over the past five years and there's no way I could have done it as cheaply or quickly otherwise.
If a signifigant reason you trained to be a programmer was the money, you'll almost surely be a lousy programmer and you'll be unlikely to make much money.
I make good money as a programmer, but I started low ($30K in late '98). Though at the time that was actually a raise, the main reason I did it was because I just loved coding, solving problems in a practical way, increasing company efficiency, etc. Because of that I got promoted pretty quickly, and hired away once people who knew me needed someone with the skills.
I'm not saying I'm great -- but I do love what I do, and that is why I'm pretty good at it. I've never met any good coders who didn't have some degree of love for the work itself.
In other words, I'd probably still be doing this if I got paid less than a waiter. Which is why I'm paid more;)
I grew up listening to albums, so I'm not impartial, but...
When I got my iPod I did have a great time listening to my entire 2000+ song collection on shuffle. There was certainly something about it that seemed cool and fresh. Certain songs popped out and other seemed less engaging than I thought.
After a few months, though, I got sort of tired of it. There was something unsatisfying... like watching a bunch of movie trailers instead of watching a movie. There is something to be said for a well constructed album that takes you on an extended journey. Even if I end up skipping one or two songs, listening in album or near album format does have a sort of depth to it you just don't get listening to singles collections.
Going back to albums was a bit uncomfortable at first -- I would find myself getting impatient for a change. But what's with that? Shouldn't I be able to relax and have someone tell me a good story? It took some time to get over the attention span deficit, but once I did, I did find myself able to get a deeper enjoyment from music again.
Disclaimer: Your points don't seem very convincing to me.
1. If the online stores didn't exist, then people would just get what they want via P2P. It's the industry's own fault they are relying on DRM to save them. They should compete on service, not artificial obstructions.
2. Same thing: if Apple didn't put it up, so what. People can already get music for free. The label's delusions don't change that. I applaud Apple for trying, but they're still competing with free unencumbered tracks. Service is their only niche, and could win them the market if they dropped DRM. People don't like artificial restrictions.
3. Apple's hand is forced by the labels, but that's their own problem for shaking hands with the devil. Just because it's legal doesn't make it smart or acceptable. I can legally walk through Compton shouting the N word, too.
4. Okay, fair enough.
5. Hey, I can buy what I like, no? As far as I'm concerned they shouldn't be selling goods that they want to maintain control over. They should hide the music away in a vault and keep it safe. But seriously: why are you so happy to support the concept of lisencing goods? It's a shitty idea and I don't care if some companies want it to become the norm. The first thing I did with all my iTunes music was to rerip it. Now I can do the same thing without wasting a blank CD and ten minutes. I'm more likely to buy now. Seriously.
Oh, and I don't think I'm engaging in civil disobedience. I'm just doing what I want and can justify as harmless. Sure, I'll donate to the cause and vote, but in the meantime I don't claim I'm changing the world, just using it as is convenient and harmless.
Programs like PlayFair are just signs of _reality_.
It astounds me how we look at the music industry as these all-powerful lords who we beg to bestow upon us the gift of music. Give me a break.
1. The labels have no choice long term but to offer a product that their customers want at a price the customers are willing to pay. I
Yes: if people stop buying CD's because they want to purchase music online, and DRM is continuously cracked or shunned in the marketplace, then the labels will be _forced_ to offer unecumbered tracks. They are subserviant to us, not the other way around. A corporation exists to please it's customers. People do not exists to feed corporations. We came first, remember?
If they continue to dick around with this, an entire generation will be raised who see music as something you download off P2P for free. Then they will be truly screwed. If they act fast, they could theoretically keep the idea of paying for music: i.e. you pay 99 cents for an "official" copy, easy searching, fast download, guaranteed quality, etc. I pay for that. And now that I can strip the DRM I've got no more reservations. I'll buy all my music via iTunes now.
In my experience USB pen drives work fine on OS X, no drivers needed. Which means it's a great cross-platform standard as well. I've only used drives up to 512MB, but I don't see why a larger one wouldn't work.
Do you think the record labels would allow Apple to sell music through iTunes without DRM?
It astounds me how we look at the labels as these all-powerful lords who we beg to bestow upon us the gift of music. Give me a break.
Yes: if people stop buying CD's because they want to purchase music online, and DRM is continuously cracked or shunned in the marketplace, then the labels will be _forced_ to offer unecumbered tracks. They are subserviant to us, not the other way around. A corporation exists to please it's customers. People do not exists to feed corporations. We came first, remember?
If they continue to dick around with this, an entire generation will be raised who see music as something you download off P2P for free. Then they will be truly screwed. If they act fast, they could theoretically keep the idea of paying for music: i.e. you pay 99 cents for an "official" copy, easy searching, fast download, guaranteed quality, etc. I pay for that. And now that I can strip the DRM I've got no more reservations. I'll buy all my music via iTunes now.
For the last time, you are NOT entitled to play music purchased from iTMS anywhere or anyhow you want.
I am entitled to do whatever I want. And Apple is entitled to take me to court for it. And I am entitled to argue my case and the courts are entitled to make a ruling and fine me. And I am entitled not to pay and get all caught up in legal crap and maybe even sent to jail. Or maybe the DMCA is entitled to be struck down. As are shrinkwrap licenses and terms of use.
Who knows what the outcome will be. But playing by "the rules" isn't very smart when the other side is the only one making the rules. Blame the industry for making their customers their enemies. All I ever wanted was to buy music at a fair price and have complete personal freedom with it.
People everyone fuck like rabbits. I know it's hard to believe for us slashdot folks, but it's true;)
As I replied to an other post: promiscuity in America has gone up in the past two decades, but HIV transmission has gone down. Look up some numbers on that. You will never stop people from fucking because it is probably the most base human urge after hunger. It's amazing the risks people will take to have sex. But if you educate them and offer them condoms, you can get most of them to use them.
So I stand by my statement: lack of education and poverty are the root cause of rampant STD's. Calling sex the root cause of STD's is like calling birth the root cause of death. Perhaps it's true, but it's not the most practical way to go about solving the problem.
people who don't have money don't wake up infected by HIV, nor do people who can't read. People who swap body fluids with HIV-positive people often _do_,
Actually, everyone on the planet swaps body fluids whether they like to admit it or not. And the poorer and less educated nations are the ones with the highest rate of HIV.
The STD rate in America has dropped over the last 20 years, and the data indicates that it is from increased condom use (enabled by education and money), not from abstinence.
Fair enough -- though I don't think that was even understood in the old days, so the church wasn't doing it for our health.
On the flip side, I think that a more open attitude towards sex (and sexual discussion) would benefit our society as far as disease and unwanted pregnancy is concerned. Fact is we _are_ promiscuous (an estimated 80% infidelity rate in marriage, for example) but we just lie about it.
Personally, I would say that the problem in Africa is poverty and lack of education, not promiscuity.
and if she refused he just cracked her over the head
Before there were all the social taboos brought about by organized religion, women were often happy to have sex. Check out the history of the Tahitians, for example. Biologically speaking, boys and girls like to get naked together and fool around. It's only church opression that makes us think of it as something men need to beg for and women should avoid (or be labled a whore).
Some type of stedicam can really make a difference in low budget films. Sure wish I had one back in the day. I did buy a Glidecam 3000 (discontinued... but very similar to the one on the right) for $300 on ebay a couple years back. It works quite well though it gets mighty tiring on the arm after a few minutes. I'm using a Canon GL1 these days, which is a bit heavier than most consumer cameras.
One thing that I found very interesting about the whole steadicam thing is that it's not so much XYZ movement that causes visible camera shake, but the rotational movements (heading, pitch, bearing). That's what the gimbal mechanism on a steadicam eliminates. My model is handheld and doesn't have a spring loaded arm or vest, so there's still a fair amount of XYZ movement... but the shots still look stable.
With the camera usually looking at objects several feet away, moving up or down a fraction of an inch doesn't change the field of view much. But tilting the camera forward or back even a tiny amount changes the field of view a great deal. This wasn't intuitive to me until I tried the thing out.
Without any real experience, I doubt this guy's rig (basically a big weighted handle) is going to make shots much steadier than a careful handheld shot. I'd surely give it a try though, if I wasn't already set.
Question regarding the contractors? Is what happened to them in some way "more evil" because it was photographed and released to the world.
Certainly not. Though I would say that the photographing and releasing may be a seperate act of "evil" for numerous reasons.
Should my personal reaction to any event be effected by whether or not it is photographed, and how gruesome the photographs are?
No, though the photos may remove any questions and ambiguity. Photos are just another form of information with the characteristics of immediacy and impact.
If I say yes, than I allow my reaction to be manipulated by what the reporter chooses to photograph and what the media chooses to broadcast.
I think that happens anyway. Even if you skip the photos as I have done, or are desensitized as you have done, you'll still be learning of the event via the media. And their words are likewise subject to sensationalism and selective reporting. By desensitizing yourself I don't think you are any more or less equipped than I to sift through media bias. My stomach turning doesn't lead to mindless reaction.
We agree that the gruesome pictures represent human suffering. I am guessing that you think sensitivity to the pictures is somehow a liability? I guess I don't really see that. One can have a rational or irrational reaction to any information. And sensitivity doesn't imply irrationality in my experience.
I see no reason whatsoever to let pictures of bloody, burnt, mutilated bodies, from either side, influence my sense of right and wrong.
I agree, and for me it doesn't. It just turns my stomach. In any case my reaction is sorrow: both for the people killed, and for the terrible circumstances that have led to the killers hatred. Of course, this story is itself blown all out of proportion in relation to the continuous destruction.
Thanks for the discussion. I hope I've demonstrated that someone who is emotionally sensitive can still be rational. Not that you ever suggested this, but there's no need to desensitize people. There's no need to discard emotion. If you are happier now that you are desensitized, then more power to you.
Of course I didn't know that I'd see such stuff when I signed up. And it was admittedly rare -- once every couple weeks. Most objectionable material came in the form of nekkid ladies, which I must admit wasn't that objectionable to me:)
Oh -- and the job ended up being the "in" for my career as a programmer. So I'm glad overall that I went for it.
Wait a second: I have been against this invasion since day one, but that doesn't mean I can't feel compassion for the people suffering in the front lines on both sides. War is hell for everyone directly involved. The only people who I don't feel sorry for are the leaders. And ironically they're the ones who suffer least.
In any case, I don't like to hear of anybody getting slaughtered and defiled. I cry for the Iraqis, I cry for the Americans, I cry for all their families.
Your "boo fucking hoo" attitude is what allows war to happen in the first place. As soon as you are able to demote another's life to worthlessness, war is not so unthinkable.
Slashdot Mirror
My suggestion is to try to avoid voting Democrat or Republican.
That was my theory until I understood the fatal flaw of plurality voting. Our vote tallying system is mathematically unsound. If everyone who was smart enough to tell that the Democrats and Republicans were crooked voted independant, the president will be chosen by idiots. This is what happened last time around.
So yes: if you're smart, you'll realize that both of the major parties are corrupt. If you're even smarter, you'll realize that you still must vote for the lesser of two evils until we can change our voting system to a Instant Runoff or Borda Count or something.
Cheers.
Whatever works for you is fine. But when I had sendmail installed, I had to patch it regularly to keep my boxes safe. And even then it's not really "safe" because by the time I see a patch someone could already have exploited the hole. This happened to me twice, actually.
Since I installed qmail, I have never had to patch, and there's been no vulnerabilities for years. And it does everything I need it to.
I haven't set up PostFix myself, but several good friends recommend it. I'm comfortable with qmail for now, but I don't think I'd ever go back to sendmail.
Cheers.
I'm glad the solution is working well for you. Best wishes to you.
:)
:/ Still, yes, our system often hits 50 writes per second (and higher), though that is not maintained.
;)
Okay -- sorry if I got a bit snippy there
I am curious as to what aspects of MySQL you find to be superior to Firebird or PostgreSQL?
I don't know enough about those RDBMSs inparticular to say. I like MySQL better than Oracle because it's cheaper and easier to administer. I am familiar with the more advanced features that MySQL lacks, but these have not been an issue in my experience. Since it meets my needs I haven't searched for something different. Note: I am using InnoDB tables which offer transactions, and more importantly to me row-level locking for higher concurrency.
My "best tool for the job" rating includes the fact that it is already doing the job; which is not trivial. I certainly wouldn't call anyone a fool for using PostgreSQL for a similar task, but I don't see any compelling reason to switch. If I had started with PostgreSQL (my research indicated it wasn't fast or stable enough at the time) I might be singing its praises today instead of MySQL.
My aim is not to convert anyone else to use MySQL, but rather to shoot down the meme that MySQL can't be used for real work, which comes up in every MySQL thread on slashdot.
I'm also curious about the 200 queries/sec. You have a setup with 50 inserts, updates, and deletes per second? I am indeed impressed.
Whoops - I made a mistake there: we average 81% selects -- I was looking at the current (2 second) number as opposed to the uptime average when I posted
This is for Zappos.com. I'm the lead engineer there, and it has grown faster than I could ever have imagined. We actually run two DB's, a primary and a replicated server. Both run on the beefiest Opteron systems you could buy last year. The primary averages 186 qps with 81% selects, and the replicated server averages 33 qps with 26% selects -- though that's misleading because it has to do all the same writes as the primary but handles only a portion of the slower reporting queries.
Most of our writes are for our recommendation engine, which tracks user viewing habits in real time to offer shoe suggestions. This feature is not promoted on the site yet, though it is live in testing.
Perl is a great tool. I never would have thought ill of you for it.
Heh... I just threw that in because I've often been told that Perl is a doomed language by the same people who tell my MySQL is a doomed database. As I said in an eariler post somewhere, I lean towards the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" school. It has served me pretty well thus far, but I still bump heads with the purists from time to time
Thanks for you thoughtful replies.
I find your attitude (and most MySQL trashers) very interesting. My company is accomplishing amazing things with MySQL. Moreso than most companies ever accomplish regardless of the DB they use. But somehow you feel the need to save me. Anyways, I'll answer your direct questions:
We run about 75% selects. Our 24 hour average is bit over 200 queries per second.
I have used Oracle extensively. In fact, that's where I learned SQL and DB design. I know all about triggers, foreign keys, PL/SQL, etc. I prefer to build with MySQL.
I know it must really bug a lot of people that such a simple 80/20 database solution is proving to be the best tool for the job to so many people. Sorry.
Perl, ugly as it is, is more useful to me than Java, too.
Cheers.
Well, that's why we were audited. And we passed with flying colors. Apparently we're not getting too many wrong answers.
Hmmm... redundancy in datamodeling? I thought normalizing data reduced redundancy?
In any case, we have cross checking scripts that monitor data integrity and they do more than could be reasonably done via SQL anyways.
Cheers.
Actually, MySQL (with InnoDB) has this as well. Each page is checksummed and any error brings the DB down. I actually had a bad memory chip once that triggered this problem a few times before we figured it out. That sucked big time... but no data was lost that we can tell.
Cheers.
Wow, that's really overkill unless lives are at stake. If you're just dealing with millions of dollars (like I am) MySQL has shown to be perfectly acceptable. We just passed multiple financial audits.
Cheers.
Really? That's odd... I've been using it on high volume sites for about 5 years now and I've never had one data corruption problem. Does my anecdotal experience cancel out yours?
(Once did have an index become corrupt, but a "repair table" command fixed it).
From what I can tell, most people who trash MySQL do so on theoretical grounds. In practice it is amazingly useful. That's all any product needs to be.
Cheers.
Hmmm... a $72 million a year toy? That's what the most recent company I work for had in revenues last year. Entirely built upon MySQL. I'm sure that's small change from your point of view, right?
Sorry, but practical trumps theoretical every time.
Cheers.
As a programmer who values practicality above theoretical purity, I don't really understand how something as incredibly useful as MySQL can be so "poor".
All I know is that I've built three highly successful, high volume websites off of MySQL over the past five years and there's no way I could have done it as cheaply or quickly otherwise.
Poor product indeed.
Cheers.
If a signifigant reason you trained to be a programmer was the money, you'll almost surely be a lousy programmer and you'll be unlikely to make much money.
;)
I make good money as a programmer, but I started low ($30K in late '98). Though at the time that was actually a raise, the main reason I did it was because I just loved coding, solving problems in a practical way, increasing company efficiency, etc. Because of that I got promoted pretty quickly, and hired away once people who knew me needed someone with the skills.
I'm not saying I'm great -- but I do love what I do, and that is why I'm pretty good at it. I've never met any good coders who didn't have some degree of love for the work itself.
In other words, I'd probably still be doing this if I got paid less than a waiter. Which is why I'm paid more
Cheers.
I grew up listening to albums, so I'm not impartial, but...
When I got my iPod I did have a great time listening to my entire 2000+ song collection on shuffle. There was certainly something about it that seemed cool and fresh. Certain songs popped out and other seemed less engaging than I thought.
After a few months, though, I got sort of tired of it. There was something unsatisfying... like watching a bunch of movie trailers instead of watching a movie. There is something to be said for a well constructed album that takes you on an extended journey. Even if I end up skipping one or two songs, listening in album or near album format does have a sort of depth to it you just don't get listening to singles collections.
Going back to albums was a bit uncomfortable at first -- I would find myself getting impatient for a change. But what's with that? Shouldn't I be able to relax and have someone tell me a good story? It took some time to get over the attention span deficit, but once I did, I did find myself able to get a deeper enjoyment from music again.
Just my thoughts.
Disclaimer: Your points don't seem very convincing to me.
1. If the online stores didn't exist, then people would just get what they want via P2P. It's the industry's own fault they are relying on DRM to save them. They should compete on service, not artificial obstructions.
2. Same thing: if Apple didn't put it up, so what. People can already get music for free. The label's delusions don't change that. I applaud Apple for trying, but they're still competing with free unencumbered tracks. Service is their only niche, and could win them the market if they dropped DRM. People don't like artificial restrictions.
3. Apple's hand is forced by the labels, but that's their own problem for shaking hands with the devil. Just because it's legal doesn't make it smart or acceptable. I can legally walk through Compton shouting the N word, too.
4. Okay, fair enough.
5. Hey, I can buy what I like, no? As far as I'm concerned they shouldn't be selling goods that they want to maintain control over. They should hide the music away in a vault and keep it safe. But seriously: why are you so happy to support the concept of lisencing goods? It's a shitty idea and I don't care if some companies want it to become the norm. The first thing I did with all my iTunes music was to rerip it. Now I can do the same thing without wasting a blank CD and ten minutes. I'm more likely to buy now. Seriously.
Oh, and I don't think I'm engaging in civil disobedience. I'm just doing what I want and can justify as harmless. Sure, I'll donate to the cause and vote, but in the meantime I don't claim I'm changing the world, just using it as is convenient and harmless.
Programs like PlayFair are just signs of _reality_.
It astounds me how we look at the music industry as these all-powerful lords who we beg to bestow upon us the gift of music. Give me a break.
1. The labels have no choice long term but to offer a product that their customers want at a price the customers are willing to pay. I
Yes: if people stop buying CD's because they want to purchase music online, and DRM is continuously cracked or shunned in the marketplace, then the labels will be _forced_ to offer unecumbered tracks. They are subserviant to us, not the other way around. A corporation exists to please it's customers. People do not exists to feed corporations. We came first, remember?
If they continue to dick around with this, an entire generation will be raised who see music as something you download off P2P for free. Then they will be truly screwed. If they act fast, they could theoretically keep the idea of paying for music: i.e. you pay 99 cents for an "official" copy, easy searching, fast download, guaranteed quality, etc. I pay for that. And now that I can strip the DRM I've got no more reservations. I'll buy all my music via iTunes now.
Cheers.
Right... you can't get everyone to agree, so everything must be done by dictatorship!
My guess is that it could be done through some sort of vote. Not saying that it would really be a good idea, but it's certainly possible.
Cheers.
In my experience USB pen drives work fine on OS X, no drivers needed. Which means it's a great cross-platform standard as well. I've only used drives up to 512MB, but I don't see why a larger one wouldn't work.
Cheers.
Do you think the record labels would allow Apple to sell music through iTunes without DRM?
It astounds me how we look at the labels as these all-powerful lords who we beg to bestow upon us the gift of music. Give me a break.
Yes: if people stop buying CD's because they want to purchase music online, and DRM is continuously cracked or shunned in the marketplace, then the labels will be _forced_ to offer unecumbered tracks. They are subserviant to us, not the other way around. A corporation exists to please it's customers. People do not exists to feed corporations. We came first, remember?
If they continue to dick around with this, an entire generation will be raised who see music as something you download off P2P for free. Then they will be truly screwed. If they act fast, they could theoretically keep the idea of paying for music: i.e. you pay 99 cents for an "official" copy, easy searching, fast download, guaranteed quality, etc. I pay for that. And now that I can strip the DRM I've got no more reservations. I'll buy all my music via iTunes now.
Cheers.
For the last time, you are NOT entitled to play music purchased from iTMS anywhere or anyhow you want .
I am entitled to do whatever I want. And Apple is entitled to take me to court for it. And I am entitled to argue my case and the courts are entitled to make a ruling and fine me. And I am entitled not to pay and get all caught up in legal crap and maybe even sent to jail. Or maybe the DMCA is entitled to be struck down. As are shrinkwrap licenses and terms of use.
Who knows what the outcome will be. But playing by "the rules" isn't very smart when the other side is the only one making the rules. Blame the industry for making their customers their enemies. All I ever wanted was to buy music at a fair price and have complete personal freedom with it.
Cheers.
People everyone fuck like rabbits. I know it's hard to believe for us slashdot folks, but it's true ;)
As I replied to an other post: promiscuity in America has gone up in the past two decades, but HIV transmission has gone down. Look up some numbers on that. You will never stop people from fucking because it is probably the most base human urge after hunger. It's amazing the risks people will take to have sex. But if you educate them and offer them condoms, you can get most of them to use them.
So I stand by my statement: lack of education and poverty are the root cause of rampant STD's. Calling sex the root cause of STD's is like calling birth the root cause of death. Perhaps it's true, but it's not the most practical way to go about solving the problem.
Cheers.
people who don't have money don't wake up infected by HIV, nor do people who can't read. People who swap body fluids with HIV-positive people often _do_,
Actually, everyone on the planet swaps body fluids whether they like to admit it or not. And the poorer and less educated nations are the ones with the highest rate of HIV.
The STD rate in America has dropped over the last 20 years, and the data indicates that it is from increased condom use (enabled by education and money), not from abstinence.
At least that's what I've read.
Cheers.
Fair enough -- though I don't think that was even understood in the old days, so the church wasn't doing it for our health.
On the flip side, I think that a more open attitude towards sex (and sexual discussion) would benefit our society as far as disease and unwanted pregnancy is concerned. Fact is we _are_ promiscuous (an estimated 80% infidelity rate in marriage, for example) but we just lie about it.
Personally, I would say that the problem in Africa is poverty and lack of education, not promiscuity.
Cheers.
and if she refused he just cracked her over the head
Before there were all the social taboos brought about by organized religion, women were often happy to have sex. Check out the history of the Tahitians, for example. Biologically speaking, boys and girls like to get naked together and fool around. It's only church opression that makes us think of it as something men need to beg for and women should avoid (or be labled a whore).
Cheers.
Some type of stedicam can really make a difference in low budget films. Sure wish I had one back in the day. I did buy a Glidecam 3000 (discontinued... but very similar to the one on the right) for $300 on ebay a couple years back. It works quite well though it gets mighty tiring on the arm after a few minutes. I'm using a Canon GL1 these days, which is a bit heavier than most consumer cameras.
One thing that I found very interesting about the whole steadicam thing is that it's not so much XYZ movement that causes visible camera shake, but the rotational movements (heading, pitch, bearing). That's what the gimbal mechanism on a steadicam eliminates. My model is handheld and doesn't have a spring loaded arm or vest, so there's still a fair amount of XYZ movement... but the shots still look stable.
With the camera usually looking at objects several feet away, moving up or down a fraction of an inch doesn't change the field of view much. But tilting the camera forward or back even a tiny amount changes the field of view a great deal. This wasn't intuitive to me until I tried the thing out.
Without any real experience, I doubt this guy's rig (basically a big weighted handle) is going to make shots much steadier than a careful handheld shot. I'd surely give it a try though, if I wasn't already set.
Anyways, steadicams are pretty cool.
Cheers.
Thanks for the thoughtful response.
Question regarding the contractors? Is what happened to them in some way "more evil" because it was photographed and released to the world.
Certainly not. Though I would say that the photographing and releasing may be a seperate act of "evil" for numerous reasons.
Should my personal reaction to any event be effected by whether or not it is photographed, and how gruesome the photographs are?
No, though the photos may remove any questions and ambiguity. Photos are just another form of information with the characteristics of immediacy and impact.
If I say yes, than I allow my reaction to be manipulated by what the reporter chooses to photograph and what the media chooses to broadcast.
I think that happens anyway. Even if you skip the photos as I have done, or are desensitized as you have done, you'll still be learning of the event via the media. And their words are likewise subject to sensationalism and selective reporting. By desensitizing yourself I don't think you are any more or less equipped than I to sift through media bias. My stomach turning doesn't lead to mindless reaction.
We agree that the gruesome pictures represent human suffering. I am guessing that you think sensitivity to the pictures is somehow a liability? I guess I don't really see that. One can have a rational or irrational reaction to any information. And sensitivity doesn't imply irrationality in my experience.
I see no reason whatsoever to let pictures of bloody, burnt, mutilated bodies, from either side, influence my sense of right and wrong.
I agree, and for me it doesn't. It just turns my stomach. In any case my reaction is sorrow: both for the people killed, and for the terrible circumstances that have led to the killers hatred. Of course, this story is itself blown all out of proportion in relation to the continuous destruction.
Thanks for the discussion. I hope I've demonstrated that someone who is emotionally sensitive can still be rational. Not that you ever suggested this, but there's no need to desensitize people. There's no need to discard emotion. If you are happier now that you are desensitized, then more power to you.
Cheers.
Heh... yeah probably :)
:)
Of course I didn't know that I'd see such stuff when I signed up. And it was admittedly rare -- once every couple weeks. Most objectionable material came in the form of nekkid ladies, which I must admit wasn't that objectionable to me
Oh -- and the job ended up being the "in" for my career as a programmer. So I'm glad overall that I went for it.
Cheers.
Wait a second: I have been against this invasion since day one, but that doesn't mean I can't feel compassion for the people suffering in the front lines on both sides. War is hell for everyone directly involved. The only people who I don't feel sorry for are the leaders. And ironically they're the ones who suffer least.
In any case, I don't like to hear of anybody getting slaughtered and defiled. I cry for the Iraqis, I cry for the Americans, I cry for all their families.
Your "boo fucking hoo" attitude is what allows war to happen in the first place. As soon as you are able to demote another's life to worthlessness, war is not so unthinkable.
Cheers.