I don't get that: you have this teraflop machines sitting there (a f*cking CELL in the PS3 or a triplecore 3.2GHz PowerPC in the 360,/plenty/ of horsepower both of them) and still you need to stream stuff to it. Wouldn't it be much more economic to just install an application of whatever on that machine (integrated in the firmware or whatever) and have that do all the work? Streaming media to a PS3 or 360 makes them just a very expensive and overpowered video-out. I'd say: put all those flops to work!
Apart from the fact that iPod bought after summer 2007 can't load Rockbox, there's a bazzilion players out there that play Ogg Vorbis and FLAC right out of the box. If these free codecs are so important to you, why not buy the device that actually already does what you want (and support the kind of manufacturer that actually builds these players)? BTW, the Zune works fine with Songbird, so the Zune can be used natively on any platform.
Think long and hard, and keep the words security and control in mind while doing so. If I visit/., why whould I want to allow any other webserver which happens to be iframed or whatever to execute javascript. Not only makes it an effective addblocker, I just do not want every webserver that gets called to be allowed to EXECUTE CODE on my machine.
Don't you think the UI looks crappy on anything but Windows? The toolkit used reminds me of using GTK1.x apps these days, I don't understand why they do that.
You can't get it to install with that amount of memory (actually, you can remove the check with nLite), but you can fun it 'fine'. I ran a 2003Server with 40MB and a 90mhz cpu for a while, once it was booted up (which, admittedly, took 5-10minutes) it worked fine over the network.
Real socilialists are in it for the people. You guessed right: there aren't many true socialists, some use it as a front to better their own cause. What you describe is corporatism, has nothing to do with socialism.
"It" refers to the specific decision to bailout banks. In this case, I'm pretty sure it's not what the majority of citizens want.
Now, I'm not much for populist taxcuts (I don't mind paying alot if I get a lot in return), but in this case I think the bailout money would have been spend better on individual citizens mortgages/loans/one-time taxbreaks.
It's socialism if it's what the majority of citizens want. It's fascism if it's only a small minority wants it.
These bailouts have nothing to do with socialism, it just good ol' fascism at work, the way we're used to in the United States. Corporate greed, lobbyists and a puppet government under the megacorps and all that.
Now, a bit of real socialism, that's what would be a refreshing change in the US...
NTFS-3g in Linux (and OSX, and probably all other) is ridiculously fast. Benchmarks: http://www.ntfs-3g.org/performance.html and in my personal experience I can't tell when I'm on my ext3 partition and when on the NTFS partition. The best thing is the excellent crossplatform support, it just works everywhere (if NTFS-3g is available of course).
It's default in Ubuntu, and all the official derivatives, so that's about as default as it needs to be. Fedora has it in it's repos (so that an easy install) and for OSX installing is a breeze too (and performance on any platform is remarkebly good, I use NTFS as a universal fs and I've never ever had any problems with either corruption, data loss or performance between my XP/OSX and Ubuntu systems).
Why NOT put anything fs related in the fs? Why should I worry or care about it, when a modern filesystem could do all the work for me. It's not as if I can't switch it off if I don't want it.
Why would you want to move precarious management such as this away from the filesystem into whatever OS you happen to be running? What if you're OS gets borked, it would be pretty useful to be able to just swap the phyiscal drives around and have all the settings/scripts/etc baked into the filesystem so that you never need to worry again about setting stuff up again (at all).
Jeez, what is up with you guys? Why do you have marketingdepartments internalized? Not everything is created to make money or gain marketshare, some things are just made for fun or for a very small niche. I mean, you can see who'd like such a browser, don't you? Tweakers (such as on this website!), webdevs, people who like crazy tech, to name a few, not to mention the makers themselves probably. It's fun, godd*mmit, why does it need to be anything else?
Keeping FLAC masters isn't all that difficult, just make sure the tags are correct. The ripping (and tagging) is the hard part, that's why I like to share rips (I didn't rip them all myself thank god). The transcoding is easy, two clicks and just let my Q6600 chug along for 6hrs and all the FLAC's are available in mp3. Storage isn't alot either, a TB is 90 euro so what are we talking about? If they can sell such drives, why can't they sell such mp3players?
The reason I say I want nothing less than 160GB is because that's the only size available that can hold my mp3's (actually, I've got about 130GB~ish right now, so with 30GB free I have some space to grow and a device to move large files if I need to). BTW I'd love to take those FLAC's with me if I could, but that's even more impossible right now.
I know Apple didn't sell the 160GB very much and therefore axed it, but outside of Apple only Microsoft (which doesnt even sell here in Europe) gets over 100GB. The original point I made was that sadly Apple is (/was) the only one selling in this niche. So while there are good arguments against iPod's and Apple, I argued that there's not much choice in this segment, but that I'd gladly buy non-iPods from some other vendor with a player that compares to the iPod160.
Thanks for missing the point once again, so meticulously laid out in my first post in this thread. Why does it matter how I got those 6400CD's or what I exactly do with the iPod? I'm not going to buy any player with less than 160GB's, so if you want to sell to me, better make a player like that. Why is only Apple picking up on that (and at this time not any more, but I've heard that they may offer a 240GB option at some point)?
And, as for your comment on quality, it appears you really havn't kept up with avances in codec development and properly ABXing what you actually can hear (and, on top of that, the absence of any correlation between library size and quality of ears). I suggest you head over to hydrogenaudio.org and read from the best. I generally target a bit above 128kbits (VBR of course, which is pretty transparent for me) and I transcode that from my FLAC masters. Yeah, I'd really want to take those with me on my portable, if not for quality then for ease of use (an automatic backup), if it weren't for those cramped mediaplayers.
WHERE ARE THE OTHER MANUFACTURERS WITH BIGASS HDD DRIVE MP3PLAYERS? I'm sorry, but 80GB is peanuts. My music collection just barely fits on the 160GB iPod as it is, only because I recode to 128kb-ish MP3. I need space, and lots of it, and all the other luxuries Apple manages to stuff in a very portable formfactor.
I have the latest firmware on my 6th gen iPod and as I stated it works perfectly with gtkpod. Probably more because of the gtkpod writers than Apple, but it works fine nonetheless.
And btw, it works excellent with Ubuntu and gtkpod (thanks to the writers of that app!), no problems of any kind, and I cross-use it with iTunes on Windows and OSX. It just works, in any OS.
Problem is, no other manufacturer offers me a 160GB drive with good batterylife (40hrs+). Apple does.
And don't start the 'do you really need that?' talk. No, I only really need food. Offer me a player like that for good money (got my 160GB iPod for 250 euro) and you have a deal.
A. Modifying a program (to which source you have access) is easier than starting from scratch.
B. People have social networks in which people help eachother. Thus, simply filing a feature request, posting on a forum or calling a friend which possibly can program is an option too in exercising your freedoms as a user and getting what you want.
C. The open source community and the free software community are not the same. Stallman, the FSF are all about Free (or Libre) software, in which the idea of a users freedom are essential and principal. Freedoms of the user always overrule those of the developer is the idea. The opensource community is more focused on the pratical benefits of sharing source (saves time, and it's easy to build on software from others). These two communites have two very different goals.
Slashdot Mirror
The same place the computer gets it from: the internet (or an networked/external hard drive).
I don't get that: you have this teraflop machines sitting there (a f*cking CELL in the PS3 or a triplecore 3.2GHz PowerPC in the 360, /plenty/ of horsepower both of them) and still you need to stream stuff to it. Wouldn't it be much more economic to just install an application of whatever on that machine (integrated in the firmware or whatever) and have that do all the work? Streaming media to a PS3 or 360 makes them just a very expensive and overpowered video-out. I'd say: put all those flops to work!
Hmm, odd. Anyhoo, I thought Amarok supports it too, which runs on Linux and OSX (beta).
Apart from the fact that iPod bought after summer 2007 can't load Rockbox, there's a bazzilion players out there that play Ogg Vorbis and FLAC right out of the box. If these free codecs are so important to you, why not buy the device that actually already does what you want (and support the kind of manufacturer that actually builds these players)? BTW, the Zune works fine with Songbird, so the Zune can be used natively on any platform.
Sounds like an excellent recipe for a deadly artificial disease btw.
Think long and hard, and keep the words security and control in mind while doing so. If I visit /., why whould I want to allow any other webserver which happens to be iframed or whatever to execute javascript. Not only makes it an effective addblocker, I just do not want every webserver that gets called to be allowed to EXECUTE CODE on my machine.
That still doesnt allow easy whitelisting javascript from certain adresses, only whole webpages.
Don't you think the UI looks crappy on anything but Windows? The toolkit used reminds me of using GTK1.x apps these days, I don't understand why they do that.
You can't get it to install with that amount of memory (actually, you can remove the check with nLite), but you can fun it 'fine'. I ran a 2003Server with 40MB and a 90mhz cpu for a while, once it was booted up (which, admittedly, took 5-10minutes) it worked fine over the network.
Real socilialists are in it for the people. You guessed right: there aren't many true socialists, some use it as a front to better their own cause. What you describe is corporatism, has nothing to do with socialism.
"It" refers to the specific decision to bailout banks. In this case, I'm pretty sure it's not what the majority of citizens want.
Now, I'm not much for populist taxcuts (I don't mind paying alot if I get a lot in return), but in this case I think the bailout money would have been spend better on individual citizens mortgages/loans/one-time taxbreaks.
It's socialism if it's what the majority of citizens want. It's fascism if it's only a small minority wants it.
These bailouts have nothing to do with socialism, it just good ol' fascism at work, the way we're used to in the United States. Corporate greed, lobbyists and a puppet government under the megacorps and all that.
Now, a bit of real socialism, that's what would be a refreshing change in the US...
NTFS-3g in Linux (and OSX, and probably all other) is ridiculously fast. Benchmarks: http://www.ntfs-3g.org/performance.html and in my personal experience I can't tell when I'm on my ext3 partition and when on the NTFS partition. The best thing is the excellent crossplatform support, it just works everywhere (if NTFS-3g is available of course).
You and the parent need to get the ublio version of ntfs-3g for OSX: http://macntfs-3g.blogspot.com/ Performance is excellent.
It's default in Ubuntu, and all the official derivatives, so that's about as default as it needs to be. Fedora has it in it's repos (so that an easy install) and for OSX installing is a breeze too (and performance on any platform is remarkebly good, I use NTFS as a universal fs and I've never ever had any problems with either corruption, data loss or performance between my XP/OSX and Ubuntu systems).
Why NOT put anything fs related in the fs? Why should I worry or care about it, when a modern filesystem could do all the work for me. It's not as if I can't switch it off if I don't want it. Why would you want to move precarious management such as this away from the filesystem into whatever OS you happen to be running? What if you're OS gets borked, it would be pretty useful to be able to just swap the phyiscal drives around and have all the settings/scripts/etc baked into the filesystem so that you never need to worry again about setting stuff up again (at all).
Jeez, what is up with you guys? Why do you have marketingdepartments internalized? Not everything is created to make money or gain marketshare, some things are just made for fun or for a very small niche. I mean, you can see who'd like such a browser, don't you? Tweakers (such as on this website!), webdevs, people who like crazy tech, to name a few, not to mention the makers themselves probably. It's fun, godd*mmit, why does it need to be anything else?
Keeping FLAC masters isn't all that difficult, just make sure the tags are correct. The ripping (and tagging) is the hard part, that's why I like to share rips (I didn't rip them all myself thank god). The transcoding is easy, two clicks and just let my Q6600 chug along for 6hrs and all the FLAC's are available in mp3. Storage isn't alot either, a TB is 90 euro so what are we talking about? If they can sell such drives, why can't they sell such mp3players? The reason I say I want nothing less than 160GB is because that's the only size available that can hold my mp3's (actually, I've got about 130GB~ish right now, so with 30GB free I have some space to grow and a device to move large files if I need to). BTW I'd love to take those FLAC's with me if I could, but that's even more impossible right now. I know Apple didn't sell the 160GB very much and therefore axed it, but outside of Apple only Microsoft (which doesnt even sell here in Europe) gets over 100GB. The original point I made was that sadly Apple is (/was) the only one selling in this niche. So while there are good arguments against iPod's and Apple, I argued that there's not much choice in this segment, but that I'd gladly buy non-iPods from some other vendor with a player that compares to the iPod160.
Nope, I got 240GB music.
Thanks for missing the point once again, so meticulously laid out in my first post in this thread. Why does it matter how I got those 6400CD's or what I exactly do with the iPod? I'm not going to buy any player with less than 160GB's, so if you want to sell to me, better make a player like that. Why is only Apple picking up on that (and at this time not any more, but I've heard that they may offer a 240GB option at some point)?
And, as for your comment on quality, it appears you really havn't kept up with avances in codec development and properly ABXing what you actually can hear (and, on top of that, the absence of any correlation between library size and quality of ears). I suggest you head over to hydrogenaudio.org and read from the best. I generally target a bit above 128kbits (VBR of course, which is pretty transparent for me) and I transcode that from my FLAC masters. Yeah, I'd really want to take those with me on my portable, if not for quality then for ease of use (an automatic backup), if it weren't for those cramped mediaplayers.
True, but still you (and others) miss the point.
WHERE ARE THE OTHER MANUFACTURERS WITH BIGASS HDD DRIVE MP3PLAYERS? I'm sorry, but 80GB is peanuts. My music collection just barely fits on the 160GB iPod as it is, only because I recode to 128kb-ish MP3. I need space, and lots of it, and all the other luxuries Apple manages to stuff in a very portable formfactor.
I have the latest firmware on my 6th gen iPod and as I stated it works perfectly with gtkpod. Probably more because of the gtkpod writers than Apple, but it works fine nonetheless.
And btw, it works excellent with Ubuntu and gtkpod (thanks to the writers of that app!), no problems of any kind, and I cross-use it with iTunes on Windows and OSX. It just works, in any OS.
Problem is, no other manufacturer offers me a 160GB drive with good batterylife (40hrs+). Apple does.
And don't start the 'do you really need that?' talk. No, I only really need food. Offer me a player like that for good money (got my 160GB iPod for 250 euro) and you have a deal.
Let's establish a few things first:
A. Modifying a program (to which source you have access) is easier than starting from scratch.
B. People have social networks in which people help eachother. Thus, simply filing a feature request, posting on a forum or calling a friend which possibly can program is an option too in exercising your freedoms as a user and getting what you want.
C. The open source community and the free software community are not the same. Stallman, the FSF are all about Free (or Libre) software, in which the idea of a users freedom are essential and principal. Freedoms of the user always overrule those of the developer is the idea. The opensource community is more focused on the pratical benefits of sharing source (saves time, and it's easy to build on software from others). These two communites have two very different goals.