It has dedicated graphics and 3GB of RAM and it has more then enough resources spare to do all of my work.
That *isn't* a normal notebook. That is a high-medium to high performance notebook. For everyone else they are lucky to get 2 GB of RAM and a dual-core CPU. Of course Vista will run on it, but XP or Linux is going to run like 10 times better on the thing.
Flash is broken for FreeBSD. Been broken for years.
Why whine about Flash being broken? Stop showing support - don't use sites that have opted to use technology that lacks support for open source.
That might be easy for you to say, but just about everyone between 10-20 uses YouTube.
*blah blah stops adoption of Linux blah blah*
I've heard that for years. 1st it was the reliability. Then it was office suites. Then.... Yet every time whatever has 'stopped' adoption - there is not the 'expected uptick'. Stop worrying about 'what stops adoption' - because if Microsoft really feels threatened - the resulting actions (like a free Microsoft OS) will stop the fragmented GNU/Linux OS in its tracks.
How isn't it the 'expected uptick'? When Linux got reliable it became dominant on servers, when OOo started getting better and Office/Windows kept on getting worse you can now buy systems from almost any vendor with Linux pre-installed! Just because they currently hide the systems with Linux in a dark corner of the site doesn't mean that they don't exist. And again, with no Flash support you can kiss having the 10-20 year old crowd using Linux goodbye.
See what version of Flash it is. Versions like 9 R48 work fine, while some of the more recent ones cause major CPU leaks. However, it is between getting performance with the older ones or security with the newer ones.
Try Ubuntu. Seriously, some of the more community distros (Debian, Fedora, etc) haven't gotten fonts figured out yet, but Ubuntu 7.10 onward has as good, if not better fonts than Windows.
Okay, so other than Flash (or any other proprietary browser plug in such as Quicktime or Real), how do you propose to get that multimedia on the web? A large unpadded table with Javascript updating the colors? I hope you like 320x240 at 2fps...
Java, direct downloads, etc.
Put simply, Flash solves a major shortcoming of the web in general - Namely, the lack of any really powerful client-side multimedia-oriented code execution in a more-or-less sandboxed environment. Until you can say how to do it better (and I'd love it if you would, since I don't claim to "like" Flash except as the best of a sorry lot).
Flash can be great. Adobe just has to either A) Make a decent Linux/Mac port or B) open source it. Either way, it doesn't take much effort. If Adobe does either of them, most people's complaints about Flash are gone.
The thing is, despite all the flaws in Adobe's flash player, it is generally fast and things load really quickly. Java on the other hand though more open and better, takes forever to get things loaded and navigation in Java has always seemed to be laggy.
But most people can't or won't build a computer. Just because you have built a water purification system that lets you simply buy a few gallons of clean water and never have to pay the water companies who are charging $1000 a month for water, doesn't mean that the water company isn't abusing the monopoly it has.
How would Google be considered to be an abusive monopoly? Number one I can go to Ask/Live/Yahoo and get the exact same thing just Ask/MS/Yahoo branded. Number two, I can search for Ask/Live/Yahoo on Google and get there. On the other hand because of MS's browser, not all sites render correctly on every other browser save for IE. Number three, I can easily go on the internet without even going to a Google site, on the other hand 2-3 years ago you couldn't even buy a computer without Windows on it. And lastly, MS makes a lot more money than Google, and when you switch Google doesn't make any more money, however, MS still has the (rather large sum of) money from when you bought Windows no matter if you switch to BSD/Linux/etc. With Google when you switch Google no longer gets the minor amount of money you keep giving them.
Lets see... In 1984 there were cameras in your house that reported on your daily activities, they have that now in the form of throttling/packet shaping.
If someone purchases something from a member of the **AA, that person is showing support for their activities.
So is me buying a book from a store who's owners are christian/atheist/muslim/etc giving my support to that religion? No, it is showing support for a book, same thing here, a lot of people who are uninformed about the RIAA (read as 85% of the US population) think that the CD they bought helps the band that made it.
No one *needs* to buy a CD/DVD or go to the movies. I don't, haven't for years, and I don't 'download' either.
So what do you do? Watch public TV, oh wait, a portion of that goes to the *AA. Watch cable TV? Same thing. Listen to the radio? Same thing. Buy a video game, a portion of it could go to the RIAA if any of the songs are licensed. Just about any media you watch that is ad supported or you pay for is supporting the RIAA (unless it is foreign in which case it probably goes to support the Japanese/Chinese/Korean/Canadian/Mexican/etc recording industry)
No, but look at it, just about every atheist in this world has been exposed to some religion be it with the media, general talk, or just how society acts. Without any hint of spirituality we would be more like animals and have no reason to be different.
Because without spirituality, when you are dead. You are dead. Whether it be in the ocean, on a throne, wherever you might be. Even then, why bury the dead? It obviously wasn't for sanitary reasons, it wasn't for ease of taking care of a dead body. Most likely it would be because of some spiritual belief.
So wait... OCR which basically takes video game music and redistributes them isn't as bad as TPB which basically takes MP3s and redistributes them? Granted, OCR does have a lot of remixes, but the "chiptunes" are equivalent to video game MP3s.
First, people who have engaged in illegal copyright infringement, continuing to push the envelope and up the ante, are responsible for this.
Piracy has existed since recorded media was introduced.
Second, there is no law that can be passed requiring consumers to purchase content from RIAA-backed entities.
No, but if you want *good* American music you almost always have to get it from the RIAA. There are a few good indie bands, but most of the ones who are good enough to be signed are. And most American record labels are part of the RIAA.
If you think about it, despite all the whining the RIAA does, they aren't hurting. If consumers suddenly grew a backbone and decided that they were going to stop supporting this insanity, do you seriously think such a sudden shift in revenue could be chalked up to copyright infringement?
Sudden? Nothing about it would be a sudden loss in revenue, the RIAA has enough TV/Radio/etc royalties to last them a long, long time. And unless consumers suddenly boycott radio, TV, Movies, and music in general, the RIAA will still get money. And that is even supposing that 90% of the public stopped buying RIAA CDs, I highly doubt that we can get 50% to do that.
In my mind, this is a market correction that should take place.
It should but it won't happen with boycotts. If we had a truly free market it would happen, but again, the government has screwed us so many times that it can never happen in a short time.
Being that illegal copying has been so pervasive, keeping the RIAA honest about the real causes of any revenue shift isn't going to be easy. But that's not their fault.
Know any other businesses that sue because you aren't buying enough? Does McDonalds threaten you if you don't super-size? Does Wal-Mart follow you home to make sure you are doing "authorized" things with your purchases? No. Because in any other business these things would be a quick way to go bankrupt. But the RIAA has congress.
Well think of it this way, if I download some music from TPB for non-profit use and leave BT on and it uploads to another person using it for non-profit use, the RIAA can still sue you for some insane amount of $$$. College radio may be an exception, but I wouldn't count on it.
The difference is, the RIAA is not a normal business. If I refuse to eat at a restaurant and a bunch of like minded people do to, chances are it will go out of business. When people boycott the RIAA they see it as a loss and think OMG PIRACY!!1!111! and use that as an excuse to pass more draconian laws.
Sure, after a long time (50 years or so) the RIAA will be bankrupt and disband, but not before taking the US and any other "free" country to 1984.
No *legal* broadcasts of internet radio will be dead in the US. All this law is going to to is turn legal radio stations into pirate radio stations overnight.
No, it is the government. Say all you want but us consumers have come up with good solutions such as torrents, internet radio, etc. But it is the government that is shutting them down.
Ummm... OCR is all great and all but it plays... Well, video game music. Which is great and all, but most of us would need a site like this http://thepiratebay.org/ to get the music we want
Slashdot Mirror
It has dedicated graphics and 3GB of RAM and it has more then enough resources spare to do all of my work.
That *isn't* a normal notebook. That is a high-medium to high performance notebook. For everyone else they are lucky to get 2 GB of RAM and a dual-core CPU. Of course Vista will run on it, but XP or Linux is going to run like 10 times better on the thing.
On my old Alienware laptop there was a button you could press that loaded a minimal Linux distro to play DVDs and CDs without loading Windows.
Flash is broken for FreeBSD. Been broken for years. Why whine about Flash being broken? Stop showing support - don't use sites that have opted to use technology that lacks support for open source.
That might be easy for you to say, but just about everyone between 10-20 uses YouTube.
*blah blah stops adoption of Linux blah blah* I've heard that for years. 1st it was the reliability. Then it was office suites. Then .... Yet every time whatever has 'stopped' adoption - there is not the 'expected uptick'. Stop worrying about 'what stops adoption' - because if Microsoft really feels threatened - the resulting actions (like a free Microsoft OS) will stop the fragmented GNU/Linux OS in its tracks.
How isn't it the 'expected uptick'? When Linux got reliable it became dominant on servers, when OOo started getting better and Office/Windows kept on getting worse you can now buy systems from almost any vendor with Linux pre-installed! Just because they currently hide the systems with Linux in a dark corner of the site doesn't mean that they don't exist. And again, with no Flash support you can kiss having the 10-20 year old crowd using Linux goodbye.
See what version of Flash it is. Versions like 9 R48 work fine, while some of the more recent ones cause major CPU leaks. However, it is between getting performance with the older ones or security with the newer ones.
Try Ubuntu. Seriously, some of the more community distros (Debian, Fedora, etc) haven't gotten fonts figured out yet, but Ubuntu 7.10 onward has as good, if not better fonts than Windows.
Okay, so other than Flash (or any other proprietary browser plug in such as Quicktime or Real), how do you propose to get that multimedia on the web? A large unpadded table with Javascript updating the colors? I hope you like 320x240 at 2fps...
Java, direct downloads, etc.
Put simply, Flash solves a major shortcoming of the web in general - Namely, the lack of any really powerful client-side multimedia-oriented code execution in a more-or-less sandboxed environment. Until you can say how to do it better (and I'd love it if you would, since I don't claim to "like" Flash except as the best of a sorry lot).
Flash can be great. Adobe just has to either A) Make a decent Linux/Mac port or B) open source it. Either way, it doesn't take much effort. If Adobe does either of them, most people's complaints about Flash are gone.
The thing is, despite all the flaws in Adobe's flash player, it is generally fast and things load really quickly. Java on the other hand though more open and better, takes forever to get things loaded and navigation in Java has always seemed to be laggy.
...Unless that person is one of the people who use YouTube, which is just about everyone from 10-20 years old.
But most people can't or won't build a computer. Just because you have built a water purification system that lets you simply buy a few gallons of clean water and never have to pay the water companies who are charging $1000 a month for water, doesn't mean that the water company isn't abusing the monopoly it has.
How would Google be considered to be an abusive monopoly? Number one I can go to Ask/Live/Yahoo and get the exact same thing just Ask/MS/Yahoo branded. Number two, I can search for Ask/Live/Yahoo on Google and get there. On the other hand because of MS's browser, not all sites render correctly on every other browser save for IE. Number three, I can easily go on the internet without even going to a Google site, on the other hand 2-3 years ago you couldn't even buy a computer without Windows on it. And lastly, MS makes a lot more money than Google, and when you switch Google doesn't make any more money, however, MS still has the (rather large sum of) money from when you bought Windows no matter if you switch to BSD/Linux/etc. With Google when you switch Google no longer gets the minor amount of money you keep giving them.
Lets see... In 1984 there were cameras in your house that reported on your daily activities, they have that now in the form of throttling/packet shaping.
If someone purchases something from a member of the **AA, that person is showing support for their activities.
So is me buying a book from a store who's owners are christian/atheist/muslim/etc giving my support to that religion? No, it is showing support for a book, same thing here, a lot of people who are uninformed about the RIAA (read as 85% of the US population) think that the CD they bought helps the band that made it.
No one *needs* to buy a CD/DVD or go to the movies. I don't, haven't for years, and I don't 'download' either.
So what do you do? Watch public TV, oh wait, a portion of that goes to the *AA. Watch cable TV? Same thing. Listen to the radio? Same thing. Buy a video game, a portion of it could go to the RIAA if any of the songs are licensed. Just about any media you watch that is ad supported or you pay for is supporting the RIAA (unless it is foreign in which case it probably goes to support the Japanese/Chinese/Korean/Canadian/Mexican/etc recording industry)
Ok, without religion/the law, what is preventing me from killing someone who is weaker than me?
Because 8000ish years ago we didn't know anything about sanitary things.
No, but look at it, just about every atheist in this world has been exposed to some religion be it with the media, general talk, or just how society acts. Without any hint of spirituality we would be more like animals and have no reason to be different.
Because without spirituality, when you are dead. You are dead. Whether it be in the ocean, on a throne, wherever you might be. Even then, why bury the dead? It obviously wasn't for sanitary reasons, it wasn't for ease of taking care of a dead body. Most likely it would be because of some spiritual belief.
So wait... OCR which basically takes video game music and redistributes them isn't as bad as TPB which basically takes MP3s and redistributes them? Granted, OCR does have a lot of remixes, but the "chiptunes" are equivalent to video game MP3s.
First, people who have engaged in illegal copyright infringement, continuing to push the envelope and up the ante, are responsible for this.
Piracy has existed since recorded media was introduced.
Second, there is no law that can be passed requiring consumers to purchase content from RIAA-backed entities.
No, but if you want *good* American music you almost always have to get it from the RIAA. There are a few good indie bands, but most of the ones who are good enough to be signed are. And most American record labels are part of the RIAA.
If you think about it, despite all the whining the RIAA does, they aren't hurting. If consumers suddenly grew a backbone and decided that they were going to stop supporting this insanity, do you seriously think such a sudden shift in revenue could be chalked up to copyright infringement?
Sudden? Nothing about it would be a sudden loss in revenue, the RIAA has enough TV/Radio/etc royalties to last them a long, long time. And unless consumers suddenly boycott radio, TV, Movies, and music in general, the RIAA will still get money. And that is even supposing that 90% of the public stopped buying RIAA CDs, I highly doubt that we can get 50% to do that.
In my mind, this is a market correction that should take place.
It should but it won't happen with boycotts. If we had a truly free market it would happen, but again, the government has screwed us so many times that it can never happen in a short time.
Being that illegal copying has been so pervasive, keeping the RIAA honest about the real causes of any revenue shift isn't going to be easy. But that's not their fault.
Know any other businesses that sue because you aren't buying enough? Does McDonalds threaten you if you don't super-size? Does Wal-Mart follow you home to make sure you are doing "authorized" things with your purchases? No. Because in any other business these things would be a quick way to go bankrupt. But the RIAA has congress.
Well think of it this way, if I download some music from TPB for non-profit use and leave BT on and it uploads to another person using it for non-profit use, the RIAA can still sue you for some insane amount of $$$. College radio may be an exception, but I wouldn't count on it.
The difference is, the RIAA is not a normal business. If I refuse to eat at a restaurant and a bunch of like minded people do to, chances are it will go out of business. When people boycott the RIAA they see it as a loss and think OMG PIRACY!!1!111! and use that as an excuse to pass more draconian laws.
Sure, after a long time (50 years or so) the RIAA will be bankrupt and disband, but not before taking the US and any other "free" country to 1984.
No, it will simply make legal radio stations pirate radio stations.
No *legal* broadcasts of internet radio will be dead in the US. All this law is going to to is turn legal radio stations into pirate radio stations overnight.
The record labels influence the radio stations to play the same songs over and over (same with watching MTV, if anyone still does that).
MTV plays music?
No, it is the government. Say all you want but us consumers have come up with good solutions such as torrents, internet radio, etc. But it is the government that is shutting them down.
Ummm... OCR is all great and all but it plays... Well, video game music. Which is great and all, but most of us would need a site like this http://thepiratebay.org/ to get the music we want