I'd rather have McCain. Lesser of three evils. Whoops...nope, read below/above...McCain authored the CDA. So now we've eliminated Bush, we've elminated Gore, we've eliminated McCain, and it seems like the Democratic Party will eliminate Bradley (but he's more into violating the 2nd amendment than the 1st). Who does that leave us with? Buchanan and Keyes? *shudder*
Most of the technology has plateued and doesn't need to be upgraded often anymore (cpu speed, sound cards, video cards, ethernet, etc.) Well, on the sound card issue, I still need a full-length ISA slot no matter what computer I upgrade to unless I keep my old monster around for some reason; however, if I'm going to upgrade, it will probably be for better music capabilities. One of my soundcards is an old Roland LAPC-1. Why do I keep this ancient piece of hardware? One reason: Nothing sounds like it. Because it has analog synthesis built-in, along with those neato Roland filters, it just makes sounds sweeter, cleaner, and just plain differently than any digital equipment can. Groovy, baby. That, and the SoundBastard's one-MIDI-device-at-a-time limitation sucks...the LAPC-1 can at least do multiple outs (three).
Except that they were already bought out by VIA, as the article said.
I'm a Christian, and I agree with you
on
Victory in Holland
·
· Score: 2
"God has called us to this, and no matter what happens from this point forward, I think he would say to us now 'Well done, good and faithful servants,'" Schepers said. Leave God out of this! This is not what God called people to do. Of course, I am just as presumptuous as Schepers by saying so, but see if she will admit that. *sigh*...It's days like these that I'm reminded that God is in dire need of a publicist to make comments to correct the idiotic things people say that God made them do or God chose them to do. "No, I did not send them to do that, they did that all by themselves and frankly, I'm disgusted." Or, "No, I didn't tell him to kill the abortion clinic doctor; I told him `Thou Shalt Not Kill' and `Love Thy Enemy.'" Or even, "No, those people are not defending Me when they attack homosexual marriages." *shudder*
I'm not a spammer. I think spam is despicable, horrid, and otherwise bad. But you know what's worse? Trying to decide what kind of e-mail can be sent and what can't. It's far, far easier just to set up a spamtrap filter on my e-mail AT HOME. Not by the ISP, not by the government.
I don't need or want the government telling me what e-mail I can and can't receive or send legally.
Think about it, folks. Spam is one of the negatives you MUST live with if the Internet is truly to be free of censorship. What is this, other than censorship? If you want ideas to flow freely, you must take the bad with the good.
Where do you draw the line? If we agree that spam is bad and should be limited, how can we say that others are wrong to make transmission of other things -- such as DVD playback software, or commercial software in general, or "indecent" e-mails and web pages -- illegal as well? We hate one thing, so we make it illegal. They hate another thing, so they make that illegal. Then this group feels that they need to protect their children. That group wants the law to protect themselves. Soon, only the lawyers are making money, and no one can say ANYTHING over the internet. It will become as restricted as radio, and all of the freedom of communication that we lost to that device will be lost to the internet.
Slashdotters, we should be OPPOSING this law, not supporting it.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -Voltaire
"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." -Noam Chomsky
"Free speech is the whole thing, the whole ball game. Free speech is life itself." -Salman Rushdie
"Only the suppressed word is dangerous." -Ludwig Börne
"Censorship reflects a society's lack of confidence in itself." -Potter Stewart
"If there had been a censorship of the press in Rome we should have had today neither Horace nor Juvenal, nor the philosophical writings of Cicero." -Voltaire
"Without free speech no search for truth is possible... no discovery of truth is useful... Better a thousandfold abuse of free speech than denial of free speech. The abuse dies in a day, but the denial slays the life of the people, and entombs the hope of the race." -Charles Bradlaugh
Back when I was a teenager, I took a very detailed personality test devised by a psychology group out of Dallas to help people understand their needs in the workplace better, etc., called the Aptitude Inventory Measurement Service. It's quite a wonderful organization, and the tests and their understanding have evolved over the years of giving the tests.
They include a third category: "Ambivert." At the time (this may have changed) they categorized these people, like me, as being people who are equally happy both in social environments and by themselves. They don't hand this classification out easily; I had to take different versions of the same exam three times before they gave me a marking just barely over the center line, leaning towards "Introvert."
What I like about your comment...
(Extroverts are people who seem to gain energy from being around other people; introverts are people who gain energy from doing things -- including just resting -- without other people around. See http://keirsey.com/pumII/ei.html for more.)
...is that it goes even further. I've always felt that I actually needed to be in both environments to stay happy; it isn't that I'm merely comfortable in both environments. (I'm really temperamental.) If I'm alone too long, I get depressed; if I'm in a group for too long, I get irritable. The suggestion that energy is derived from one or the other makes sense to me -- I need both to make energy, just like an automobile needs both gas and air for combustion.
Cool. You know, I feel I've learned something about myself today. And by the way, I think the rest of your comments are dead on the money as well. Being an introvert IS NOT A SHAMEFUL THING!!! Introverts unite (but, ehrm, only ideologically, let's not actually get in the same physical place, yeah?)...:)
Ya know, I think this is a pretty strong reason why posts shouldn't be made when you've had less than a certain amount of sleep and after a certain time of night.:|
You're right. What the hell was I thinking?
--Rimbo, promising himself (yet again) to get a good night's sleep tonight
Forget stock purchases. The only way it would work is if a large number of people bought one share each, attended the shareholders' meeting personally, and raised hell. If you buy a large block of the company's stock, you raise its price -- and that is almost tacit endorsement of their behavior.
I think civil disobedience is the only way to honestly protest this. I think a coordinated effort of DDoS attacks, repeatedly striking the same corporations' sites by people who do it and then fess up afterwards (only to have the site attacked by the next person in line the next day), might have a far more profound effect. The main reason doing it this way might be more effective (as opposed to a more conventional way such as through the legal system) is that if you want to protest, you should stick to the forum you know best. Secondly, censorship of this nature is information warfare, and information warfare should be fought by information.
I am in no way advocating such behavior. I do feel it would be effective, but that is far different from advocating it. In fact, this entire post is not my opinion at all.
I get the feeling that by backing DVD in the DVD vs. DIVX wars, that it's the equivalent of having sent tons of military aid to Iraq when they were fighting with Iran?
What began as a conflict over putting minds into machines escalated into a war that devastated the entire galaxy... Sorry, I couldn't resist.:) Not only has the idea been done in sci-fi, and not only has it been opposed in sci-fi, but the idea of people fighting over it has become a video game plot.
Do you have any clue how TINY the percentage of profits a musician actually makes off of the sales of his/her album?
I think most musicians, even a lot of the big-name stars who have the most to lose from mp3 piracy (as opposed to freely releasing an mp3 themselves), support the mp3 revolution. Tom Petty and (in a big way) David Bowie come to mind as examples of people who have really embraced the new medium.
For a brief, freakish time, recordings as a medium were intensely profitable for a very few musicians (but never so much for them as for record companies). Those days are over. MP3s represent a brand-new way to use recordings for their original purpose -- a marketing tool to sell either the live performance or the sheet music.
The beauty of it is the beauty of the internet -- I no longer need to grease the palms of radio DJ's, I no longer need to get an "in" with a major label -- many of the barriers that formerly blocked new musicians from "making it" are now gone, and a band can even be from Midland, TX or The Netherlands and a guy like me could stumble across them. Or even Italy. (Just three of my favorite bands that I never would have heard of through the standard radio play / movie soundtrack / local bar circuit methods.)
The recording industry is corrupt. (Duh.) Most of us musicians, even those of us who are in the system, have seen it as a necessary evil. MP3's are a way around them!
One band I know of is even using mp3's to give fans who are musicians the opportunity to make their own remixes!
All in all, mp3's are pretty cool for those of us who are artists. Most musicians are NOT whores to the music industry (much as they've tried to be) and lose almost nothing; many of those who are tied in with big labels have already embraced the new medium.
MP3's aren't going anywhere, and those who fight against them will only lose their money in the end.
This isn't such a bad idea, and the reason why has nothing to do with DIVX. Consider people who have sensitive data ("This message will self-destruct...") that is not meant to be kept around. A self-destructing DVD-ROM is a great way to transport lots of data without leaving a trace of its existence afterwards -- other than the fact that it was actually used.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd rather have McCain. Lesser of three evils. Whoops...nope, read below/above...McCain authored the CDA. So now we've eliminated Bush, we've elminated Gore, we've eliminated McCain, and it seems like the Democratic Party will eliminate Bradley (but he's more into violating the 2nd amendment than the 1st). Who does that leave us with? Buchanan and Keyes? *shudder*
How about "not Gore?"
Remember the CDA?
Most of the technology has plateued and doesn't need to be upgraded often anymore (cpu speed, sound cards, video cards, ethernet, etc.) Well, on the sound card issue, I still need a full-length ISA slot no matter what computer I upgrade to unless I keep my old monster around for some reason; however, if I'm going to upgrade, it will probably be for better music capabilities. One of my soundcards is an old Roland LAPC-1. Why do I keep this ancient piece of hardware? One reason: Nothing sounds like it. Because it has analog synthesis built-in, along with those neato Roland filters, it just makes sounds sweeter, cleaner, and just plain differently than any digital equipment can. Groovy, baby. That, and the SoundBastard's one-MIDI-device-at-a-time limitation sucks...the LAPC-1 can at least do multiple outs (three).
Except that they were already bought out by VIA, as the article said.
"God has called us to this, and no matter what happens from this point forward, I think he would say to us now 'Well done, good and faithful servants,'" Schepers said. Leave God out of this! This is not what God called people to do. Of course, I am just as presumptuous as Schepers by saying so, but see if she will admit that. *sigh*...It's days like these that I'm reminded that God is in dire need of a publicist to make comments to correct the idiotic things people say that God made them do or God chose them to do. "No, I did not send them to do that, they did that all by themselves and frankly, I'm disgusted." Or, "No, I didn't tell him to kill the abortion clinic doctor; I told him `Thou Shalt Not Kill' and `Love Thy Enemy.'" Or even, "No, those people are not defending Me when they attack homosexual marriages." *shudder*
http://palmorder.modusmedia.com/P3/P3c-3C80600U.ht m
:)
"The rechargeable lithium ion battery gives you over two weeks of constant run time, or 14 days of normal use."
Cool! I'm going to leave mine on all of the time to get the extra battery life.
I'm not a spammer. I think spam is despicable, horrid, and otherwise bad. But you know what's worse? Trying to decide what kind of e-mail can be sent and what can't. It's far, far easier just to set up a spamtrap filter on my e-mail AT HOME. Not by the ISP, not by the government.
r ary/weekly/aa092398.htm?iam=mt
I don't need or want the government telling me what e-mail I can and can't receive or send legally.
Think about it, folks. Spam is one of the negatives you MUST live with if the Internet is truly to be free of censorship. What is this, other than censorship? If you want ideas to flow freely, you must take the bad with the good.
Where do you draw the line? If we agree that spam is bad and should be limited, how can we say that others are wrong to make transmission of other things -- such as DVD playback software, or commercial software in general, or "indecent" e-mails and web pages -- illegal as well? We hate one thing, so we make it illegal. They hate another thing, so they make that illegal. Then this group feels that they need to protect their children. That group wants the law to protect themselves. Soon, only the lawyers are making money, and no one can say ANYTHING over the internet. It will become as restricted as radio, and all of the freedom of communication that we lost to that device will be lost to the internet.
Slashdotters, we should be OPPOSING this law, not supporting it.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire
"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."
-Noam Chomsky
"Free speech is the whole thing, the whole ball game. Free speech is life itself."
-Salman Rushdie
"Only the suppressed word is dangerous."
-Ludwig Börne
"Censorship reflects a society's lack of confidence in itself."
-Potter Stewart
"If there had been a censorship of the press in Rome we should have had today neither Horace nor Juvenal, nor the philosophical writings of Cicero."
-Voltaire
"Without free speech no search for truth is possible... no discovery of truth is useful... Better a thousandfold abuse of free speech than denial of free speech. The abuse dies in a day, but the denial slays the life of the people, and entombs the hope of the race."
-Charles Bradlaugh
http://quotations.about.com/arts/quotations/lib
They include a third category: "Ambivert." At the time (this may have changed) they categorized these people, like me, as being people who are equally happy both in social environments and by themselves. They don't hand this classification out easily; I had to take different versions of the same exam three times before they gave me a marking just barely over the center line, leaning towards "Introvert."
What I like about your comment...
Cool. You know, I feel I've learned something about myself today. And by the way, I think the rest of your comments are dead on the money as well. Being an introvert IS NOT A SHAMEFUL THING!!! Introverts unite (but, ehrm, only ideologically, let's not actually get in the same physical place, yeah?)... :)
You're right. What the hell was I thinking?
--Rimbo, promising himself (yet again) to get a good night's sleep tonight
Forget stock purchases. The only way it would work is if a large number of people bought one share each, attended the shareholders' meeting personally, and raised hell. If you buy a large block of the company's stock, you raise its price -- and that is almost tacit endorsement of their behavior.
I think civil disobedience is the only way to honestly protest this. I think a coordinated effort of DDoS attacks, repeatedly striking the same corporations' sites by people who do it and then fess up afterwards (only to have the site attacked by the next person in line the next day), might have a far more profound effect. The main reason doing it this way might be more effective (as opposed to a more conventional way such as through the legal system) is that if you want to protest, you should stick to the forum you know best. Secondly, censorship of this nature is information warfare, and information warfare should be fought by information.
I am in no way advocating such behavior. I do feel it would be effective, but that is far different from advocating it. In fact, this entire post is not my opinion at all.
I get the feeling that by backing DVD in the DVD vs. DIVX wars, that it's the equivalent of having sent tons of military aid to Iraq when they were fighting with Iran?
The "religious right" is neither.
What began as a conflict over putting minds into machines escalated into a war that devastated the entire galaxy... Sorry, I couldn't resist. :) Not only has the idea been done in sci-fi, and not only has it been opposed in sci-fi, but the idea of people fighting over it has become a video game plot.
Do you have any clue how TINY the percentage of profits a musician actually makes off of the sales of his/her album?
I think most musicians, even a lot of the big-name stars who have the most to lose from mp3 piracy (as opposed to freely releasing an mp3 themselves), support the mp3 revolution. Tom Petty and (in a big way) David Bowie come to mind as examples of people who have really embraced the new medium.
For a brief, freakish time, recordings as a medium were intensely profitable for a very few musicians (but never so much for them as for record companies). Those days are over. MP3s represent a brand-new way to use recordings for their original purpose -- a marketing tool to sell either the live performance or the sheet music.
The beauty of it is the beauty of the internet -- I no longer need to grease the palms of radio DJ's, I no longer need to get an "in" with a major label -- many of the barriers that formerly blocked new musicians from "making it" are now gone, and a band can even be from Midland, TX or The Netherlands and a guy like me could stumble across them. Or even Italy. (Just three of my favorite bands that I never would have heard of through the standard radio play / movie soundtrack / local bar circuit methods.)
The recording industry is corrupt. (Duh.) Most of us musicians, even those of us who are in the system, have seen it as a necessary evil. MP3's are a way around them!
(Braveheart mode on)
FREEEEEEDOOOOOOMMMMMMMMM!
(Braveheart mode off)
One band I know of is even using mp3's to give fans who are musicians the opportunity to make their own remixes!
All in all, mp3's are pretty cool for those of us who are artists. Most musicians are NOT whores to the music industry (much as they've tried to be) and lose almost nothing; many of those who are tied in with big labels have already embraced the new medium.
MP3's aren't going anywhere, and those who fight against them will only lose their money in the end.
just my 2 zorkmids
This isn't such a bad idea, and the reason why has nothing to do with DIVX. Consider people who have sensitive data ("This message will self-destruct...") that is not meant to be kept around. A self-destructing DVD-ROM is a great way to transport lots of data without leaving a trace of its existence afterwards -- other than the fact that it was actually used.