I didn't say there's anything wrong with separating the CLI and the desktop. My old Amiga did that and very successfully. Ditto Linux.
The problem was that Microsoft's implementation of MS-DOS plus Windows was poor. Even they recognized that, which is why rather than release Windows 2001, they ended the line and made NT 5.1 (XP) available for average consumers.
No I've run older versions of Windows using their minimum settings. There's a huge difference between "this computer paused for a few seconds" and Vista's "the computer has not moved in 5 minutes".
People who are dumb will still manage to install trojans by repeatedly clicking "okay", and those of us who have been using computers since they days of 8-bit don't need UAC. We already know *before* we start the install whether or not it's safe. UAC is just an annoyance for us.
Yes I'm sure there are bad judges, but if the United States Supreme Court orders you to pay the website owner's approximately $1000 in costs, don't you think you ought to obey? Especially after the Supreme Justices tell you it was falt-wrong to yank his page off the web? I'd certainly pay up.
>>>if it got the science 100% right, then we too would already be in The Future (tm).
Um yeah..... except even though we may not know the future, we still know there are certain things that are simply impossible. Giant viruses can't exist because the sheer weight of their internal liquid would make them either collapse flat to the ground, or burst open like a water balloon. Same applies to those movies which show ants scaled to the size of a house - they would suffocate (no lungs to circulate the air internally). In another example Babylon 5 described Jupiter's temperature as about -400 degrees Celsius. Too bad that's impossible since it's below absolute zero (-273 celsius).
>>>Arthur C. Clarke's "Light of Other Worlds" which describes how society is transformed when someone invents a machine that allows people to look into any point in the past, and suddenly people figure out who really killed Kennedy, that their religion is a sham, etc. >>>
Sounds like he plagiarized Isaac Asimov's short story "The Dead Past"? In Asimov's story you could use the machine to see the "past" from just one second ago, which is practically the same as being able to see the present, and thus being able to spy upon everyone. No more privacy.
>>>I think the guy is extremely short-sighted. Not all sci-fi is about technology and its effect on humanity; much (most?) of it is about how humans behave in different situations, >>>
Isn't that just FANTASY rather than science-based fiction? Heck by your reckoning Harry Potter and Buffy are science fiction (human beings in different situations). I think pretty much everything we view or read is Fantasy, and very little of it qualifies as science-based stories. Star Wars for example - clearly a fantasy - magic and all.
>>>No matter how you say it, it is an attack on the Star Trek franchise. He is dismissing the human element of the story in the same way that he claims Trek dismisses the technology element. I don't consider myself a Trekkie but I liked all of them to some extent (ok, except for DS9 anyway) >>>
Hold on. You didn't like DS9? It was the most-intelligent of the Treks with a continuing storyline, and lots of commentary on contemporary politics (read: occupation of Iraq during the 90s), as well as religion's role in a technological society, and philosophy in general. It didn't quite measure-up to Babylon 5 or the New Galactica, but it was darn close. DS9 is the only Trek I own in its entirety from season 1 through 7.
OK.
Back to point: I like Star Trek and other shows, but I've come to realize these are FANTASY shows not Science-based shows. They are essentially using magic just like Harry Potter uses magic, but instead of waving a wand, Geordi LaForge waves a tricorder. There's no real difference... none that matters anyways.
Contrast that with the movie "Gattaca" which postulated a modern society like ours but with one change - Designer Babies - and how that would affect our near-future. This is not fantasy, but based upon actual science. The only thing that has stopped Gattaca from becoming reality is a legal ban.
Also the copyright limit is ridiculous. 95 years??? I'll be dead by then. I like a lot of 70s and 80s music, since that's when I grew up. If the limit were something more reasonable, say 14 years times 2 (copyright act of 1790), then most of the 80s stuff would still be copyrighted but at least I could hear my favorites from the 70s free of charge.
Songs, books, et cetera are intended to benefit *society* and they can not do that if they are sealed behind a lock. Copyright is a temporary and limited *privilege* that is granted by the People towards the artists, and RIAA is abusing that privilege. The People are fed up and frankly on the verge of revoking the privilege entirely. All it takes is a Constitutional amendment to strike the clause.
First off, exactly how many people have been sued for making copies for personal use? I think the actual number is zero. Secondly, how many people have been sent letters for making copies for personal use? Each and every lawsuit has been about distributing copies TO OTHERS, which is not personal use. It is pretty hypocritical to use could happen, might happen, it's possible arguments in response to an article ridiculing people for using those arguments.
Lastly, if you are preparing to take legal action against someone, it is proper (and sometimes required) to try and work out the differences before filing a lawsuit. The letters you deride as 'extortionate' are an attempt to do just that. If you know you have done what they are saying, you have an easy way out - pay up. You are under no obligation to pay, but if you don't it could (and probably will) wind up costing you a whole lot more. You could also make a counter offer, which they are under no obligation to accept. If you haven't done what they are charging, try to work it out with them. How many of the much ballyhooed 'innocent grandmother' type cases have actually made it to trial?
If you're working on the RIAA clock while posting this stuff, you really should disclose that at the bottom of your post.
Thank you.
The problem I have is not the fine, but the amount. The RIAA judgments are equivalent to a life sentence, since that's how it takes to earn the money to pay-off the one million dollar (or more) reward..... pretty ridiculous for downloading a bittorrent of Lady Gaga's Poker Face, Britney Spear's Circus, and about twenty other similar bubblegum pop songs (see Jamie Thomas case). If the judgments were more reasonable such as $10,000 plus paying RIAA's legal fees, then I'd not care but handing-out million dollar life sentences is bullshit.
He didn't actually own the slaves - they were owned by bankers in London who forbade Jefferson from freeing the slaves (as Washington and other founders did). Nevertheless Jefferson made many proposals to free the slaves within the State of Virginia, such as sending them back to Africa where they originally came from (an idea that some slaves followed, to create modernday Liberia). Another idea he had was to buy the slaves directly and then free them, or converting them from slaves to paid laborers (by law), but his efforts were ignored by his fellow Virginians.
Even in the declaration of independence Jefferson wrote: "he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce; and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another." But of course that was struck.
Jefferson was an idealist, much like our current president Obama is an idealist, but just as Obama has failed to pass his Public Option Healthcare due to others standing in the way, so too did Jefferson fail to exterminate slavery due to others unwillingness to cooperate. So Jefferson was not a perfect. Gee what a surprise.
BTW there was one way that Jefferson did succeed:
Ever heard of the phrase "separation of church and state"? Liberals such as yourself are fond of quoting it - well you are quoting Jefferson. You can't have it both ways - enshrining his words as they were a magical incantation, while calling him a "aristocratic-anarchic-libertarian elitist" asshole. That just makes you look hypocritical.
Yes the Democrats ideals changed from small government to large government approximately the time Progressive President Wilson took over (WW1) with a blatant grab for power during FDR's term (Depression/WW2), but nevertheless Jefferson is still the founder of that party.
- Does an author have a *natural* right to keep his idea solely his own, such that no one else may use it? The answer is no. As Jefferson observed nature made ideas freely distributable. They can be shared with others over-and-over without limit and without depriving the original maker of the benefit of his idea.
Therefore copyright is not natural law. It is completely contrary to nature. Its purpose is to encourage people to think, in hopes that those thoughts will enrich culture as the ideas spread. It's basically a writers' subsidy to encourage innovation, and it's meant to be temporary not perpetual.
>>>You need to look at the whole picture, not just part of it, before declaring what is "fair".
Yes indeed. The big picture is that the government is acting like a thief in the night, to take my money from my wallet and give it to someone else. I don't mind helping feed the poor, or giving them shelter, but when I have to pay for my neighbor's new Lexus, or home improvement projects, or healthcare to liposuction their fat legs, that's going too far. Pay your own damn bills with your own damn money; stop raiding your neighbors' wallets.
>>>Actually all of the electricity is dumped directly to the publicly-owned wires.
This is false. Based upon researching and talking directly to solar owners, 100% of the solar gets eaten by the home with the panel and never goes anywhere. Your statement is more accurate if it reads: "0% of the electricity is dumped directly to the publicly-owned wires." It's the rare house that generates more electricity than it consumes.
I'm sorry but this is a shitty deal for me. I'm paying higher taxes to subsidize the solar panel cost, my neighbor's getting $0 or near-zero monthly bills, and I'm getting nothing in return. PASS. Locate the solar panel(s) at a central point with the electricity distributed equally amongst all neighbors, then at least I'll get a few dollars off my bill each month instead of getting nothing.
>>>When a subsidised power plant is built, who do you think makes the money from the power generation?
Stockholders of course, but as I said before, if my taxes are going to go up to build solar, I'd rather see the solar be in a government-regulated monopoly (like BGE) because then I gain some benefit from the free solar electricity and reduced bills. In contrast if my taxes go up to buy my neighbor a solar roof, he gains a $0 monthly bill, and I gain nothing but the higher taxes. Screw that.
>>>rural, traditionally 'red' states have always received an exceptional return on their tax dollars.
I've never understood this stat. Where do I go if I want to find metros or subways - red state Arkansas? No the blue states. Where do I go to find shiny-new museums and stadiums - red state Wyoming? No the blue states. Where do I find the best roads - red state Oklahoma? No the blue states. Is the billion-dollar I-95 Big Dig Tunnel in red Utah? No it's in blue state Massachusetts.
The blue states get FAR more federal money to build these "things" than the red states do.
>>>Reducing the amount of tax dollars at their disposal just increases the number of dollars at the disposal of Wall Street. Basically you trade an imperfect democracy for a veiled oligarchy. >>>
Not really. A market is as pure a democracy as you can get, since every dollar you spend is a vote for whichever company you like..... and every dollar you don't spend also has an impact, as Circuit City can attest (they went bankrupt). If you don't like Wall Street than stop giving them your money - simple as that. Or else give your money to companies you do like - like Redhat/Linux.
The power is in your hands.
If you want to talk about TRUE oligarchies, one need look no further than the U.S. Supreme Court. Nonelected - empowered for life - prescribing law based upon their own personal OPINIONS instead of what the People's Constitution actually says, or the Founders intended (small, minimalist government of limited power). Same applies to the European Union's Court of Justice, another band of oligarchs.
And the Democratic Congress which was in control at the time...... and what you're basically saying is now is not a good time to buy stocks, because they are about to plummet.
False. There's nothing in Redbook specification that forbids encoding Dolby surround onto the 2-track audio. .
>>>>> The compressed AACs sold on itunes sound like crap on a full-sized 5-speaker stereo. >> >>Stop pretending that you have supernatural ability to hear algorithms which reproduce PCM streams to near-perfect precision.
Who's pretending? If a side-by-side comparison I can hear the difference between the original CD and 256 kbit/s MP3/AAC especially when the sound's coming from a 5-speaker stereo. I can hear that characteristic ringing and sizzle sound of the lossy-compressed sample. Also oftentimes the "echo" encoded on the CD gets stripped from the MP3/AAC
It's not "compressed" but it's still digitally encoded. (snip) First we need digital downloads to become mainstream, then we need to up the quality.
So like I said CDs are still the only way to get uncompressed music, since iTunes music is lossy-compressed. I'll take CDs.
And I don't really buy the argument about bandwidth or HDD space. Didn't iTunes recently upgrade to 256 kbit/s songs? Well a codec like AppleLossless or FLAC can get down to a size that's just slightly-larger without losing the original data. Apple could sells songs that way.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't say there's anything wrong with separating the CLI and the desktop. My old Amiga did that and very successfully. Ditto Linux.
The problem was that Microsoft's implementation of MS-DOS plus Windows was poor. Even they recognized that, which is why rather than release Windows 2001, they ended the line and made NT 5.1 (XP) available for average consumers.
No I've run older versions of Windows using their minimum settings. There's a huge difference between "this computer paused for a few seconds" and Vista's "the computer has not moved in 5 minutes".
My point is that UAC doesn't change anything.
People who are dumb will still manage to install trojans by repeatedly clicking "okay", and those of us who have been using computers since they days of 8-bit don't need UAC. We already know *before* we start the install whether or not it's safe. UAC is just an annoyance for us.
Vista UAC sucks however you look at it.
Yes I'm sure there are bad judges, but if the United States Supreme Court orders you to pay the website owner's approximately $1000 in costs, don't you think you ought to obey? Especially after the Supreme Justices tell you it was falt-wrong to yank his page off the web? I'd certainly pay up.
Well actually the Hitchhiker's Guide reads:
Earth - Harmless.
They haven't received Ford Prefect's update yet.
Just as you cannot spend all day watching porn on the internet, and you can't spend all day having holosex.
>>>if it got the science 100% right, then we too would already be in The Future (tm).
Um yeah..... except even though we may not know the future, we still know there are certain things that are simply impossible. Giant viruses can't exist because the sheer weight of their internal liquid would make them either collapse flat to the ground, or burst open like a water balloon. Same applies to those movies which show ants scaled to the size of a house - they would suffocate (no lungs to circulate the air internally). In another example Babylon 5 described Jupiter's temperature as about -400 degrees Celsius. Too bad that's impossible since it's below absolute zero (-273 celsius).
>>>Arthur C. Clarke's "Light of Other Worlds" which describes how society is transformed when someone invents a machine that allows people to look into any point in the past, and suddenly people figure out who really killed Kennedy, that their religion is a sham, etc.
>>>
Sounds like he plagiarized Isaac Asimov's short story "The Dead Past"? In Asimov's story you could use the machine to see the "past" from just one second ago, which is practically the same as being able to see the present, and thus being able to spy upon everyone. No more privacy.
>>>I think the guy is extremely short-sighted. Not all sci-fi is about technology and its effect on humanity; much (most?) of it is about how humans behave in different situations,
>>>
Isn't that just FANTASY rather than science-based fiction? Heck by your reckoning Harry Potter and Buffy are science fiction (human beings in different situations). I think pretty much everything we view or read is Fantasy, and very little of it qualifies as science-based stories. Star Wars for example - clearly a fantasy - magic and all.
>>>No matter how you say it, it is an attack on the Star Trek franchise. He is dismissing the human element of the story in the same way that he claims Trek dismisses the technology element. I don't consider myself a Trekkie but I liked all of them to some extent (ok, except for DS9 anyway)
>>>
Hold on. You didn't like DS9? It was the most-intelligent of the Treks with a continuing storyline, and lots of commentary on contemporary politics (read: occupation of Iraq during the 90s), as well as religion's role in a technological society, and philosophy in general. It didn't quite measure-up to Babylon 5 or the New Galactica, but it was darn close. DS9 is the only Trek I own in its entirety from season 1 through 7.
OK.
Back to point: I like Star Trek and other shows, but I've come to realize these are FANTASY shows not Science-based shows. They are essentially using magic just like Harry Potter uses magic, but instead of waving a wand, Geordi LaForge waves a tricorder. There's no real difference... none that matters anyways.
Contrast that with the movie "Gattaca" which postulated a modern society like ours but with one change - Designer Babies - and how that would affect our near-future. This is not fantasy, but based upon actual science. The only thing that has stopped Gattaca from becoming reality is a legal ban.
P.S.
Also the copyright limit is ridiculous. 95 years??? I'll be dead by then. I like a lot of 70s and 80s music, since that's when I grew up. If the limit were something more reasonable, say 14 years times 2 (copyright act of 1790), then most of the 80s stuff would still be copyrighted but at least I could hear my favorites from the 70s free of charge.
Songs, books, et cetera are intended to benefit *society* and they can not do that if they are sealed behind a lock. Copyright is a temporary and limited *privilege* that is granted by the People towards the artists, and RIAA is abusing that privilege. The People are fed up and frankly on the verge of revoking the privilege entirely. All it takes is a Constitutional amendment to strike the clause.
Anonymous Coward wrote:
First off, exactly how many people have been sued for making copies for personal use? I think the actual number is zero. Secondly, how many people have been sent letters for making copies for personal use? Each and every lawsuit has been about distributing copies TO OTHERS, which is not personal use. It is pretty hypocritical to use could happen, might happen, it's possible arguments in response to an article ridiculing people for using those arguments.
Lastly, if you are preparing to take legal action against someone, it is proper (and sometimes required) to try and work out the differences before filing a lawsuit. The letters you deride as 'extortionate' are an attempt to do just that. If you know you have done what they are saying, you have an easy way out - pay up. You are under no obligation to pay, but if you don't it could (and probably will) wind up costing you a whole lot more. You could also make a counter offer, which they are under no obligation to accept. If you haven't done what they are charging, try to work it out with them. How many of the much ballyhooed 'innocent grandmother' type cases have actually made it to trial?
If you're working on the RIAA clock while posting this stuff, you really should disclose that at the bottom of your post.
Thank you.
The problem I have is not the fine, but the amount. The RIAA judgments are equivalent to a life sentence, since that's how it takes to earn the money to pay-off the one million dollar (or more) reward..... pretty ridiculous for downloading a bittorrent of Lady Gaga's Poker Face, Britney Spear's Circus, and about twenty other similar bubblegum pop songs (see Jamie Thomas case). If the judgments were more reasonable such as $10,000 plus paying RIAA's legal fees, then I'd not care but handing-out million dollar life sentences is bullshit.
westlake wrote:
>>>Jefferson was part of the slave-holding elite.
He didn't actually own the slaves - they were owned by bankers in London who forbade Jefferson from freeing the slaves (as Washington and other founders did). Nevertheless Jefferson made many proposals to free the slaves within the State of Virginia, such as sending them back to Africa where they originally came from (an idea that some slaves followed, to create modernday Liberia). Another idea he had was to buy the slaves directly and then free them, or converting them from slaves to paid laborers (by law), but his efforts were ignored by his fellow Virginians.
Even in the declaration of independence Jefferson wrote: "he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce; and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former
crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another." But of course that was struck.
Jefferson was an idealist, much like our current president Obama is an idealist, but just as Obama has failed to pass his Public Option Healthcare due to others standing in the way, so too did Jefferson fail to exterminate slavery due to others unwillingness to cooperate. So Jefferson was not a perfect. Gee what a surprise.
BTW there was one way that Jefferson did succeed:
Ever heard of the phrase "separation of church and state"? Liberals such as yourself are fond of quoting it - well you are quoting Jefferson. You can't have it both ways - enshrining his words as they were a magical incantation, while calling him a "aristocratic-anarchic-libertarian elitist" asshole. That just makes you look hypocritical.
Yes the Democrats ideals changed from small government to large government approximately the time Progressive President Wilson took over (WW1) with a blatant grab for power during FDR's term (Depression/WW2), but nevertheless Jefferson is still the founder of that party.
The real question is -
- Does an author have a *natural* right to keep his idea solely his own, such that no one else may use it? The answer is no. As Jefferson observed nature made ideas freely distributable. They can be shared with others over-and-over without limit and without depriving the original maker of the benefit of his idea.
Therefore copyright is not natural law. It is completely contrary to nature. Its purpose is to encourage people to think, in hopes that those thoughts will enrich culture as the ideas spread. It's basically a writers' subsidy to encourage innovation, and it's meant to be temporary not perpetual.
>>>You need to look at the whole picture, not just part of it, before declaring what is "fair".
Yes indeed. The big picture is that the government is acting like a thief in the night, to take my money from my wallet and give it to someone else. I don't mind helping feed the poor, or giving them shelter, but when I have to pay for my neighbor's new Lexus, or home improvement projects, or healthcare to liposuction their fat legs, that's going too far. Pay your own damn bills with your own damn money; stop raiding your neighbors' wallets.
>>>Actually all of the electricity is dumped directly to the publicly-owned wires.
This is false. Based upon researching and talking directly to solar owners, 100% of the solar gets eaten by the home with the panel and never goes anywhere. Your statement is more accurate if it reads: "0% of the electricity is dumped directly to the publicly-owned wires." It's the rare house that generates more electricity than it consumes.
I'm sorry but this is a shitty deal for me. I'm paying higher taxes to subsidize the solar panel cost, my neighbor's getting $0 or near-zero monthly bills, and I'm getting nothing in return. PASS. Locate the solar panel(s) at a central point with the electricity distributed equally amongst all neighbors, then at least I'll get a few dollars off my bill each month instead of getting nothing.
>>>When a subsidised power plant is built, who do you think makes the money from the power generation?
Stockholders of course, but as I said before, if my taxes are going to go up to build solar, I'd rather see the solar be in a government-regulated monopoly (like BGE) because then I gain some benefit from the free solar electricity and reduced bills. In contrast if my taxes go up to buy my neighbor a solar roof, he gains a $0 monthly bill, and I gain nothing but the higher taxes. Screw that.
>>>rural, traditionally 'red' states have always received an exceptional return on their tax dollars.
I've never understood this stat. Where do I go if I want to find metros or subways - red state Arkansas? No the blue states. Where do I go to find shiny-new museums and stadiums - red state Wyoming? No the blue states. Where do I find the best roads - red state Oklahoma? No the blue states. Is the billion-dollar I-95 Big Dig Tunnel in red Utah? No it's in blue state Massachusetts.
The blue states get FAR more federal money to build these "things" than the red states do.
>>>Reducing the amount of tax dollars at their disposal just increases the number of dollars at the disposal of Wall Street. Basically you trade an imperfect democracy for a veiled oligarchy.
>>>
Not really. A market is as pure a democracy as you can get, since every dollar you spend is a vote for whichever company you like..... and every dollar you don't spend also has an impact, as Circuit City can attest (they went bankrupt). If you don't like Wall Street than stop giving them your money - simple as that. Or else give your money to companies you do like - like Redhat/Linux.
The power is in your hands.
If you want to talk about TRUE oligarchies, one need look no further than the U.S. Supreme Court. Nonelected - empowered for life - prescribing law based upon their own personal OPINIONS instead of what the People's Constitution actually says, or the Founders intended (small, minimalist government of limited power). Same applies to the European Union's Court of Justice, another band of oligarchs.
>>>Bush Sr's bright idea.
And the Democratic Congress which was in control at the time...... and what you're basically saying is now is not a good time to buy stocks, because they are about to plummet.
>>>the other factor is that the value of your house increases.
By ~40,000 dollars? I doubt it.
>>>You can get uncompressed audio. You can also use lossless compression on audio files
Where on iTunes can I buy uncompressed or lossless songs? Please show me.
>>That wouldn't be a standard CD then.
False. There's nothing in Redbook specification that forbids encoding Dolby surround onto the 2-track audio.
.
>>>>> The compressed AACs sold on itunes sound like crap on a full-sized 5-speaker stereo.
>>
>>Stop pretending that you have supernatural ability to hear algorithms which reproduce PCM streams to near-perfect precision.
Who's pretending? If a side-by-side comparison I can hear the difference between the original CD and 256 kbit/s MP3/AAC especially when the sound's coming from a 5-speaker stereo. I can hear that characteristic ringing and sizzle sound of the lossy-compressed sample. Also oftentimes the "echo" encoded on the CD gets stripped from the MP3/AAC
It's not "compressed" but it's still digitally encoded. (snip) First we need digital downloads to become mainstream, then we need to up the quality.
So like I said CDs are still the only way to get uncompressed music, since iTunes music is lossy-compressed. I'll take CDs.
And I don't really buy the argument about bandwidth or HDD space. Didn't iTunes recently upgrade to 256 kbit/s songs? Well a codec like AppleLossless or FLAC can get down to a size that's just slightly-larger without losing the original data. Apple could sells songs that way.