Except that when you use Microsoft products you have to upgrade your hardware twice as often.
No you don't. Unlike Linux distros and Apple, Microsoft supports their operating systems for a long, long time. I bought a new laptop with XP earlier in the decade and used it for eight years until the hardware died. People using Windows 7 now will be able to keep using it on the same hardware five or ten years from now provided they take care of the hardware.
And if you use Mac you also pay twice as much for the same hardware.
This argument has also been disproved many times before. The price of a Mac compared to a comparable PC is not that much more. It's certainly not twice the price.
You have, of course, ignored the fact that I was responding to the assertion that Dido is not famous, not that everyone is heard of her.
You are joking, right? You quote the guy saying "a singer you've never heard of" before you respond. Anyone can look at your post and see that what you claim is not true. It's clear as day that you are responding to the fact that he (jokingly) asserted that not everyone may have heard of her. No one asserted anything about fame. Even then, fame is relative. How many people know who Richard Stallman is?
I've heard of Dido only once about 10 years ago because a coworker liked her music. I haven't listened to any of her songs that I'm aware of.
But just to play devil's advocate and provide some perspective for you...
21 million copies sold of her debut album
There are 6.8 billion people in the world and she sold only 21 million albums. Only 0.3 percent of the population has bought her stuff. She doesn't seem to be that popular.
MTV Music awards
MTV caters to a very narrow subset of musical genres and artists. There's far more in the musical landscape than what they represent.
BRIT awards
I have no idea what that is.
Grammy nominated
That doesn't mean much. The Grammys are the opposite of the MTV music awards as there are Grammys for all types of music, even polka. And nominated doesn't mean they won. Many artists have been nominated.
#98 best selling of the 21st century
#98 world wide counting all countries music sales across all genres?
duet with Eminem
Isn't Eminem a rapper/hip-hop artist? There are a lot of people who don't listen to that. For example, I listen to jazz and classical. I'd be hard pressed to name more than a couple of artists outside of those two genres. For example, I couldn't name any other rappers except for Ice-T (because he's in Law and Order) and Timbaland (because he was on slashdot having been caught as a plagiarist).
music featured in a big movie
I've never seen a movie where they display the name of the song and artist currently playing. If you didn't know of the song beforehand, you won't magically know the artist just because it was playing in a movie.
song the opening theme of a US TV show
There are thousands of US TV shows. Not everyone watches the same ones.
haircut named after her
Is that a measure of success? I can't think of any haircuts with names other than a crew cut.
sold-out world tours
This is only of note to people who have heard of her and want to buy her product. The same can be said of many artists that most of us have never heard of. Lana Lane has had several sold-out world tours. I doubt most people have heard of her.
Wave failed for me because I couldn't get an invite and then promptly forgot about it. There's nothing like hyping something and then making sure it's not available to kill off a product.
I suspect you're perfectly well aware of both the Constitutional justification for copyrights and patents, and the extent of the abuse to which that innocuous little line has been subjected, but choose to pretend otherwise because you're hoping to join the trolls' ranks yourself one of these days.
Patents? Now you are confusing patents and copyright because you keep talking about "intellectual property." This is about copyrights. Patents have nothing in common with copyrights.
Copyrights protect specific creations, not entire classes of ideas like patents do. If someone creates something and copyrights it, then I fully support their freedom to do as they wish with their creation, be that to destroy it, use it, sell it to someone else, or assign rights to another party to protect their creation. No one else's rights are infringed. Another person can still create what they want as long as it's not an duplicate of a copyrighted work. If I were to deny someone else those rights to their creation I deny myself those rights, which I do not wish to do.
The people that are being sued are copying the entirety of a copyrighted work without permission. That's not fair use. And it's a news article, for Pete's sake. Has our educational system faltered so much that people cannot write, in their own words, a summary of a news article rather than illegally reproduce it in its entirety? It seems even more absurd given that most of the infringers could have likely linked to the original articles, like Slashdot does, rather than reproduce them. I fully support going after people for such flagrant violations. I would certainly want someone to respect my copyrights. That's why I don't infringe copyrights. It's not okay with me to freely download movies, music, and software without paying for them if I haven't been given permission to do so by the copyright holder. I hold the same feelings toward written works such as photographs, books, and newspaper articles.
There's nothing trollish about that. In fact, I find it to be very important because copyright enforcement is one of the tools that are used to protect open source and free software. The Free Software Foundation performs a function not unlike that described in the article. People assign copyrights for their programs and contributions to the Free Software Foundation who then actively enforces those copyrights when the licensing is violated. The Software Freedom Law Center performs a similar function.
But, of course, you have already stated that you find such actions to be only performed by trolls. Well, go back to your sociopathic behavior of taking everything you can without permission and thinking you are giving the finger to the trolls or "the man." Your actions and lack of respect for others will ultimately make the world a worse place for the rest of us who create things, whether we sell them or give them away freely under specific licenses (CC, GPL, etc.).
It's quite relevant if you consider the actual purpose of IP law as spelled out in the Constitution.
There is no "IP law" in the Constitution.
We have no interest whatsoever in protecting the "rights" of those who buy old content and use it for trolling.
In other words, you only want certain classes of people to have rights while others do not. I'm all for protecting everyone's rights. If someone wants to create something and allow me to purchase it to use as I wish, I certainly don't want Daniel Dvorkin taking away my right to do so. In your world view, a business owner who hires a graphic design company to develop a logo and graphic identity for their company wouldn't be able to acquire the rights to the design and use them as they please. Likewise, a musician who hires a video production company and producer to make a music video for their song wouldn't be able to acquire the rights to the video.
It appears as if they don't actually produce any of the content.
That's completely irrelevant. If they own the rights to the content then they own the rights. It doesn't matter if they are producing it or not. Many companies purchase exclusive rights to things they did not create.
They buy an exclusive license to redistribute on speculation that someone will intentionally or inadvertently infringe, then they sue for enough money to make them money, but not enough to make it worth fighting in court.
So what? Good for them. Copyrights aren't like patents. No one is going to "inadvertently infringe" an entire copyrighted work. If you need to reference an entire work, link to the primary source. There's no need to copy the entire thing to your forum, blog, or whatever. This isn't difficult to understand. If you do it and get sued, consider it an expensive education in using others' works without permission.
They don't sound like trolls to me. They find someone infringing their copyright and take steps to protect their work. There's nothing wrong with that. Besides, it's just as easy to find a link to an article rather than repost the entire text of an article. Reposting the whole article is not fair use.
Transcriber is the tool that you are looking for. It plays the file and you type and annotate. It's in the Ubuntu repositories so I assume it's in Debian's as well.
e.g. The use/implementation of "profiles", which are a work-around to the problem of running on a system that does not support multiple user accounts
I'm glad the profiles are enabled the way that they are. I have several Firefox profile that I use for different types of browsing:
The default profile for my everyday browsing needs
My school profile which I used while at university and still use when I need to do research
Finance profile which has no add-ons and is only used to go to my bank's web site
A web development profile which has a bunch of web development add-ons installed and little else.
A test profile which is used for trying out new add-ons before I add them to one of the other profiles
Each profile is set up differently with different bookmarks, add-ons, and general configuration. For example, I use Zotero for collecting research information in my school profile, but I don't need that add-on in my default profile.
I'd hate to have to log out of my session and log in as another user just to change my web browser's environment.
Exactly. And emails from your domains will still have a higher score than domains that are over a year old. It will also stop "domain tasting" or whatever it is called where spammers get domains for less than 24 hours without paying for them.
Can you provide a link to back that up? I did read the article. There's nothing in there about supporting 64-bit. The text "64" doesn't even appear in the page when I do a find in Firefox.
When someone uses "open source", and knows what he is talking about, he means OSI open source.
"And knows what he is talking about?" What could mean anything. Talk about being non-specific. There is no agreed upon definition of what "open source" means. You prefer your OSI-related definition. Others may disagree.
No, they don't. They failed to apply for a trademark on the term. They hold trademarks for "OSI", "Open Source Initiative", and their logo, but they do not hold a trademark for the term "open source".
Will it be enabled on 64-bit systems? I've been missing out on all of these speed improvements over the last several years because I use 64-bit Linux with 64-bit Firefox and the new javascript engines have only been enabled for 32-bit Firefox.
Slashdot Mirror
Only applicable to patents related to classical music.
Here's the clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpIYz8tfGjY
That would be LWN.
No you don't. Unlike Linux distros and Apple, Microsoft supports their operating systems for a long, long time. I bought a new laptop with XP earlier in the decade and used it for eight years until the hardware died. People using Windows 7 now will be able to keep using it on the same hardware five or ten years from now provided they take care of the hardware.
This argument has also been disproved many times before. The price of a Mac compared to a comparable PC is not that much more. It's certainly not twice the price.
You are joking, right? You quote the guy saying "a singer you've never heard of" before you respond. Anyone can look at your post and see that what you claim is not true. It's clear as day that you are responding to the fact that he (jokingly) asserted that not everyone may have heard of her. No one asserted anything about fame. Even then, fame is relative. How many people know who Richard Stallman is?
I've heard of Dido only once about 10 years ago because a coworker liked her music. I haven't listened to any of her songs that I'm aware of.
But just to play devil's advocate and provide some perspective for you...
There are 6.8 billion people in the world and she sold only 21 million albums. Only 0.3 percent of the population has bought her stuff. She doesn't seem to be that popular.
MTV caters to a very narrow subset of musical genres and artists. There's far more in the musical landscape than what they represent.
I have no idea what that is.
That doesn't mean much. The Grammys are the opposite of the MTV music awards as there are Grammys for all types of music, even polka. And nominated doesn't mean they won. Many artists have been nominated.
#98 world wide counting all countries music sales across all genres?
Isn't Eminem a rapper/hip-hop artist? There are a lot of people who don't listen to that. For example, I listen to jazz and classical. I'd be hard pressed to name more than a couple of artists outside of those two genres. For example, I couldn't name any other rappers except for Ice-T (because he's in Law and Order) and Timbaland (because he was on slashdot having been caught as a plagiarist).
I've never seen a movie where they display the name of the song and artist currently playing. If you didn't know of the song beforehand, you won't magically know the artist just because it was playing in a movie.
There are thousands of US TV shows. Not everyone watches the same ones.
Is that a measure of success? I can't think of any haircuts with names other than a crew cut.
This is only of note to people who have heard of her and want to buy her product. The same can be said of many artists that most of us have never heard of. Lana Lane has had several sold-out world tours. I doubt most people have heard of her.
Or to provide royalty free music to people who wish to use it in a production. Therefore, it's not redundant.
I don't think you've heard what a skilled orchestrator can do with a synthesizer or sampler such as Hollywood Strings or Vienna Symphonic Library.
I recommend you listen to some of the demo songs from each one. I recommend Allegro Agitato.
It already exists.
Wave failed for me because I couldn't get an invite and then promptly forgot about it. There's nothing like hyping something and then making sure it's not available to kill off a product.
Patents? Now you are confusing patents and copyright because you keep talking about "intellectual property." This is about copyrights. Patents have nothing in common with copyrights.
Copyrights protect specific creations, not entire classes of ideas like patents do. If someone creates something and copyrights it, then I fully support their freedom to do as they wish with their creation, be that to destroy it, use it, sell it to someone else, or assign rights to another party to protect their creation. No one else's rights are infringed. Another person can still create what they want as long as it's not an duplicate of a copyrighted work. If I were to deny someone else those rights to their creation I deny myself those rights, which I do not wish to do.
The people that are being sued are copying the entirety of a copyrighted work without permission. That's not fair use. And it's a news article, for Pete's sake. Has our educational system faltered so much that people cannot write, in their own words, a summary of a news article rather than illegally reproduce it in its entirety? It seems even more absurd given that most of the infringers could have likely linked to the original articles, like Slashdot does, rather than reproduce them. I fully support going after people for such flagrant violations. I would certainly want someone to respect my copyrights. That's why I don't infringe copyrights. It's not okay with me to freely download movies, music, and software without paying for them if I haven't been given permission to do so by the copyright holder. I hold the same feelings toward written works such as photographs, books, and newspaper articles.
There's nothing trollish about that. In fact, I find it to be very important because copyright enforcement is one of the tools that are used to protect open source and free software. The Free Software Foundation performs a function not unlike that described in the article. People assign copyrights for their programs and contributions to the Free Software Foundation who then actively enforces those copyrights when the licensing is violated. The Software Freedom Law Center performs a similar function.
But, of course, you have already stated that you find such actions to be only performed by trolls. Well, go back to your sociopathic behavior of taking everything you can without permission and thinking you are giving the finger to the trolls or "the man." Your actions and lack of respect for others will ultimately make the world a worse place for the rest of us who create things, whether we sell them or give them away freely under specific licenses (CC, GPL, etc.).
There is no "IP law" in the Constitution.
In other words, you only want certain classes of people to have rights while others do not. I'm all for protecting everyone's rights. If someone wants to create something and allow me to purchase it to use as I wish, I certainly don't want Daniel Dvorkin taking away my right to do so. In your world view, a business owner who hires a graphic design company to develop a logo and graphic identity for their company wouldn't be able to acquire the rights to the design and use them as they please. Likewise, a musician who hires a video production company and producer to make a music video for their song wouldn't be able to acquire the rights to the video.
No thanks!
That's completely irrelevant. If they own the rights to the content then they own the rights. It doesn't matter if they are producing it or not. Many companies purchase exclusive rights to things they did not create.
So what? Good for them. Copyrights aren't like patents. No one is going to "inadvertently infringe" an entire copyrighted work. If you need to reference an entire work, link to the primary source. There's no need to copy the entire thing to your forum, blog, or whatever. This isn't difficult to understand. If you do it and get sued, consider it an expensive education in using others' works without permission.
They don't sound like trolls to me. They find someone infringing their copyright and take steps to protect their work. There's nothing wrong with that. Besides, it's just as easy to find a link to an article rather than repost the entire text of an article. Reposting the whole article is not fair use.
Transcriber is the tool that you are looking for. It plays the file and you type and annotate. It's in the Ubuntu repositories so I assume it's in Debian's as well.
Thanks. I can't wait until this is released.
That doesn't mean much. Cmdrtaco's English is atrocious but he still managed to hack out Slashcode and use it to create a very popular web site.
I'm glad the profiles are enabled the way that they are. I have several Firefox profile that I use for different types of browsing:
Each profile is set up differently with different bookmarks, add-ons, and general configuration. For example, I use Zotero for collecting research information in my school profile, but I don't need that add-on in my default profile.
I'd hate to have to log out of my session and log in as another user just to change my web browser's environment.
Just like with Ubuntu and Fedora.
Exactly. And emails from your domains will still have a higher score than domains that are over a year old. It will also stop "domain tasting" or whatever it is called where spammers get domains for less than 24 hours without paying for them.
Can you provide a link to back that up? I did read the article. There's nothing in there about supporting 64-bit. The text "64" doesn't even appear in the page when I do a find in Firefox.
"And knows what he is talking about?" What could mean anything. Talk about being non-specific. There is no agreed upon definition of what "open source" means. You prefer your OSI-related definition. Others may disagree.
No, they don't. They failed to apply for a trademark on the term. They hold trademarks for "OSI", "Open Source Initiative", and their logo, but they do not hold a trademark for the term "open source".
Score email higher that comes from newer domains. The older the domain, the lower the score. I'm thinking spamassassin scores here.
Will it be enabled on 64-bit systems? I've been missing out on all of these speed improvements over the last several years because I use 64-bit Linux with 64-bit Firefox and the new javascript engines have only been enabled for 32-bit Firefox.