I dont know about you, but I'd rather have the fans work than be quiet. I have had all kinds of fans in my dual 333 and none of the quiet ones ever lasted more than a couple of months. I've since gone to some thick, heavy, noisy ones that I had to connect to the heat sinks and wire myself, but at least the machine stays cool now.
Honestly I dont think there's anything that can be done to cure this other than putting noise dampening material inside the case or something. And noise dampening == dirt attracing, in my experience. Most PC's just are not designed for good cooling.
You dont have to agree with the killing people part, but not everyone in the Army is involved in offensive capabilities. They do a lot of basic research, and do a lot of defensive things to allow you to express the opinion you just expressed. The Army employs scores of people who have never shot an enemy or been deployed in a forward area to get rid of an enemy. The Army is almost directly responsible for the first non-soviet artifical satelite. The millitary has been behind countless technical innovations that make your life the way it is, RADAR, plastics, commerical aviation, the Internet etc. Their business is to protect Americans and to protect the American way of life. That does including killing people but it also includes engaging in research to use technology to their advantage, the fruits of which are all around us today.
I think Linux is an excellent match for a place like the Army as they have tons of resourc3es to maintain their own internal code fork to fit their own internal needs in the most reliable way. Not to mention that internal expertise on the OS would make important defense systems easier to fix and extend in times of crisis. OTOH, nothing disturbs me more than using Intel based machines for such a venture.
Intel is nice and all for toys. But even imagining an Intel based machine in the hands of an Army programmer who needs to fix code or people die, really scares me. I've used a lot of Intel based machines in my life, and almost all of them were crap compared to their custom-built UNIX counterparts. Their components fail far too often, their archetecture is woefully un-scalable, the interchangable parts of a PC make it hard to get an effecient system case for cooling or for ease of maintenance, they make poor use of space, they're ugly, and their build quality is sad at best. Incedentally most of this isn't Intel's fault, it's just the way the crumby boxes are designed. They sure are cheap though.
How many times does this need to happen before people realize that MS never stops trying. MS will ALWAYS win if you rest on your laurels instead of continuing to innovate. They're very good at catch-up, and there's a lot of people out there who would rather argue about their own superiority rather than work to extend it. These are the people like Real or Netscape who get screwed in the end.
Of course the numbers are ridiculous. Andersen is trying to sell the services to build e-commerce sites. If people think the situation is bad they are more likely to buy services from AC.
I used to work for an ISP, and spam erradication is a huge resource drain. Not only do you need to have people chase the spammers down, but you have spend time dealing with the mercenaries at RBL, you have to continually keep an eye on your mail servers, not to mention field user complaints who post to alt.sex.gimme.pr0n and then complain when they recieve spam. Let the spammers pay. I'm glad AOL wins. Spam ruins the internet.
As much as I despise Sendmail's arcane design in a world of T3's and 2GB of ram (and I really do hate its design), It's tough to deny the effect Eric Allman has made on open software. Sendmail has long been the example of the quintisential piece of open software, it does all things for all people, while delivering one of the backbone services of the Internet and still remaining the standard in it's field. I dont know if it's technically "Free" software (I've not read the license in years) but even before apache sendmail was THE reason to run the free unix systems like Linux and 386bsd.
I'm all for people making a buck in their chosen fields, but do they REALLY think that choosing a new name for a massive mega-corporation is going to make the slightest bit of difference? They could have called Lucent AssCo and it would still be a successful comnpany. They were a successful company before the name and they'll be a successful one after it. Same with HP and Agilent. Short of being offensive there's not much you cant do to name a company that's already been successful for decades.
And the guy ripping Yahoo? What is he high? Yahoo is the only internet company whos brand name is strong enough that they make money on it alone. Yahoo continues to turn a profit like most of the other iThis and eThat companies. I think maybe those Yahoo guys were onto something.
Who do these guys think they're kidding? The most successful companies of this century are almost all abbreviations, GM, IBM, GE, AT&T, all the television networks, etc. Of the ones that are left, they're usually people, Chrysler, Disney, Warner Bros. Over the last 20 years or so we have even more foolish names... Intel? Microsoft? HBO? Who in their right mind would name an entertainment company almost the same as a homeless transient? Or a submissive term like small-soft. Or name a chip company like a phone company? About the only guys who get it right were Apple, and they named it themselves on a whim.
The thing is, not everyone agrees that CD is "good enough". Pro audio gear is at 24bit 96khz, why shouldn't all of that fidelity be sold to the consumer as well? Some people think MP3 is "good enough" too, and it's not even CD quality. Furthermore they're adding more channels other than right and left to allow for a better listening experience. Are you saying that watching a DVD via stereo speakers and surround sound speakers affords the listener the same experience? Multichannel technologies will allow engineers to record music that makes more subtle nuiances audible.
Maybe YOU dont want it. But there's a lot of people who do. It's a shame they're going to encrypt it though.
I used to work for an ISP where it was pretty much the same deal, only we added a third reason c) is not paying the bill.:-)
The reason we let stuff that was possibly illegal go on is that we didn't have the time to fight any battles at all. We would just send the threats off to our lawyer and worry about it when the lawyer comes back and says we need to take action.
No,/. is not a news agency, but they are a media outlet. Slashdot is cited and quoted in mainstream news with regularity. Rob & co. have done an excellent job in the past of running the site, and/. has now has a reputation as the starting point for all issues that are geeky.
I think that's great.
The problem is with that sort of credibility comes a certain responsibility to be correct. I'm not saying that the folks at/. should have to verify everything they post, but they need to be fair and impartial, and need to have reasonable confidence in anything they say. For the most part most everything on/. is a reprint of something else which has already been printed online, but it's going to require a bit of old fashioned journalism for the content that's not.
On the other hand, I hasten to point out the obvious redeeming characteristic of this mass action: Hello! It worked!
Well It must be okay then. From now on I'd like everyone to send mass flames to people who disagree with the/. community. I'm sure we'll win them over in no time.
Did you read his final quote at the end of the Wired story? "I'm going to tell the FBI, 'Fuck you! You've probably cost us our business, you assholes!'" Now a man who might have backed down timidly has the defiance of a fucking lion.
Wow great! We turned/. into a machine for making jerks instead of intelligently informed people! I'm so proud.
On the other hand, I hasten to point out the obvious redeeming characteristic of this mass action: Hello! It worked!
Well It must be okay then. From now on I'd like everyone to send mass flames to people who disagree with the/. community. I'm sure we'll win them over in no time.
Did you read his final quote at the end of the Wired story? "I'm going to tell the FBI, 'Fuck you! You've probably cost us our business, you assholes!'" Now a man who might have backed down timidly has the defiance of a fucking lion.
Wow great! We turned/. into a machine for making jerks instead of intelligently informed people! I'm so proud.
However, there is also no excuse for Wired and these guys posting those flames. If I posted every "bad" e-mail I got, the 'net would have run out of bandwidth long before now. We don't need to air other people's dirty laundry or our own.
Sure there is. Wired is excercising their free speech. If it's okay for/.'ers to harass this poor guy in the name of him standing up for free speech, it's also okay for Wired to excercise that same free speech and write a story about it. Welcome to the brave new world. Sucks to be on the other side of the fence doesn't it?
If we were all a little more open and would moderate posts based on the quality of their reasoning as well as the degree to which we agreed with their conclusions, I might change my preferences away from -1. Until then, it stays.
For the most part I dont see too many posts that are well reasoned and dont get moderated to about 2. If you set your threshold to 5 you'll never see people hwo disagree with the norm, but there's enough moderators out there that are fair to put a disagreeable post up to at least 2.
Of course your idea of what is disagreeable might be different:-)
I always browwse at -1, because there's alot of funny stuff going on in -1 and 0 land, and I love to read it when I have the time.
-Rich
Re:I have a right to distribute my own content!
on
Easy MP3 Distribution
·
· Score: 2
This isn't about a format, it's about a program that is used extensivly by pirates and then everyone covers their eyes when accused of doing something illegal. Napster isn't about distribution. Napster is a huge database of mostly illegal MP3's used primarily by pirates. It's a virtual site of pirated files designed to loophole the system and deflect liability elsewhere. This is not about people distributing their own works. It's about ripping off the works of others thanks to napster.
You might not agree with me, but this is how RIAA looks at it. It's no wonder they are so pissed.
BTW, I dont oppose napster for legal music distribution. It just seems to me that napster cant turn a blind eye to obvious piracy issues and then not expect RIAA to retalliate. If napster were at least putting up some effort to not share copyrighted files this would be an entirely different story.
I downloaded napster last week and installed it. Once it had catalloged my mp3 drive (which for the most part is the result of ripping my CD collection for my RIO) it was pretty clear what the community was for. I'm not saying that napster shouldn't exist, just it should take a little more care in design to prevent widespread piracy. If mp3 is going to work as an online music format everything cant be free, and the people doing this for-profit (mp3.com?) need to have napster be accountable just as much as RIAA does.
IANAL, but I dont even think you'd have to pay a royalty since you would not be distributing it for profit...
Too bad no one is using napster for that:-)
I own 6 guitars two synthesizers and a bunch of audio gear, I'd consider myself a hobbyist musician. If people were using napster to distribute my music around the net, I'm all for it. But you're being naive if you think that's what napster is being used for. the people who made it could (and should, IMHO) do checks for obvioussly copyrighted material and blow it awaw. If they were to do that, RIAA would not be complaining. Let people download all the Grateful Dead bootlegs and bad amatuer recordings as much as they want, In fact i think it could be a great ASSET to the recording industry as they can scour the comunities and pick up unknown artists that already have a following an already have profit potential proven by the community.
RIAA pretty much only respondes to blatent copyright violations and piarcy issues. Napster cant turn a blind eye and say "we didn't know it would be used illegally" when it's painfully obvious that it is.
It's painfully obvious to any reasonable adult what napster is for. It's for trading MP3's; the act of trading which is in almost all cases illegal. You're insulting RIAA by claiming that they're cracking down on something legal. Napster knows what's going on. So does RIAA.
Everyone is screaming at how absurd RIAA is in their pursuit of MP3 sites but no one is addressing the fact that for the most part everyone they pursue is doing something illegal. Worse yet people are touting napster as if it's some majopr step for freedom online. Cant you see why RIAA is pissed off? This will come back to bite us. The next format for digital audio is up in the air. It'll be real nice, 96khz or more sampling, 24 or more bit. And it will be so closed it will make DVD look like it's under the GPL. Nice work guys. Thanks.
The thing is though, the Diamond RIO was not designed to allow people to trade illegal MP3's it was designed to allow people to play their legal ones. The RIO does not send a list of your files out and encourage others to download them illegally. The RIO does not provide a service for people to download copyrighted works illegally. The RIO does not enable others who do not own the copyrighted works to steal from it. One requires physical access to a RIO to download from it. You can compare RIO top napster as much as you want, but dont try and think they are the same. Napster is a network designed to steal MP3's. RIO is a product designed to play MP3's. The ONLY legal way to use napster is to download a file from soneone who own original media as a backup to your original media. It's pretty clear what napster is for. As I said in an earlier post, use it if you want, but dont even try to think you're doing something legal.
Even though the files swapped around on Napster could theoretically be 100% legal, the RIAA is suing.
Eh? Explain this one to me. It cant be legal if you're giving it to someone else. If I rip every single CD I own into legal MP3's it does not matter how legal mine are if someone from napster is downloading them.
It's not even a grey area. It's totally illegal. Dont kid yourself. Use it if you want, but dont try to wrap youurself around the bill of rights and tout how free you're being. You're doijng something illegal.
That's an excellent idea if you want to dump the entire unix philosophy of application design: one task, one application, one application, one task.
Personally, I like UNIX. I like being able to hack my stuff. Part of the reason I like UNIX is it's always fun to guess which parts of the "UNIX philosophy" have been appiled to a package and which havent.:-)
I guess it depends on your definition of browser. To me a browser is a tool for viewing things. If it's source code,/., or pictures of my vacation it doesn't matter. It should be viewed by the browser because stuff is stuff (IMHO). To me that's consistent with the UNIX philosophy. Do you consider Emacs to be a part of the Unix philosophy?
Slashdot Mirror
I dont know about you, but I'd rather have the fans work than be quiet. I have had all kinds of fans in my dual 333 and none of the quiet ones ever lasted more than a couple of months. I've since gone to some thick, heavy, noisy ones that I had to connect to the heat sinks and wire myself, but at least the machine stays cool now.
Honestly I dont think there's anything that can be done to cure this other than putting noise dampening material inside the case or something. And noise dampening == dirt attracing, in my experience. Most PC's just are not designed for good cooling.
-Rich
You dont have to agree with the killing people part, but not everyone in the Army is involved in offensive capabilities. They do a lot of basic research, and do a lot of defensive things to allow you to express the opinion you just expressed. The Army employs scores of people who have never shot an enemy or been deployed in a forward area to get rid of an enemy. The Army is almost directly responsible for the first non-soviet artifical satelite. The millitary has been behind countless technical innovations that make your life the way it is, RADAR, plastics, commerical aviation, the Internet etc. Their business is to protect Americans and to protect the American way of life. That does including killing people but it also includes engaging in research to use technology to their advantage, the fruits of which are all around us today.
-Rich
I think Linux is an excellent match for a place like the Army as they have tons of resourc3es to maintain their own internal code fork to fit their own internal needs in the most reliable way. Not to mention that internal expertise on the OS would make important defense systems easier to fix and extend in times of crisis. OTOH, nothing disturbs me more than using Intel based machines for such a venture.
Intel is nice and all for toys. But even imagining an Intel based machine in the hands of an Army programmer who needs to fix code or people die, really scares me. I've used a lot of Intel based machines in my life, and almost all of them were crap compared to their custom-built UNIX counterparts. Their components fail far too often, their archetecture is woefully un-scalable, the interchangable parts of a PC make it hard to get an effecient system case for cooling or for ease of maintenance, they make poor use of space, they're ugly, and their build quality is sad at best. Incedentally most of this isn't Intel's fault, it's just the way the crumby boxes are designed. They sure are cheap though.
-Rich
How many times does this need to happen before people realize that MS never stops trying. MS will ALWAYS win if you rest on your laurels instead of continuing to innovate. They're very good at catch-up, and there's a lot of people out there who would rather argue about their own superiority rather than work to extend it. These are the people like Real or Netscape who get screwed in the end.
Linux is next on Microsoft's list. Be ready.
-Rich
Of course the numbers are ridiculous. Andersen is trying to sell the services to build e-commerce sites. If people think the situation is bad they are more likely to buy services from AC.
-Rich
What does the M in MTV stand for anyway?
-Rich
I used to work for an ISP, and spam erradication is a huge resource drain. Not only do you need to have people chase the spammers down, but you have spend time dealing with the mercenaries at RBL, you have to continually keep an eye on your mail servers, not to mention field user complaints who post to alt.sex.gimme.pr0n and then complain when they recieve spam. Let the spammers pay. I'm glad AOL wins. Spam ruins the internet.
-Rich
As much as I despise Sendmail's arcane design in a world of T3's and 2GB of ram (and I really do hate its design), It's tough to deny the effect Eric Allman has made on open software. Sendmail has long been the example of the quintisential piece of open software, it does all things for all people, while delivering one of the backbone services of the Internet and still remaining the standard in it's field. I dont know if it's technically "Free" software (I've not read the license in years) but even before apache sendmail was THE reason to run the free unix systems like Linux and 386bsd.
-Rich
I'm all for people making a buck in their chosen fields, but do they REALLY think that choosing a new name for a massive mega-corporation is going to make the slightest bit of difference? They could have called Lucent AssCo and it would still be a successful comnpany. They were a successful company before the name and they'll be a successful one after it. Same with HP and Agilent. Short of being offensive there's not much you cant do to name a company that's already been successful for decades.
And the guy ripping Yahoo? What is he high? Yahoo is the only internet company whos brand name is strong enough that they make money on it alone. Yahoo continues to turn a profit like most of the other iThis and eThat companies. I think maybe those Yahoo guys were onto something.
Who do these guys think they're kidding? The most successful companies of this century are almost all abbreviations, GM, IBM, GE, AT&T, all the television networks, etc. Of the ones that are left, they're usually people, Chrysler, Disney, Warner Bros. Over the last 20 years or so we have even more foolish names... Intel? Microsoft? HBO? Who in their right mind would name an entertainment company almost the same as a homeless transient? Or a submissive term like small-soft. Or name a chip company like a phone company? About the only guys who get it right were Apple, and they named it themselves on a whim.
I just dont get it.
-Rich
The thing is, not everyone agrees that CD is "good enough". Pro audio gear is at 24bit 96khz, why shouldn't all of that fidelity be sold to the consumer as well? Some people think MP3 is "good enough" too, and it's not even CD quality. Furthermore they're adding more channels other than right and left to allow for a better listening experience. Are you saying that watching a DVD via stereo speakers and surround sound speakers affords the listener the same experience? Multichannel technologies will allow engineers to record music that makes more subtle nuiances audible.
Maybe YOU dont want it. But there's a lot of people who do. It's a shame they're going to encrypt it though.
-Rich
I used to work for an ISP where it was pretty much the same deal, only we added a third reason c) is not paying the bill. :-)
The reason we let stuff that was possibly illegal go on is that we didn't have the time to fight any battles at all. We would just send the threats off to our lawyer and worry about it when the lawyer comes back and says we need to take action.
-Rich
No, /. is not a news agency, but they are a media outlet. Slashdot is cited and quoted in mainstream news with regularity. Rob & co. have done an excellent job in the past of running the site, and /. has now has a reputation as the starting point for all issues that are geeky.
/. should have to verify everything they post, but they need to be fair and impartial, and need to have reasonable confidence in anything they say. For the most part most everything on /. is a reprint of something else which has already been printed online, but it's going to require a bit of old fashioned journalism for the content that's not.
I think that's great.
The problem is with that sort of credibility comes a certain responsibility to be correct. I'm not saying that the folks at
-Rich
On the other hand, I hasten to point out the obvious redeeming characteristic of this mass action: Hello! It worked!
/. community. I'm sure we'll win them over in no time.
/. into a machine for making jerks instead of intelligently informed people! I'm so proud.
Well It must be okay then. From now on I'd like everyone to send mass flames to people who disagree with the
Did you read his final quote at the end of the Wired story? "I'm going to tell the FBI, 'Fuck you! You've probably cost us our business,
you assholes!'" Now a man who might have backed down timidly has the defiance of a fucking lion.
Wow great! We turned
-Rich
On the other hand, I hasten to point out the obvious redeeming characteristic of this mass action: Hello! It worked!
/. community. I'm sure we'll win them over in no time.
/. into a machine for making jerks instead of intelligently informed people! I'm so proud.
Well It must be okay then. From now on I'd like everyone to send mass flames to people who disagree with the
Did you read his final quote at the end of the Wired story? "I'm going to tell the FBI, 'Fuck you! You've probably cost us our business,
you assholes!'" Now a man who might have backed down timidly has the defiance of a fucking lion.
Wow great! We turned
-Rich
However, there is also no excuse for Wired and these guys posting those flames. If I posted every "bad" e-mail I got, the 'net would
/.'ers to harass this poor guy in the name of him standing up for free speech, it's also okay for Wired to excercise that same free speech and write a story about it. Welcome to the brave new world. Sucks to be on the other side of the fence doesn't it?
have run out of bandwidth long before now. We don't need to air other people's dirty laundry or our own.
Sure there is. Wired is excercising their free speech. If it's okay for
-Rich
If we were all a little more open and would moderate posts based on the quality of their reasoning as well as the degree to which we
:-)
agreed with their conclusions, I might change my preferences away from -1. Until then, it stays.
For the most part I dont see too many posts that are well reasoned and dont get moderated to about 2. If you set your threshold to 5 you'll never see people hwo disagree with the norm, but there's enough moderators out there that are fair to put a disagreeable post up to at least 2.
Of course your idea of what is disagreeable might be different
I always browwse at -1, because there's alot of funny stuff going on in -1 and 0 land, and I love to read it when I have the time.
-Rich
This isn't about a format, it's about a program that is used extensivly by pirates and then everyone covers their eyes when accused of doing something illegal. Napster isn't about distribution. Napster is a huge database of mostly illegal MP3's used primarily by pirates. It's a virtual site of pirated files designed to loophole the system and deflect liability elsewhere. This is not about people distributing their own works. It's about ripping off the works of others thanks to napster.
You might not agree with me, but this is how RIAA looks at it. It's no wonder they are so pissed.
-Rich
BTW, I dont oppose napster for legal music distribution. It just seems to me that napster cant turn a blind eye to obvious piracy issues and then not expect RIAA to retalliate. If napster were at least putting up some effort to not share copyrighted files this would be an entirely different story.
-Rich
I downloaded napster last week and installed it. Once it had catalloged my mp3 drive (which for the most part is the result of ripping my CD collection for my RIO) it was pretty clear what the community was for. I'm not saying that napster shouldn't exist, just it should take a little more care in design to prevent widespread piracy. If mp3 is going to work as an online music format everything cant be free, and the people doing this for-profit (mp3.com?) need to have napster be accountable just as much as RIAA does.
-Rich
IANAL, but I dont even think you'd have to pay a royalty since you would not be distributing it for profit...
:-)
Too bad no one is using napster for that
I own 6 guitars two synthesizers and a bunch of audio gear, I'd consider myself a hobbyist musician. If people were using napster to distribute my music around the net, I'm all for it. But you're being naive if you think that's what napster is being used for. the people who made it could (and should, IMHO) do checks for obvioussly copyrighted material and blow it awaw. If they were to do that, RIAA would not be complaining. Let people download all the Grateful Dead bootlegs and bad amatuer recordings as much as they want, In fact i think it could be a great ASSET to the recording industry as they can scour the comunities and pick up unknown artists that already have a following an already have profit potential proven by the community.
RIAA pretty much only respondes to blatent copyright violations and piarcy issues. Napster cant turn a blind eye and say "we didn't know it would be used illegally" when it's painfully obvious that it is.
-Rich
Treat them with a little of it.
It's painfully obvious to any reasonable adult what napster is for. It's for trading MP3's; the act of trading which is in almost all cases illegal. You're insulting RIAA by claiming that they're cracking down on something legal. Napster knows what's going on. So does RIAA.
Everyone is screaming at how absurd RIAA is in their pursuit of MP3 sites but no one is addressing the fact that for the most part everyone they pursue is doing something illegal. Worse yet people are touting napster as if it's some majopr step for freedom online. Cant you see why RIAA is pissed off? This will come back to bite us. The next format for digital audio is up in the air. It'll be real nice, 96khz or more sampling, 24 or more bit. And it will be so closed it will make DVD look like it's under the GPL. Nice work guys. Thanks.
-Rich
Go on raise your hands...
Thought so.
-Rich
The thing is though, the Diamond RIO was not designed to allow people to trade illegal MP3's it was designed to allow people to play their legal ones. The RIO does not send a list of your files out and encourage others to download them illegally. The RIO does not provide a service for people to download copyrighted works illegally. The RIO does not enable others who do not own the copyrighted works to steal from it. One requires physical access to a RIO to download from it. You can compare RIO top napster as much as you want, but dont try and think they are the same. Napster is a network designed to steal MP3's. RIO is a product designed to play MP3's. The ONLY legal way to use napster is to download a file from soneone who own original media as a backup to your original media. It's pretty clear what napster is for. As I said in an earlier post, use it if you want, but dont even try to think you're doing something legal.
-Rich
Even though the files swapped around on Napster could theoretically be 100% legal, the RIAA is suing.
Eh? Explain this one to me. It cant be legal if you're giving it to someone else. If I rip every single CD I own into legal MP3's it does not matter how legal mine are if someone from napster is downloading them.
It's not even a grey area. It's totally illegal. Dont kid yourself. Use it if you want, but dont try to wrap youurself around the bill of rights and tout how free you're being. You're doijng something illegal.
-Rich
That's an excellent idea if you want to dump the entire unix philosophy of application design: one task, one application, one application, one task.
:-)
/., or pictures of my vacation it doesn't matter. It should be viewed by the browser because stuff is stuff (IMHO). To me that's consistent with the UNIX philosophy. Do you consider Emacs to be a part of the Unix philosophy?
Personally, I like UNIX. I like being able to hack my stuff. Part of the reason I like UNIX is it's always fun to guess which parts of the "UNIX philosophy" have been appiled to a package and which havent.
I guess it depends on your definition of browser. To me a browser is a tool for viewing things. If it's source code,
Interesting argument....
-Rich