>Do schools and libraries actually need Internet access in the first place?
I think so. It is an important way to learn about what is going on around you right now. That's what libraries are for, learning.
>If they do, do they need unlimited access?
No, not completely unlimited. But they need access that is unlimited as far as true learning goes. And that line is fuzzy. Is Michaelangelo's "David" art, or pornography?
>How is installing censorware any different than just not buying a book?
Installing censorware is different then buying a book. It is like buying a book and ripping "offensive" pages out of it, IMHO.
>Internet access is not a necessary element of a student's first 12 years of education.
I disagree. Of course, when I was at elementary school (which was in the 80's) everyone said the same about the C64 computers they installed in a few classrooms. "Waste of money, can't learn nothing with a computer" was a popular line.
>it's value for the freshman and sophomore years of college is dubious at best.
Guess you've never taken a distance education course lately. Most of them are ONLY done over the internet.
>the same test administered by the same professors for the last 50 years has lower scores today than in the 1950's
I bet if I gave you a test in geography from the 1700's you'd have a hard time too. Why would one want to learn out of date facts? "In Fact, once this fast food fad is over, man may, someday, land on the moon".
>Instead of blocking certain sites and locations, censorware should only allow certain sites and locations.
Instead of buying certain books for the library, they should only let people read certain books in the library. "Hey son, is that MAD magazine I see? That is BANNED. You are hereby fined one credit for a violation of the library reading statues. Now get out, and don't come back until I see you reading something wholesome and educational like 'Anne of Green Gables'".
>Would you also want to sue Mobil for compiling information on its SpeedPass users?
No. But I would if they had SpeedPass on every road and dirt track in the world. That's because I like choice.
>Or Ford, for tracking information on people who purchase its cars? Do you seriously think that you can launch a lawsuit against Home Depot for counting how many people purchased vinyl siding?
Then buy a Chrysler, or buy Siding from Beaver Lumber. *You* have a choice. These kids *can't* say "I don't like this school. I want to go to one that doesn't treat me like a second class citizen."
Let's put it this way. I'm going to assume you live in a country where your phone lines are generally provided by one company (for your area) and that you can't get another company to drag fresh ones to your house (legally). If your phone company blocked what numbers you could phone (saying that 1-900 #s are wrong) would you just give up and take it?
>It's time to stop spending time surfing the web. And it's time to start studying for your classes
So you think that people doing distance education should just drop off the face of the earth? Wow...
>which is how you will do something good and make a difference in this world.
No, you can make a difference to the lives of thousands (if not millions) of students by getting a law put in place banning the improper use of censorware.
>These U.N. polls only reflect limited set of data designed by people with dubious motivations to demonstrate that socalism is better.
If you think government funded health care makes a country socialist, I'd suggest you have a cold heart, to say the least.
>for instance canadian aboriginals enjoy a quality of live that could only be experianced in africa
If you call having everything provided for you a quality of life experienced in Africa, then I suppose so. Most Aboriginals in Canada lack direction in life -- often due to the fact that the Canadian government funds their entire life due to promises made to be at peace with them. This lack of direction appears to be driving aboriginal youth to make some very poor choices in lifestyle -- some choose to sniff gasoline, why, I don't know. Others make different, equally poor choices. But that's their choice, the Government doesn't force them to do that. In fact, Aboriginal Indians in Canada enjoy _more_ rights than your average Canadian.
>the average canadian "enjoys" a salary dollar for dollar ten thousand dollars less
The average American has to pay out the ass for health care. Or die because they can't afford it. Small price to pay to live longer, if you ask me.
>and paying similar and often more expensive prices for goods and services
That's a lie. I'm living in Canada now, and about 10 years ago we stopped cross border shopping to the US due to the higher cost of goods there. There's been more than enough coverage of the monies lost in Northern American towns due to most Canadians doing this.
Sorry, but for the best place to live (according to the UN) you'll have to take a trip north to Canada. Canada has been #1 on this for many years.
But, as people say, those statistics aren't 100% true indicators of the best place to live. They just give a general idea of it, so please don't take this as a slam against the US (it isn't).
Yeah, but does it sound reasonable to your for-profit company?
Not in the least. because for them it is not free in any sense of the word.
Therefore, the only way you could possible classify this software as "free" or "open" would be: Open/free for non-commercial use ONLY.
There's a big difference between free and "free FOR". One is truly free, the other is like those fake checks Ed McMahon once sent.
Keep your junk mail and your junk software away from me.
Re:The natural evolution of this...
on
License to Sit
·
· Score: 1
>I wonder why they don't work the same way elsewhere? Is there some fundamental plumbing difference that stops it?
I'm not certain what you mean, but if it happens to be related to fill time, or tank position, or pressure, some older WC installations in England used a gravity fed water system. Note that I'm taking this example from a house built between 1910-1930...
This means that instead of directly taking water from the city mains, the water fills a tank similar to, but much bigger than, a toilet tank. This must be at the highest point of the water supply. When that tank fills, the mains water is turned off. When you use water, the tank is refilled (again from city mains) and the water will come out rather slowly (especially on top floors) in comparison to modern pressure fed systems.
I don't know why this action was taken, but I'm taking a stab at a possible water pressure problem, since this would add gravity pressure (at the cost of running out of water) should the city mains become terribly overloaded.
Here's another few fun British toilet facts (in comparison with N.A.): For some reason, many of the washrooms I've visited in Britain use separate hot/cold faucets (not just taps, but actual separate faucets). Light switches are upside down (well, to us) and are generally not installed inside the washroom.
>The only time I've had to reboot Windows 2000 is because I installed some crap video drivers
There's one problem. An eterprise leve OS that explodes because of video driver problems.
That's why X is optionally separate from the kernel. When X explodes, worst it's supposed to do is freeze the console (unless you are running it all as root... which as we all know is bad).
Solution: Telnet/ssh into the box. Kill the X server. Fix the problem. Start up the X server again. Don't tell the clients, they won't even know it happened.
Ok, I blew off a little too much steam. Katz does that to me, and that's why I keep his articles out of my sight (usually).
So, lesse what we have here:
Talking about killing isn't bad depending on what way you describe the action. ie: Saying "killing is wrong" is talking about killing, but isn't bad. Saying "Kill everyone" in the context of not quoting someone is talking about killing and is bad.
I stand by that argument whether one considers it a straw man argument or not.
And the charges in the lawsuit do after all appear to be against the girl. In that case, I figure that she deserved to be sued. Snitching on people for no reason might get you in legal trouble sometimes. That's (I suppose) one of the reasons why AMW isn't constantly swamped with calls...
>I think all Slashdot users should die!
>Now, have I suddenly vacated my sanity?
If you in fact meant what you said, then yes, that is quite an insane thought. Genocidical thoughts are usually considered insane.
>I think all Slashdot users should eat Fritos!
Well, that doesn't exactly promote killing people, does it? You are suggesting that Fritos are so good everyone should enjoy them... sounds, almost, humanitarian to me.:)
>Also, if you are right, EVERY serial killer should get off via insanity defense. Of course, they don't.
Most serial killers that I've heard of end up in a mental institution at some point (that is, if they ever want the slightest chance of leaving jail and being "reformed"). Maybe they don't get out of the crime via an insanity defense, but I consider that testimony to the fact that serial killers are, in fact, all insane.
The insane (especially serial killers) need help before they commit crimes. But, you see, that's where a snitch line becomes handy... Once they step over the line, though, the law comes into place. This kid stepped over the line. Too bad he didn't get help before. I don't pity Dalmer at all, and I don't pity this guy much more (I wouldn't want to lump him in with people who actually carry through their threats by saying I feel no pity for him at all).
My opinions, like Katz's, are my own and don't have to be 100% rational (like, as many people continue to point out, Katz's). Maybe all the pieces don't add up and fit together. That happens to be because I have better things to do than think about death threats.
>These two scenarions are completely unrelated.
Maybe. The school is resposible for the welfare of those there, yes. But the school has only that duty. That's nowhere near 100% of the package. Once the welfare of everyone at school is cared for, the school's responsibility ends. That means, the minute that "boy" is off the property, it isn't the school's job to deal with him. Being in court is probably a good drive, never mind a walk, away from the school, and therefore isn't the school's jurisdiction (IMHO).
>He said turning kids into informers is anti-democratic
No, Katz didn't mention police state. Sorry if I put words in his mouth. I just don't find turning men (again, I don't consider these people mentally kids at this age) into informers is anti-democratic. His opinion on this wasn't particularly well-founded in his article, and I feel, therefore, I'm not necessarialy required to be held at such a high standard, either.
Katz _did_ say "by bringing out the worst in human foibles, from fear to unchecked malice."
Fear is control. But where can we place that fear (and therefore control), and feel good about it? I think if potential criminals [as defined by a democratic society] are running scared that's good.
Malice. Sure... because people are encouraged to inform on others they are going to desire to hurt others. No, or else people would kill each other after watching any film-noir that ends sadly.
Whoops, I'm offtopic again. Let me get back on it.
>Even at 15, do they have the evolved judgemental ability to tell the difference between bullshit and psychosis?
I say yes. But that's a question only a licensed psychologist or the courts can answer. After searching I find too many mixed results to consider this a hardfast rule, but it seems many places consider you a credible witness above 14. That means the courts appear consider a 15 year old as having the mental ability to discern between the two, or else they would never be called a credible witness (would they? IANAL).
>Moreover, do 15 yr olds have the self restraint to keep from turning in their ex-boyfriends or the girls that laughed at them in the hallway?
I see 40 year olds going through divorce act the same way. I fail to see the difference.
>Again, she had no rights, and no legal voice in the suit.
If minors have no rights, then why all the abuse cases in the courts?
Minors simply don't have all the rights adults do. They are stripped of rights to protect them. Stripping a minor of the right to be a witness is not protecting them, and I therefore would find it unlikely that any court would do such a thing. If you are a witness, you have a legal voice.
>Luckily for me, I'm presumed innocent and protected from rabid accusations.
That's half the problem here, I think. We're from two different countries. In Canada, it is much more of a crime to hate a group of people (or, I suppose, everybody) than it is to hate an individual. We have special hate crime laws up here, and I (as a person with democratic rights) would never give my vote to those who would reppeal such a law.
>Children, however, are not
No. Children are protected from what they say and do. When they are no longer protected from what they say and do that's when they are adults. In Ontario, Canada, for example, children under 12 can commit no crimes. That's because they are kids. After that age, they are covered from life improsonment by the (highly controversial) young offenders act, but can be (IIRC), and are, charged with any crime that adults are.
>Katz is on the side of the Bill of Rights in this case.
I might not be an American, but I know the Bill of Rights doesn't cover death threats in many states.
>You who advocate investigation every time someone says the words 'kill' and 'people' in the same sentence?
You missed a few words: "I", "want" and "to". I want to means just that, premeditation to do something.
>It's the word of one minor against another.
Like I say, if you can be a witness, then you aren't a minor. Cripes, if we all thought that what people under 18 said was total BS then there'd never be another sexual assault case in the courts again!
>the boy's parents have one legal recourse in the event their child is falsely accused: they can sue the accusers.
The LATIMES says this: "The boy was charged with making terrorist threats and intimidating a witness, and a juvenile court judge ordered him to serve six months' probation."
He commited the crime. The law says so and I'll go by what the judge said, not you or Katz.
That's why the suit was not a case of libel or slander, this is what the Judge said. LA Times: " Kristina's actions were protected by a California law that shields speech in the public interest."
I find that sweet justice. Using the law itself against someone that seeks to use it as a defense for his criminal actions.
>If I called the cops and told them I heard you say you want to kill people, do you think that's enough for them to investigate you? No...
That isn't your choice to make (although you are free to enjoy an opinion about it). It is up to the police to decide whether this allegation held enough balance to be cause for an investigation.
>These kids, you'll remember. don't live in the real world.
I think they do. School was pretty real world. I've got a job now, and I'm not in high school and I can attest to that. Your opinion might differ. That's OK. That's why they're opinions.
>If you call crimestoppers and say "I heard this dude say he wants to kill" they won't and can't do anything.
That because in that case it is hear-say. I heard someone say that they heard some one say xyz. This is not such a case. This is a direct witness of a statement.
>The girl, however, had no knowledge of any crime,
The girl witnessed the crime of a death threat. Full knowledge and (in her case) full disclosure. Whether she can gather further evidence is really more the police's problem then hers.
>The tip line in the school isn't to help catch criminals, but to foster an Orwellian fear of speaking and to create a culture wherein no student can express his feelings safely.
Opinions are like Assholes, everybody's got one. My asshole says that my opinions is such that snitch lines are great. I voted twice for a long time supporter of snitch lines, Mike Harris, our current Premier (eq. Govenor). Sorry, but from where I stand, public opinion has you beat.
Thoughts of murder should only be expressed to psychologists (I think in the case of discussing such matters with these people, you are protected from "Death Threat" utterances). If you go around the school telling others you want to kill them, well, then (as I said before) you're crazy and need to speak with someone who can help you before you get yourself in trouble.
>Placing that burden [of a snitching] on a bunch of kids is destructive.
The courts already agree with me, these "kids" as witnesses aren't kids. Snitching implies being a witness, so therefore the minute a 15 year old picks up that phone to report a death threat the court agrees, these kids are adults.
>[replying to my 'adults on AOL' comment] Rather than supporting your argument (incoherent as it is), this comment actually harms it,
Are you suggesting people using AOL aren't adults? Adults flame each other all the time on AOL and again, I stand by that. One doesn't need to use their brain to see that in action.
>Wasn't Ghandi assassinated? Do you really have to threaten someone to be dangerous?
We are trying to stick to legal terms here. Dangerous thought (excepting in my country Hate Thought, and in both much of the US and Canada, Death threats) is not considered dangerous in a legal sense.
>Should we expect a bunch of fickle teenagers to understand it? Hell, teenagers can't even grasp that fucking sometimes gets you pregnant!
That's 1960's talk for ya. I will vouch, as a younger adult, that students are taught well before being teenagers that sex is a precursor to pregnancy. If they don't heed that advice, well, that is their fault. And if you don't think minors understand killing is wrong, you must be pretty scared for you life whenever you pass an all-ages nightclub.
>You want them to take responsibility for judging the mental health of a peer they may have little or no contact with?
This isn't really about mental health, although I did mention, since I think the boy has mental problems. It is about a victim of a crime. The victim of a death threat.
>You don't murder people during a war...
I don't see any tanks around. Are there many patrolling the streets of California?
>The ability to understand that killing is murder......has nothing to do with the ability to tell between an ill-advised comment and a plot to murder scores of students.
True. But it does have everything to do with knowing if your comments are acceptable or not. His weren't. The judge said so. She was a victim.
>Having spent the whole time justifying school snich lines, you tell us that it's the job of the police to anticipate dangerous behavior!
And what better tool can they have at their disposal than the comments of those involved in crimes?
>Thus, educators, parents, and to a lesser degree psychologists, ARE responsible for watching out for and anticipating behavior.
That's the crown jewel of your post, my friend. You are looking at it from the viewpoint of that death threatening boy as being some sort of victim that needs protecting. No. Protection means to keep harm from happening. The parents, et al. are only negligent for letting this girl be near this boy when he uttered those words. They aren't responsible to the point of keeping him quiet.
>Unless, of course, you'd rather the police take charge of your kids for you.
I'd rather the police take charge of children then Katz (sorry, a bad joke).
But seriously, I advocate not that the police take care of children, but that they take care of adult situations. Adult situations involve crime. Saying you want to kill people (with implied intent) is a crime in most states (I'm pretty sure California is one of them).
I logged out and boom! A Jon Katz story on the homepage. Normally I keep him muzzled, but damn, I screwed up. So I read it. You never know when (or if) someone will buy a clue. After reading that article, I think he still owes me money.
So, on to the meat of my comment:
First off, anyone 15 and over (and living in North America, or another English speaking country) is, in my book, adult enough to 100% understand the English language, and more than adult enough to understand killing is bad. I'll assume they were both in the same class (and, the same age, the story is full of missing details). That would make them 15, going on what the LA Times says.
If the parents from Lancaster didn't want to spend the money, and the school didn't want to prosecute, then shit man, you aren't under a gun. Just don't prosecute. If you do and lose, TS! That's the way the pickle squirts!
Neither the stoolie, nor the nutcase (and anyone who suggests that everyone should die is a certifiable nut) deserve an ounce of sympathy. I didn't see anything about her insisting she be in the WPP, despite her claims that the nut threatened her. That's what it's there for. Use it. If she was denied, well, then I'd be angry.
If you are a nut and don't seek treatment, TFB. Although, one has to wonder if the parents of this insane man hadn't noticed this behaviour before. They need a little blame.
Why is it that anything that happens on school property makes it automatically 100% the school's job to deal with it? Heck, if I threaten the life of people at work it becomes (mostly) my resposibility to defend myself, and the victim's responsibility to prosecute me.
"Turning kids into informers is viscerally anti-democratic."
That's bullshit. Are you saying that because the police exist we therefore live in a police state? She had the right to not say anything. She also had the right not to personally sue the offender, and let the criminal courts take care of the matter. Take anything to civil court and lose, and you get no sympathy from me.
"there was never any evidence he planned to harm or kill anyone"
If I come up to you and say "I want to kill people." would you just toss that out the window? Which side are you on, anyways, Katz? The criminal's?
"[the boy] is threatened with jail for allegedly making a remark that would, in other times, be considered stupid or worthy of some suspension time."
In the Real World(tm) making death threats is serious. Very serious. It shows a plan to murder. Just plotting to murder is illegal, you know. If you think plotting to kill is just stupid and is for kicks then you need a check up.
Providing "snitch" lines is normal in Real Life(tm) too. Where I am, they have CrimeStoppers. And, if they use your evidence and the person goes to Jail, you actually get a cash bonus. *This* line is for anyone, not just teenagers. Most people think this service kicks ass. The criminals have a problem with it, I hear, though.
These snitch lines are needed. If they were easier for students to access before Columbine there's pretty good chance someone would have picked up the phone and gotten those muderers the help they needed before it was too late.
"Online, teenagers flame each other and everybody else all the time."
And adults don't? You've never seen people on AOL, have you?
"Anybody who's different or doesn't conform -- or who is angry -- can seem dangerous"
Total complete baseless bullshit. If you don't conform you aren't necessarialy dangerous. Look at Ghandi, he damn well didn't conform to being your average Indian. But was he a dangerous man? You're only dangerous when you start threatening other people.
"and kids often had a tough time distinguishing between run-of-the-mill obnoxious and posturing behavior, and truly dangerous behavior worthy of being reported"
Oh please. _Maybe_ there is a _little_ problem with distinction, but not understanding that to kill is murder? Like I say, if you don't understand that by 15, you need to be locked up for the good of society.
"It's the job of parents, educators and psychologists to watch our for and anticipate dangerous behavior."
No, we already employ people to do that. We call them the Police.
>Face it, if you're under 20, you are an idiot. Under 30, stupid. Under 40, average. Under 50, better. Under 60, great.
Must be hard to be 19 and an idiot, stupid, average, better, and great all at the same time. Now THAT'S a world of experience.
How come your above average intelligence (or do you admit you're under 20?) didn't pick up on the fact that under 20 + under 30 + under 40 + under 50 + under 60 == anything under 20?
An average is what's between above and below 1/2. So, yes, Ike is a fool to suggest that that statement was in error. That would put him in that "below average" category.
And, for the record, I'm 22, or so I'm told. The universe didn't explode, after all. And I'd suggest my 55 year old father wouldn't have gotten that 'joke'. Not a slam at him, I respect him more than anyone else, but just the truth.
And it has NOTHING to do with what you're talking about. It is ALL ABOUT empowering workers and taking your power to bootcamp employees away.
For cryin' out loud, you can garner that much by watching that import car commercial where the junior worker pulls the emergency stop because of a defect, with later praise for following their Kaizen attitude.
The fact you had no clue that "That idea from Japan" is in fact Kaizen shows your management skills were found inside a cracker jack box.
>When they first come they are awfull, weeping moaners, like you.
Slashdot is nothing more than a moaner's outlet. Why are you browsing here if you don't have a beef with something? Or did I misread it and you mean _you_ have a beef with stuff, and everyone "below" you (which is the entire world, I gather) should be your yes men?
Well all you gotta do is watch an episode of the Simpsons to see what your managerial attitude is going to get you. You know, the one where Mr. Burns loses all his cash because all he hires are conforming yes men.
You sound like a whiny old asshole who thinks that his age makes him wise, and not his experience. Just like that 50 year old I saw waiting for the bus the other day bitching how he can't get nowhere in life, even though he's twice as old as the people getting hired in his old company.
>You earn that sort of treatment
Right on. You learn it through experience, not age.
>Its these no nonsense techniques that have made my company grow 500% in 24 months.
And you prove I'm right. You've been in business an entire two years (and, might I mention, the hottest two years ever for all computer business growth) and you think you have your shit concrete.
Well, let me tell you, come recession time, you're going to be shitting those moulded bricks of employees you have when it comes layoff time.
From your Bio:
"In my spare time I create Art and compose Music, but my main profession is as a Graphics Artiste & sometime poet. I am sometimes paid for the latter."
You sometimes get paid for being a manager? Now that's fresh!
"I enjoy challenging my conceptions."
Then why the hell are you sending your employees to a bootcamp so they can all conform to your every whim?
"ADDENDUM: I do not troll Slashdot, and I shall remove this when I do."
I think you forgot to remove it this time.
"I am interested in/. because the technophilic community fascinates me, and is at odds with my slightly technophobic tendencies."
As a child of the Eisenhower era, I must tell you, your ideas are most out of place.
*I'll* make a man out of you. Let me tell you, life doesn't begin until you are retired. Come here and I'll teach you a little about REAL LIFE.
REAL LIFE was when you had to weld stuff together and get burnt every day. In REAL LIFE we didn't have those stupid computers taking everyone's jobs.
You're saying you make your office boy the TEABOY? TEA? In my time we got our boys to get us beer. And we drank 'em on the way to work too. Damn whoever put seatbelts in cars and stopped drunk driving. Freakin' hippie Kids.
Pasty looking? I'm willing to bet you are looking a might bit pastier than the war verterans ten years older than me.
In my days we didn't even all have electricity for light, never mind Air Conditioning. Every morning my parents got up and lit the gas lanterns. You people in the 70's and 80's have it damn easy, what with your electronic adding machines and TV.
Selfish? I've never seen such a selfish bunch of youth than you Thatcher children. My parents told me all about their stories when kids were going hungry without their rations, and you go and suggest your 70's hippies and 80's wall street kids aren't selfish? My God, the impetousness of youth!
Weak? I bet one of my veteran buddies could snap you in half! And as far as being a slacker is concerned, well, you got to laze through all your college years with a calculator and a biro. *I* had to use a slide rule and a fountain pen.
How can you be fit when Thatcher stopped giving milk to you young kids? What a great way to ruin your bones. I'd be angry too if my government was too cheap to give me a $0.02 carton of milk to keep me healthy when they aren't even at war!
You hippies certainly changed the world alright, just look at how horrible it is now. All this convenience -- it's like all kids do is just wander from street to street with nothing to do!
When I worked for a company it was for life. Pension schemes were just a sideline... never much cared about 'em then. You hippies just spent your life bitching about everything, and now you say you "took the difficulties leveled at us with spirit and character." Well, excuse me if I don't find that a little contradictory. But that's the style for kids of your time.
>I never thought ten years would make such a difference.
Neither did I. Kids killing kids. Kids with guns. Oil Crises, Vietnam, Gulf War. People putting the screws to the education system. Crappy music.
I did this once before, but WTH, I'll do it again:
Lets go by what the RIAA themselves sez is in the cost of a CD (http://www.riaa.com/MD-US-7.cfm).
- Manufacturing costs
(I'll assume these are the same price as a consumer CDR/w Jewel case, although they will really be much lower): $0.50/cd.
- Artist compensation
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that each artist in a 4 person band (which is probably as big as most groups get) deserves $50,000 per year (not bad really), and that they can pump out 1 cd per year. $200,000/year.
- Studio engineering, sound mixing, producing, yadda, yadda.
Well here's some pricing:
http://www.agt.net/public/trstudio/rates.html, $3000 a CD.
But that sounds a little low to me. I'll say that studio time is going to run $15,000/album.
- Cost of label signing up people
That's a promotional thing. See below.
- Marketing and Promotion
*Good* music doesn't need millions in marketing and promotion. If your music sucks, I really don't care about you and this pricing isn't about you. I'll suggest that $100,000 should cover a decent marketing campaign. Maybe throw in another $100,000 for a music video.
- Art
Ooooo... yeah... that's gotta cost, what, $5000? Probably the cheapest thing in making a CD
- "Costly" concert tour?
Yeah, that's what they said. Costly. Uhhh, you mean that you just burn the $75 I gave you for my ticket? Huh? This is a moneymaker, not a moneyloser. -$50,000 in artist compensation.
- Not all CDs are profitable
No shit. Neither are all of anything else. This is called life. Deal with it. Selling a CD is like opening up a small business. You might go bust, or you might make it big.
- "$12.75" per cd
No, not even close. Man oh man, is the RIAA whacked. Go to a record store and buy something! $20 for NEW CDs, and that's all we care about in these discussions.
- "While the price of CDs has fallen, the amount of music provided on a typical CD has increased substantially"
Wow, yeah, those new extra long 80 minute CDs can hold a whopping 7.5% more music. Substantial? I think not.
Average total discs sold: According to the RIAA, 27000 new releases are created per year. "420 million units in just the first six months of 2000." (RIAA) I'll double that for the year. That means each disc sells an average of (drumroll) 31111 copies.
Now, we'll multiply the per CD costs by 31111. That's: $15555.5
Now add in the yearly costs (assuming 1 album per year per artist/band): $370,000
Total the two: $385,555.5
Now divide by albums sold: $12.39/cd.
Who gets the $7.61 per album profit? All for S/H and record store profit? I hope not.
And that's ensuring the artist is compensated that first year. After that point, when no more promotion of that album is needed, and the artist is fully compensated, the album should then cost $5 or less.
So why is it that I can't get Fatboy Slim's old albums for under $15?
Say "rationalize your 40 gig pirated music/movies collection" if that's what you mean. Although there are some here who would flame you for saying "pirated" because that implies rape, destruction of property, etc.:-( It's hard to guess that's what you really meant so say, especially in print. I've had that same trouble too, even though I do try to be precise with what words I choose.
I wasn't trying to be a jerk, but I've lost count of how many times I hear stories about people being "busted for owning MP3s".
Well, not a big deal or anything, but the actual introduction of ISA (as far as the PC goes) would have been with the first IBM PC, which my copy of "The PC Programmer's Handbook" by Sanchez and Canton (this book rules, BTW) says the first IBM PC was released August 12, 1981.
Since we're rhyming off pointless facts:) here's a few about that machine:
- 64k RAM
- 40k ROM BIOS + BASIC
- (TLA time) 1 SS, DD MFM 40 tpi 160k FH 5 1/4" FDD. MFM made it totally incompatible with GCR C64 floppies meaning one had to build an adapter...
- DOS 1.0 included (duh)
- 8088 processor (the 8086 PS/2 25 & 30 came later)
- 5 slots
- 1" card clearance (later shaved down to today's 0.8" for 8 slots)
- 63.5 Watt linear P/S (or maybe it was switching after all... one tends to forget)
- Choice of MDA or CGA video
- No HDD
- 83 key keyboard (the IBM M boards don't even begin to compare to this IIRC ALL-steel tank).
- EXTRA LOUD PC beeper
Now, wait a minute why do I care and where were we, oh yeah:
That makes ISA almost 20 years old! ISA is dead! Long live ISA!
- Free promotional material.
- Fair use MP3 backups of all my CDs.
- Time shifted videos that I still need to watch.
If that ain't legal then sue me.
>but please don't ignore the fact that you are really stealing.
Huh? Say what? Oh, I see. You're confused about the distinction between format (MP3/DiVX) and the content.
Okay, I'll clear it up for use in terms you might understand.
A long time ago there were these "VTR Format Wars" in which the Beta format (owned by Sony) and the VHS format (freely licensed by JVC) were competing. I'm sure some people confused the VHS format with stolen content, since VHS was used for many things, including Home Recordings, and "unlicensed" distribution of movies [as JVC was fully open with their format]. Sony, on the other hand, preferred a stranglehold grip on the market (at first). So, if one couldn't make the distinction between casette size, then YES, Beta only held "legal" movies.
But once consumers got over these hangups in the late 70's/early 80's they realised how much nicer it was to have the _format_ abstracted from the _content_ and simply chose VHS.
Another example:
TVs vs. Theaters. At a theater you'll notice that only licensed content is shown. On a TV any content can be shown, legal and stolen. So one might, erroneously, conclude that the Theater format precludes the possibility of showing stolen material.
Let me clear that up. If you were to purchase the equipment to make your own ceullulite movie strip, then all of a sudden the theater is a "stolen" format only, right?
Nope, because you have to make the abstratction between content (stolen vs. legal) and format (VHS, Beta, TV, Teater, DiVX, MP3).
Does that clear it up at all for you? I'm sure I can come up with more examples if that doesn't explain it.
>just because a post has the word "microsoft" in it doesn't necesarily mean you need to bash it.
I was looking for the keywords "Rights Management", "Secure Audio Path", "scrambles", and "content-protection", simply because I don't agree with these ideas. I couldn't care less if Linus integrated these into Linux. These words make anything they touch suck, IMHO.
Microsoft chose to use them. Their problem, not mine.
>What was said is that there is a way to prevent the signal from even getting to the speakers in the first place.
If you are talking about encoding raw PCM/WAVE to MP3 this just isn't possible.
The sample rate would exclude the remotest possibility of a normal, CD Quality.wav file having a signal over 22.5 kHz no matter how hard you try. The highest "normal".wav file sampling rate I've seen is 48 kHz, which means a maximum output of 24 kHz.
If you wanted to encode a 30kHz sound, you'd need a 60kHz sampled.wav file. That's so strange I'm gonna assume Windows itself will go belly up trying to play it.
If this were hardware, however, and if for some strange reason you were to attempt to run a DAC/ADC outside it's limits, then yeah, you'd have trouble. But that would be a design fault necessary in hardware...
I'm sure there'd be _some_ way of making this hard to break, like you suggest, though. Maybe include a loud constant 20 kHz tone that's filetered out on "protected" hardware, thereby causing people listening to the raw source to get headaches...
Slashdot Mirror
>Do schools and libraries actually need Internet access in the first place?
I think so. It is an important way to learn about what is going on around you right now. That's what libraries are for, learning.
>If they do, do they need unlimited access?
No, not completely unlimited. But they need access that is unlimited as far as true learning goes. And that line is fuzzy. Is Michaelangelo's "David" art, or pornography?
>How is installing censorware any different than just not buying a book?
Installing censorware is different then buying a book. It is like buying a book and ripping "offensive" pages out of it, IMHO.
>Internet access is not a necessary element of a student's first 12 years of education.
I disagree. Of course, when I was at elementary school (which was in the 80's) everyone said the same about the C64 computers they installed in a few classrooms. "Waste of money, can't learn nothing with a computer" was a popular line.
>it's value for the freshman and sophomore years of college is dubious at best.
Guess you've never taken a distance education course lately. Most of them are ONLY done over the internet.
>the same test administered by the same professors for the last 50 years has lower scores today than in the 1950's
I bet if I gave you a test in geography from the 1700's you'd have a hard time too. Why would one want to learn out of date facts? "In Fact, once this fast food fad is over, man may, someday, land on the moon".
>Instead of blocking certain sites and locations, censorware should only allow certain sites and locations.
Instead of buying certain books for the library, they should only let people read certain books in the library. "Hey son, is that MAD magazine I see? That is BANNED. You are hereby fined one credit for a violation of the library reading statues. Now get out, and don't come back until I see you reading something wholesome and educational like 'Anne of Green Gables'".
>Would you also want to sue Mobil for compiling information on its SpeedPass users?
No. But I would if they had SpeedPass on every road and dirt track in the world. That's because I like choice.
>Or Ford, for tracking information on people who purchase its cars? Do you seriously think that you can launch a lawsuit against Home Depot for counting how many people purchased vinyl siding?
Then buy a Chrysler, or buy Siding from Beaver Lumber. *You* have a choice. These kids *can't* say "I don't like this school. I want to go to one that doesn't treat me like a second class citizen."
Let's put it this way. I'm going to assume you live in a country where your phone lines are generally provided by one company (for your area) and that you can't get another company to drag fresh ones to your house (legally). If your phone company blocked what numbers you could phone (saying that 1-900 #s are wrong) would you just give up and take it?
>It's time to stop spending time surfing the web. And it's time to start studying for your classes
So you think that people doing distance education should just drop off the face of the earth? Wow...
>which is how you will do something good and make a difference in this world.
No, you can make a difference to the lives of thousands (if not millions) of students by getting a law put in place banning the improper use of censorware.
They call that Civil Disobedience. It is a highly effective measure to counteract laws when you have no other chance to change them.
Hell, I didn't even read Walden and I knew that.
If you don't like that, then fine, pay me the 1000% tax on your tea.
Wow, if the deal is that good in these third world countries why don't you send your children to work in a sweatshop for food?
>These U.N. polls only reflect limited set of data designed by people with dubious motivations to demonstrate that socalism is better.
If you think government funded health care makes a country socialist, I'd suggest you have a cold heart, to say the least.
>for instance canadian aboriginals enjoy a quality of live that could only be experianced in africa
If you call having everything provided for you a quality of life experienced in Africa, then I suppose so. Most Aboriginals in Canada lack direction in life -- often due to the fact that the Canadian government funds their entire life due to promises made to be at peace with them. This lack of direction appears to be driving aboriginal youth to make some very poor choices in lifestyle -- some choose to sniff gasoline, why, I don't know. Others make different, equally poor choices. But that's their choice, the Government doesn't force them to do that. In fact, Aboriginal Indians in Canada enjoy _more_ rights than your average Canadian.
>the average canadian "enjoys" a salary dollar for dollar ten thousand dollars less
The average American has to pay out the ass for health care. Or die because they can't afford it. Small price to pay to live longer, if you ask me.
>and paying similar and often more expensive prices for goods and services
That's a lie. I'm living in Canada now, and about 10 years ago we stopped cross border shopping to the US due to the higher cost of goods there. There's been more than enough coverage of the monies lost in Northern American towns due to most Canadians doing this.
Sorry, but for the best place to live (according to the UN) you'll have to take a trip north to Canada. Canada has been #1 on this for many years.
But, as people say, those statistics aren't 100% true indicators of the best place to live. They just give a general idea of it, so please don't take this as a slam against the US (it isn't).
>Sounds reasonable to me.
Yeah, but does it sound reasonable to your for-profit company?
Not in the least. because for them it is not free in any sense of the word.
Therefore, the only way you could possible classify this software as "free" or "open" would be: Open/free for non-commercial use ONLY.
There's a big difference between free and "free FOR". One is truly free, the other is like those fake checks Ed McMahon once sent.
Keep your junk mail and your junk software away from me.
>I wonder why they don't work the same way elsewhere? Is there some fundamental plumbing difference that stops it?
;-)
I'm not certain what you mean, but if it happens to be related to fill time, or tank position, or pressure, some older WC installations in England used a gravity fed water system. Note that I'm taking this example from a house built between 1910-1930...
This means that instead of directly taking water from the city mains, the water fills a tank similar to, but much bigger than, a toilet tank. This must be at the highest point of the water supply. When that tank fills, the mains water is turned off. When you use water, the tank is refilled (again from city mains) and the water will come out rather slowly (especially on top floors) in comparison to modern pressure fed systems.
I don't know why this action was taken, but I'm taking a stab at a possible water pressure problem, since this would add gravity pressure (at the cost of running out of water) should the city mains become terribly overloaded.
Here's another few fun British toilet facts (in comparison with N.A.): For some reason, many of the washrooms I've visited in Britain use separate hot/cold faucets (not just taps, but actual separate faucets). Light switches are upside down (well, to us) and are generally not installed inside the washroom.
Which strange thing were you talking about?
Funny, I always thought 8 inches was between 7 and 9 inches.
>The only time I've had to reboot Windows 2000 is because I installed some crap video drivers
There's one problem. An eterprise leve OS that explodes because of video driver problems.
That's why X is optionally separate from the kernel. When X explodes, worst it's supposed to do is freeze the console (unless you are running it all as root... which as we all know is bad).
Solution: Telnet/ssh into the box. Kill the X server. Fix the problem. Start up the X server again. Don't tell the clients, they won't even know it happened.
Still works in 95/98.
Maybe not in ME, never tried it lately.
Wow, you read everything I said. :-) Thanks!
:)
...has nothing to do with the ability to tell between an ill-advised comment and a plot to murder scores of students.
Ok, I blew off a little too much steam. Katz does that to me, and that's why I keep his articles out of my sight (usually).
So, lesse what we have here:
Talking about killing isn't bad depending on what way you describe the action. ie: Saying "killing is wrong" is talking about killing, but isn't bad. Saying "Kill everyone" in the context of not quoting someone is talking about killing and is bad.
I stand by that argument whether one considers it a straw man argument or not.
And the charges in the lawsuit do after all appear to be against the girl. In that case, I figure that she deserved to be sued. Snitching on people for no reason might get you in legal trouble sometimes. That's (I suppose) one of the reasons why AMW isn't constantly swamped with calls...
>I think all Slashdot users should die!
>Now, have I suddenly vacated my sanity?
If you in fact meant what you said, then yes, that is quite an insane thought. Genocidical thoughts are usually considered insane.
>I think all Slashdot users should eat Fritos!
Well, that doesn't exactly promote killing people, does it? You are suggesting that Fritos are so good everyone should enjoy them... sounds, almost, humanitarian to me.
>Also, if you are right, EVERY serial killer should get off via insanity defense. Of course, they don't.
Most serial killers that I've heard of end up in a mental institution at some point (that is, if they ever want the slightest chance of leaving jail and being "reformed"). Maybe they don't get out of the crime via an insanity defense, but I consider that testimony to the fact that serial killers are, in fact, all insane.
The insane (especially serial killers) need help before they commit crimes. But, you see, that's where a snitch line becomes handy... Once they step over the line, though, the law comes into place. This kid stepped over the line. Too bad he didn't get help before. I don't pity Dalmer at all, and I don't pity this guy much more (I wouldn't want to lump him in with people who actually carry through their threats by saying I feel no pity for him at all).
My opinions, like Katz's, are my own and don't have to be 100% rational (like, as many people continue to point out, Katz's). Maybe all the pieces don't add up and fit together. That happens to be because I have better things to do than think about death threats.
>These two scenarions are completely unrelated.
Maybe. The school is resposible for the welfare of those there, yes. But the school has only that duty. That's nowhere near 100% of the package. Once the welfare of everyone at school is cared for, the school's responsibility ends. That means, the minute that "boy" is off the property, it isn't the school's job to deal with him. Being in court is probably a good drive, never mind a walk, away from the school, and therefore isn't the school's jurisdiction (IMHO).
>He said turning kids into informers is anti-democratic
No, Katz didn't mention police state. Sorry if I put words in his mouth. I just don't find turning men (again, I don't consider these people mentally kids at this age) into informers is anti-democratic. His opinion on this wasn't particularly well-founded in his article, and I feel, therefore, I'm not necessarialy required to be held at such a high standard, either.
Katz _did_ say "by bringing out the worst in human foibles, from fear to unchecked malice."
Fear is control. But where can we place that fear (and therefore control), and feel good about it? I think if potential criminals [as defined by a democratic society] are running scared that's good.
Malice. Sure... because people are encouraged to inform on others they are going to desire to hurt others. No, or else people would kill each other after watching any film-noir that ends sadly.
Whoops, I'm offtopic again. Let me get back on it.
>Even at 15, do they have the evolved judgemental ability to tell the difference between bullshit and psychosis?
I say yes. But that's a question only a licensed psychologist or the courts can answer. After searching I find too many mixed results to consider this a hardfast rule, but it seems many places consider you a credible witness above 14. That means the courts appear consider a 15 year old as having the mental ability to discern between the two, or else they would never be called a credible witness (would they? IANAL).
>Moreover, do 15 yr olds have the self restraint to keep from turning in their ex-boyfriends or the girls that laughed at them in the hallway?
I see 40 year olds going through divorce act the same way. I fail to see the difference.
>Again, she had no rights, and no legal voice in the suit.
If minors have no rights, then why all the abuse cases in the courts?
Minors simply don't have all the rights adults do. They are stripped of rights to protect them. Stripping a minor of the right to be a witness is not protecting them, and I therefore would find it unlikely that any court would do such a thing. If you are a witness, you have a legal voice.
>Luckily for me, I'm presumed innocent and protected from rabid accusations.
That's half the problem here, I think. We're from two different countries. In Canada, it is much more of a crime to hate a group of people (or, I suppose, everybody) than it is to hate an individual. We have special hate crime laws up here, and I (as a person with democratic rights) would never give my vote to those who would reppeal such a law.
>Children, however, are not
No. Children are protected from what they say and do. When they are no longer protected from what they say and do that's when they are adults. In Ontario, Canada, for example, children under 12 can commit no crimes. That's because they are kids. After that age, they are covered from life improsonment by the (highly controversial) young offenders act, but can be (IIRC), and are, charged with any crime that adults are.
>Katz is on the side of the Bill of Rights in this case.
I might not be an American, but I know the Bill of Rights doesn't cover death threats in many states.
>You who advocate investigation every time someone says the words 'kill' and 'people' in the same sentence?
You missed a few words: "I", "want" and "to". I want to means just that, premeditation to do something.
>It's the word of one minor against another.
Like I say, if you can be a witness, then you aren't a minor. Cripes, if we all thought that what people under 18 said was total BS then there'd never be another sexual assault case in the courts again!
>the boy's parents have one legal recourse in the event their child is falsely accused: they can sue the accusers.
The LATIMES says this: "The boy was charged with making terrorist threats and intimidating a witness, and a juvenile court judge ordered him to serve six months' probation."
He commited the crime. The law says so and I'll go by what the judge said, not you or Katz.
That's why the suit was not a case of libel or slander, this is what the Judge said. LA Times: " Kristina's actions were protected by a California law that shields speech in the public interest."
I find that sweet justice. Using the law itself against someone that seeks to use it as a defense for his criminal actions.
>If I called the cops and told them I heard you say you want to kill people, do you think that's enough for them to investigate you? No...
That isn't your choice to make (although you are free to enjoy an opinion about it). It is up to the police to decide whether this allegation held enough balance to be cause for an investigation.
>These kids, you'll remember. don't live in the real world.
I think they do. School was pretty real world. I've got a job now, and I'm not in high school and I can attest to that. Your opinion might differ. That's OK. That's why they're opinions.
>If you call crimestoppers and say "I heard this dude say he wants to kill" they won't and can't do anything.
That because in that case it is hear-say. I heard someone say that they heard some one say xyz. This is not such a case. This is a direct witness of a statement.
>The girl, however, had no knowledge of any crime,
The girl witnessed the crime of a death threat. Full knowledge and (in her case) full disclosure. Whether she can gather further evidence is really more the police's problem then hers.
>The tip line in the school isn't to help catch criminals, but to foster an Orwellian fear of speaking and to create a culture wherein no student can express his feelings safely.
Opinions are like Assholes, everybody's got one. My asshole says that my opinions is such that snitch lines are great. I voted twice for a long time supporter of snitch lines, Mike Harris, our current Premier (eq. Govenor). Sorry, but from where I stand, public opinion has you beat.
Thoughts of murder should only be expressed to psychologists (I think in the case of discussing such matters with these people, you are protected from "Death Threat" utterances). If you go around the school telling others you want to kill them, well, then (as I said before) you're crazy and need to speak with someone who can help you before you get yourself in trouble.
>Placing that burden [of a snitching] on a bunch of kids is destructive.
The courts already agree with me, these "kids" as witnesses aren't kids. Snitching implies being a witness, so therefore the minute a 15 year old picks up that phone to report a death threat the court agrees, these kids are adults.
>[replying to my 'adults on AOL' comment] Rather than supporting your argument (incoherent as it is), this comment actually harms it,
Are you suggesting people using AOL aren't adults? Adults flame each other all the time on AOL and again, I stand by that. One doesn't need to use their brain to see that in action.
>Wasn't Ghandi assassinated? Do you really have to threaten someone to be dangerous?
We are trying to stick to legal terms here. Dangerous thought (excepting in my country Hate Thought, and in both much of the US and Canada, Death threats) is not considered dangerous in a legal sense.
>Should we expect a bunch of fickle teenagers to understand it? Hell, teenagers can't even grasp that fucking sometimes gets you pregnant!
That's 1960's talk for ya. I will vouch, as a younger adult, that students are taught well before being teenagers that sex is a precursor to pregnancy. If they don't heed that advice, well, that is their fault. And if you don't think minors understand killing is wrong, you must be pretty scared for you life whenever you pass an all-ages nightclub.
>You want them to take responsibility for judging the mental health of a peer they may have little or no contact with?
This isn't really about mental health, although I did mention, since I think the boy has mental problems. It is about a victim of a crime. The victim of a death threat.
>You don't murder people during a war...
I don't see any tanks around. Are there many patrolling the streets of California?
>The ability to understand that killing is murder...
True. But it does have everything to do with knowing if your comments are acceptable or not. His weren't. The judge said so. She was a victim.
>Having spent the whole time justifying school snich lines, you tell us that it's the job of the police to anticipate dangerous behavior!
And what better tool can they have at their disposal than the comments of those involved in crimes?
>Thus, educators, parents, and to a lesser degree psychologists, ARE responsible for watching out for and anticipating behavior.
That's the crown jewel of your post, my friend. You are looking at it from the viewpoint of that death threatening boy as being some sort of victim that needs protecting. No. Protection means to keep harm from happening. The parents, et al. are only negligent for letting this girl be near this boy when he uttered those words. They aren't responsible to the point of keeping him quiet.
>Unless, of course, you'd rather the police take charge of your kids for you.
I'd rather the police take charge of children then Katz (sorry, a bad joke).
But seriously, I advocate not that the police take care of children, but that they take care of adult situations. Adult situations involve crime. Saying you want to kill people (with implied intent) is a crime in most states (I'm pretty sure California is one of them).
I logged out and boom! A Jon Katz story on the homepage. Normally I keep him muzzled, but damn, I screwed up. So I read it. You never know when (or if) someone will buy a clue. After reading that article, I think he still owes me money.
So, on to the meat of my comment:
First off, anyone 15 and over (and living in North America, or another English speaking country) is, in my book, adult enough to 100% understand the English language, and more than adult enough to understand killing is bad. I'll assume they were both in the same class (and, the same age, the story is full of missing details). That would make them 15, going on what the LA Times says.
If the parents from Lancaster didn't want to spend the money, and the school didn't want to prosecute, then shit man, you aren't under a gun. Just don't prosecute. If you do and lose, TS! That's the way the pickle squirts!
Neither the stoolie, nor the nutcase (and anyone who suggests that everyone should die is a certifiable nut) deserve an ounce of sympathy. I didn't see anything about her insisting she be in the WPP, despite her claims that the nut threatened her. That's what it's there for. Use it. If she was denied, well, then I'd be angry.
If you are a nut and don't seek treatment, TFB. Although, one has to wonder if the parents of this insane man hadn't noticed this behaviour before. They need a little blame.
Why is it that anything that happens on school property makes it automatically 100% the school's job to deal with it? Heck, if I threaten the life of people at work it becomes (mostly) my resposibility to defend myself, and the victim's responsibility to prosecute me.
"Turning kids into informers is viscerally anti-democratic."
That's bullshit. Are you saying that because the police exist we therefore live in a police state? She had the right to not say anything. She also had the right not to personally sue the offender, and let the criminal courts take care of the matter. Take anything to civil court and lose, and you get no sympathy from me.
"there was never any evidence he planned to harm or kill anyone"
If I come up to you and say "I want to kill people." would you just toss that out the window? Which side are you on, anyways, Katz? The criminal's?
"[the boy] is threatened with jail for allegedly making a remark that would, in other times, be considered stupid or worthy of some suspension time."
In the Real World(tm) making death threats is serious. Very serious. It shows a plan to murder. Just plotting to murder is illegal, you know. If you think plotting to kill is just stupid and is for kicks then you need a check up.
Providing "snitch" lines is normal in Real Life(tm) too. Where I am, they have CrimeStoppers. And, if they use your evidence and the person goes to Jail, you actually get a cash bonus. *This* line is for anyone, not just teenagers. Most people think this service kicks ass. The criminals have a problem with it, I hear, though.
These snitch lines are needed. If they were easier for students to access before Columbine there's pretty good chance someone would have picked up the phone and gotten those muderers the help they needed before it was too late.
"Online, teenagers flame each other and everybody else all the time."
And adults don't? You've never seen people on AOL, have you?
"Anybody who's different or doesn't conform -- or who is angry -- can seem dangerous"
Total complete baseless bullshit. If you don't conform you aren't necessarialy dangerous. Look at Ghandi, he damn well didn't conform to being your average Indian. But was he a dangerous man? You're only dangerous when you start threatening other people.
"and kids often had a tough time distinguishing between run-of-the-mill obnoxious and posturing behavior, and truly dangerous behavior worthy of being reported"
Oh please. _Maybe_ there is a _little_ problem with distinction, but not understanding that to kill is murder? Like I say, if you don't understand that by 15, you need to be locked up for the good of society.
"It's the job of parents, educators and psychologists to watch our for and anticipate dangerous behavior."
No, we already employ people to do that. We call them the Police.
Just my 2 cents.
I still use VTWM whenever I set up a machine. TWM, updated, and with Virtual Paging. Wow!
Here's a screenshot.
Easy to understand files, alyways compiles, and lightning quick. Makes my 1990 NCD XTerms usable again! :-)
>Face it, if you're under 20, you are an idiot. Under 30, stupid. Under 40, average. Under 50, better. Under 60, great.
Must be hard to be 19 and an idiot, stupid, average, better, and great all at the same time. Now THAT'S a world of experience.
How come your above average intelligence (or do you admit you're under 20?) didn't pick up on the fact that under 20 + under 30 + under 40 + under 50 + under 60 == anything under 20?
An average is what's between above and below 1/2. So, yes, Ike is a fool to suggest that that statement was in error. That would put him in that "below average" category.
And, for the record, I'm 22, or so I'm told. The universe didn't explode, after all. And I'd suggest my 55 year old father wouldn't have gotten that 'joke'. Not a slam at him, I respect him more than anyone else, but just the truth.
>I got this idea in Japan.
/. because the technophilic community fascinates me, and is at odds with my slightly technophobic tendencies."
Oh please GOD use the right word. KAIZEN.
And it has NOTHING to do with what you're talking about. It is ALL ABOUT empowering workers and taking your power to bootcamp employees away.
For cryin' out loud, you can garner that much by watching that import car commercial where the junior worker pulls the emergency stop because of a defect, with later praise for following their Kaizen attitude.
The fact you had no clue that "That idea from Japan" is in fact Kaizen shows your management skills were found inside a cracker jack box.
>When they first come they are awfull, weeping moaners, like you.
Slashdot is nothing more than a moaner's outlet. Why are you browsing here if you don't have a beef with something? Or did I misread it and you mean _you_ have a beef with stuff, and everyone "below" you (which is the entire world, I gather) should be your yes men?
Well all you gotta do is watch an episode of the Simpsons to see what your managerial attitude is going to get you. You know, the one where Mr. Burns loses all his cash because all he hires are conforming yes men.
You sound like a whiny old asshole who thinks that his age makes him wise, and not his experience. Just like that 50 year old I saw waiting for the bus the other day bitching how he can't get nowhere in life, even though he's twice as old as the people getting hired in his old company.
>You earn that sort of treatment
Right on. You learn it through experience, not age.
>Its these no nonsense techniques that have made my company grow 500% in 24 months.
And you prove I'm right. You've been in business an entire two years (and, might I mention, the hottest two years ever for all computer business growth) and you think you have your shit concrete.
Well, let me tell you, come recession time, you're going to be shitting those moulded bricks of employees you have when it comes layoff time.
From your Bio:
"In my spare time I create Art and compose Music, but my main profession is as a Graphics Artiste & sometime poet. I am sometimes paid for the latter."
You sometimes get paid for being a manager? Now that's fresh!
"I enjoy challenging my conceptions."
Then why the hell are you sending your employees to a bootcamp so they can all conform to your every whim?
"ADDENDUM: I do not troll Slashdot, and I shall remove this when I do."
I think you forgot to remove it this time.
"I am interested in
That says PHB to me. And everyone else here.
What you talkin' 'bout, whippersnapper?
As a child of the Eisenhower era, I must tell you, your ideas are most out of place.
*I'll* make a man out of you. Let me tell you, life doesn't begin until you are retired. Come here and I'll teach you a little about REAL LIFE.
REAL LIFE was when you had to weld stuff together and get burnt every day. In REAL LIFE we didn't have those stupid computers taking everyone's jobs.
You're saying you make your office boy the TEABOY? TEA? In my time we got our boys to get us beer. And we drank 'em on the way to work too. Damn whoever put seatbelts in cars and stopped drunk driving. Freakin' hippie Kids.
Pasty looking? I'm willing to bet you are looking a might bit pastier than the war verterans ten years older than me.
In my days we didn't even all have electricity for light, never mind Air Conditioning. Every morning my parents got up and lit the gas lanterns. You people in the 70's and 80's have it damn easy, what with your electronic adding machines and TV.
Selfish? I've never seen such a selfish bunch of youth than you Thatcher children. My parents told me all about their stories when kids were going hungry without their rations, and you go and suggest your 70's hippies and 80's wall street kids aren't selfish? My God, the impetousness of youth!
Weak? I bet one of my veteran buddies could snap you in half! And as far as being a slacker is concerned, well, you got to laze through all your college years with a calculator and a biro. *I* had to use a slide rule and a fountain pen.
How can you be fit when Thatcher stopped giving milk to you young kids? What a great way to ruin your bones. I'd be angry too if my government was too cheap to give me a $0.02 carton of milk to keep me healthy when they aren't even at war!
You hippies certainly changed the world alright, just look at how horrible it is now. All this convenience -- it's like all kids do is just wander from street to street with nothing to do!
When I worked for a company it was for life. Pension schemes were just a sideline... never much cared about 'em then. You hippies just spent your life bitching about everything, and now you say you "took the difficulties leveled at us with spirit and character." Well, excuse me if I don't find that a little contradictory. But that's the style for kids of your time.
>I never thought ten years would make such a difference.
Neither did I. Kids killing kids. Kids with guns. Oil Crises, Vietnam, Gulf War. People putting the screws to the education system. Crappy music.
P1/1--END SARCASM--DJ--Date:02/07/01
*** BURST SHEET HERE ***
>No one gets hurt 'cause they're ENGINEERS. They have looked at all the contingent risks and eliminated them.
Three words following these: Tacoma Narrows Bridge.
I did this once before, but WTH, I'll do it again:
Lets go by what the RIAA themselves sez is in the cost of a CD (http://www.riaa.com/MD-US-7.cfm).
- Manufacturing costs
(I'll assume these are the same price as a consumer CDR/w Jewel case, although they will really be much lower): $0.50/cd.
- Artist compensation
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that each artist in a 4 person band (which is probably as big as most groups get) deserves $50,000 per year (not bad really), and that they can pump out 1 cd per year. $200,000/year.
- Studio engineering, sound mixing, producing, yadda, yadda.
Well here's some pricing:
http://www.agt.net/public/trstudio/rates.html, $3000 a CD.
But that sounds a little low to me. I'll say that studio time is going to run $15,000/album.
- Cost of label signing up people
That's a promotional thing. See below.
- Marketing and Promotion
*Good* music doesn't need millions in marketing and promotion. If your music sucks, I really don't care about you and this pricing isn't about you. I'll suggest that $100,000 should cover a decent marketing campaign. Maybe throw in another $100,000 for a music video.
- Art
Ooooo... yeah... that's gotta cost, what, $5000? Probably the cheapest thing in making a CD
- "Costly" concert tour?
Yeah, that's what they said. Costly. Uhhh, you mean that you just burn the $75 I gave you for my ticket? Huh? This is a moneymaker, not a moneyloser. -$50,000 in artist compensation.
- Not all CDs are profitable
No shit. Neither are all of anything else. This is called life. Deal with it. Selling a CD is like opening up a small business. You might go bust, or you might make it big.
- "$12.75" per cd
No, not even close. Man oh man, is the RIAA whacked. Go to a record store and buy something! $20 for NEW CDs, and that's all we care about in these discussions.
- "While the price of CDs has fallen, the amount of music provided on a typical CD has increased substantially"
Wow, yeah, those new extra long 80 minute CDs can hold a whopping 7.5% more music. Substantial? I think not.
Average total discs sold: According to the RIAA, 27000 new releases are created per year. "420 million units in just the first six months of 2000." (RIAA) I'll double that for the year. That means each disc sells an average of (drumroll) 31111 copies.
Now, we'll multiply the per CD costs by 31111. That's: $15555.5
Now add in the yearly costs (assuming 1 album per year per artist/band): $370,000
Total the two: $385,555.5
Now divide by albums sold: $12.39/cd.
Who gets the $7.61 per album profit? All for S/H and record store profit? I hope not.
And that's ensuring the artist is compensated that first year. After that point, when no more promotion of that album is needed, and the artist is fully compensated, the album should then cost $5 or less.
So why is it that I can't get Fatboy Slim's old albums for under $15?
Gouging. Plain and simple. Through and through.
According to the article, the power source (watch batteries) is holding them back in size reductions now.
How about using the round watch batteries as wheels? Take a disadvantage, and make it into an advantage!
Well, if you mean content, say it. ;-)
:-( It's hard to guess that's what you really meant so say, especially in print. I've had that same trouble too, even though I do try to be precise with what words I choose.
Say "rationalize your 40 gig pirated music/movies collection" if that's what you mean. Although there are some here who would flame you for saying "pirated" because that implies rape, destruction of property, etc.
I wasn't trying to be a jerk, but I've lost count of how many times I hear stories about people being "busted for owning MP3s".
Well, not a big deal or anything, but the actual introduction of ISA (as far as the PC goes) would have been with the first IBM PC, which my copy of "The PC Programmer's Handbook" by Sanchez and Canton (this book rules, BTW) says the first IBM PC was released August 12, 1981.
:) here's a few about that machine:
Since we're rhyming off pointless facts
- 64k RAM
- 40k ROM BIOS + BASIC
- (TLA time) 1 SS, DD MFM 40 tpi 160k FH 5 1/4" FDD. MFM made it totally incompatible with GCR C64 floppies meaning one had to build an adapter...
- DOS 1.0 included (duh)
- 8088 processor (the 8086 PS/2 25 & 30 came later)
- 5 slots
- 1" card clearance (later shaved down to today's 0.8" for 8 slots)
- 63.5 Watt linear P/S (or maybe it was switching after all... one tends to forget)
- Choice of MDA or CGA video
- No HDD
- 83 key keyboard (the IBM M boards don't even begin to compare to this IIRC ALL-steel tank).
- EXTRA LOUD PC beeper
Now, wait a minute why do I care and where were we, oh yeah:
That makes ISA almost 20 years old! ISA is dead! Long live ISA!
whoops, yeah, what was I thinking....
:-# -- Is that the international smiley for "barfing"?
That anonymous coward sounds like someone so scared of me and my superiour ideas and intellect he won't even give me an alias or email address.
Instead the coward plays a silly ploy generating baseless insults.
>rationalize your 40 gig divx/mp3
Sure, why not. My collection includes:
- Free promotional material.
- Fair use MP3 backups of all my CDs.
- Time shifted videos that I still need to watch.
If that ain't legal then sue me.
>but please don't ignore the fact that you are really stealing.
Huh? Say what? Oh, I see. You're confused about the distinction between format (MP3/DiVX) and the content.
Okay, I'll clear it up for use in terms you might understand.
A long time ago there were these "VTR Format Wars" in which the Beta format (owned by Sony) and the VHS format (freely licensed by JVC) were competing. I'm sure some people confused the VHS format with stolen content, since VHS was used for many things, including Home Recordings, and "unlicensed" distribution of movies [as JVC was fully open with their format]. Sony, on the other hand, preferred a stranglehold grip on the market (at first). So, if one couldn't make the distinction between casette size, then YES, Beta only held "legal" movies.
But once consumers got over these hangups in the late 70's/early 80's they realised how much nicer it was to have the _format_ abstracted from the _content_ and simply chose VHS.
Another example:
TVs vs. Theaters. At a theater you'll notice that only licensed content is shown. On a TV any content can be shown, legal and stolen. So one might, erroneously, conclude that the Theater format precludes the possibility of showing stolen material.
Let me clear that up. If you were to purchase the equipment to make your own ceullulite movie strip, then all of a sudden the theater is a "stolen" format only, right?
Nope, because you have to make the abstratction between content (stolen vs. legal) and format (VHS, Beta, TV, Teater, DiVX, MP3).
Does that clear it up at all for you? I'm sure I can come up with more examples if that doesn't explain it.
>just because a post has the word "microsoft" in it doesn't necesarily mean you need to bash it.
I was looking for the keywords "Rights Management", "Secure Audio Path", "scrambles", and "content-protection", simply because I don't agree with these ideas. I couldn't care less if Linus integrated these into Linux. These words make anything they touch suck, IMHO.
Microsoft chose to use them. Their problem, not mine.
>What was said is that there is a way to prevent the signal from even getting to the speakers in the first place.
.wav file having a signal over 22.5 kHz no matter how hard you try. The highest "normal" .wav file sampling rate I've seen is 48 kHz, which means a maximum output of 24 kHz.
.wav file. That's so strange I'm gonna assume Windows itself will go belly up trying to play it.
If you are talking about encoding raw PCM/WAVE to MP3 this just isn't possible.
The sample rate would exclude the remotest possibility of a normal, CD Quality
If you wanted to encode a 30kHz sound, you'd need a 60kHz sampled
If this were hardware, however, and if for some strange reason you were to attempt to run a DAC/ADC outside it's limits, then yeah, you'd have trouble. But that would be a design fault necessary in hardware...
I'm sure there'd be _some_ way of making this hard to break, like you suggest, though. Maybe include a loud constant 20 kHz tone that's filetered out on "protected" hardware, thereby causing people listening to the raw source to get headaches...