>Bullshit. It'll be on Windows by the end of the year, hence accessible to everyone.
So you're admitting that right now, to use it, you require a Mac?
Seems to me I'm right until Apple changes their idiotic way of doing things (trying to retard PC development by a year or two, and failing miserably every time at their own cost). Note to Apple: You need to come up with something new and "necessary" if you ever want to sway PC users. A different, incompatible music format is neither new nor necessary.
>You may not like the iTunes Music Service, but it's a far better solution than what companies like Microsoft have in mind.
Yes, but not better than emusic. Not at all better, in any way, whatsoever.
I don't give a flying crap about what music M$ releases. I'll never buy anything more than the bare minimum necessary to use my computer from them.
>The weak DRM on the AAC's downloaded from iTMS protect your personal use of the music. You can put them on an unlimited number of portable players, burn 10 CD's of the same playlist and stream to 3 Macs on your home LAN.
How does that protect my personal use of the music?
Seems to me if it were protecting my personal use of the music, I'd be able to transcode it to MP3 for the 99% of today's music players that support it (unlike AAC). I have three standalone players that play MP3 right now, and not a single one will ever play AAC.
Know of anything for under $30 that can handle AAC? Perhaps you can change my mind.
>That covers a lot of personal use ground quite nicely, and frankly I'm surprised that the RIAA went with that kind of scheme.
Why shouldn't they? It stops you from doing things you could easily do with a CD. They always love to shackle the consumer.
>My biggest complaint about iTMS is that I can't get higher bitrate rips.
Then try emusic. They encode at higher bitrates and better quality. And they're far cheaper.
Good point. We'd be totally screwed, because without those 85 lines of code, we'd never be able to get linux to operate.
And there's no possible way to rewrite them either. No sir diddly, never more than one way to do anything at all.
You're a hoot.
Oh, and to the other AC that replied: I'm libertarian. Being that and realising the stupidity of SCO's moves aren't mutually exclusive. And libertarians don't believe in buying laws at all, so that covers pretty much everything else.
>I use Look for my connection...limited to 1mbit DSL, but no bandwidth caps, and I've never been hasssled for excessive use.
Although Look does limit their wireless customers to 7.5 Gigs, tops. Fortunately, they don't rape you on overage fees like some companies do (hint, hint Bell ExpressVu) at $7.95 per GB overage fees. Now, if only I could get rid of the modem uplink, it'd actually be stable...
>In countries like Australia and Canada, the Internet is important (small towns in the middle of nowhere - lived once in a town of 600 people - no where to buy shoes, cloths, books - and 6 hours from the nearest town).
What's funny is that while you are right, those towns are exactly the places that never get internet.
I live in one 100 people shy 600 in Ontario, and a reliable 28.8 connection would be a godsend.
However, I do agree, overall, DSL is available in Canada. Just not to places that really need it the most. If only *I* could walk to the library (at all!) and use high speed internet... that would be nice...
I think I can change your mind on that with a simple question:
Explain how, if I download a Celine Dion song from KaZaa, Celine Dion (or any other unwilling party) has lost something a court (or reasonable person) would consider compensable. Note I only want it as an intro song for the menu to the DVD I recorded from PPV (or whoever would play Titanic).
Please note, I don't currently own any Celine Dion music, and never plan to. Also note Celine Dion was already compensated monetarialy for that song by my watching PPV.
>we need to either start supporting stores like apple's iTunes
Actually, we need to support emusic. iTunes is worse than the RIAA! 100% of their music is DRM protected and it forces you to buy into a VERY expensive music player (a Macintosh) to use it. BLECH.
And I've been a loyal emusic lover for a long time...
>however, we honestly have -NO- right to give away the music on a transferable media (tape/cd/mp3/etc).
In Canada we pay a pirate tax per CD recordable. This gives me the right to pirate music. I personally hate being treated as a criminal, but what they heck am I going to do about it, apart from only buying US bootlegged CD-Rs (which I already do, like most smart Canadians)?
The fact that the piracy tax only covers CD to CD copies is shortsighted, and unfair. It should include all acts of piracy, limiting it to just a few is lame and pointless. A lot like the RIAA, really.
>My main goal is to help humanity by finding a job that does medical research.
Mother Theresa died a pauper, and get a hell of a lot less press and recognition than Bill Gates.
Consider that for a moment.
>Look at all those rich people who run auto/health insurance, or lawyers. They hurt society but make a great deal of money in the process.
You are only considering the direct effects of their business on one person (the customer that has a hard time recovering their insurance). Let's look at the big picture for an auto insurance company:
- Employs thousands of people.
- Keeps thousands of people from being completely ruined over unintentionally caused harm.
- Employs tens of thousands of contractors.
Overall, the benefits of an auto insrance company outweigh the "costs". The same can be said for lawyers, although as a law firm is generally much smaller than an auto insrance firm (say, Ford for example) the amount of people helped is much smaller.
Not all lawyers are bad people. Deal with one _before_ you get into trouble and you'll appreciate the hell out of them.
If you ask me, a job that has absolutely zero overhead costs (porting software using GNU tools), that you should already know how to do, and will take under a month, and could potentially pay $4000 is almost no risk at all! The only thing you have to lose is your time. I assume you already have a computer. I guess you _might_ have to buy an amiga, but more than likely you would get that donated to you if you said you're taking on this project.
BTW: If you want to help society, take that money and spend it. The more money flowing in the economy, the better it is for everyone.
>Some people seem to reason that after i buy my Saab i should have to buy a third party steeringwheel in order to drive it.
A Saab sold without a steering wheel would be like an OS that requires you to purchase third party keyboard and mouse drivers.
Lets be more realistic. Some people (ie: Moi) seem to think that after you buy your Saab you should have to buy a third party subwoofer for the car, and that you'd probably be smart to replace the stereo while you're at it.
User: "I want to print 10,000 mailing labels. What do I do?" Me: "Use mail merge." User: "What's that?" Me: "Click this, then click that, then click, click, etc, etc"
And that's why I re-imaged any machine I found that wasn't company spec (ie: was infected with idiotware, like BonziBuddy or WebShots). I don't have time to sit there and guide you through menus and systems customized to your personal use. If you don't like the corporate standard, don't phone support.
>Untrue. the NAMPS cell phone bands were blocked in all North American scanners.
No, the Bearcat scanners could do it without any modifications (according to some sources I heard). They just cost 3x the cost of the usual line of Radio Shack brand scanners as Canada was the only country that could sell them in North America (and, of course, we don't have the buying power to make such a niche item cheap).
The law in Canada specifically allows you to listen into any communication you like, digital or analog. You simply may not decode or decrypt the communications if they are authorized. There is no such thing as a "banned" frequency in Canada, period.
>That is just one scanner, I realize, but all of them are (were) like that.
The Haruteq book has a list of many scanners for sale (or, with today's sad state, that were for sale) in Canada that are able to receive a complete set of signals, without any purposefully programmed gaps (the only gaps present would be due to the scanner being physically unable to receive the frequencies).
Here's a scanner for sale that can handle what you want. Get the correct version.;-)
>For some reason I feel like talking about some of these things more.
It's only by talking about issues that people can best understand each other's opinions, and by that, better understand one's own opinions.
>I am confused about this paradox you present - gays that believe in the bible are asked to commit suicide peacefully?
Perhaps you can better educate me on this point. It's my understanding that if one takes the KJV bible literally, Leviticus 20:13 suggests that gays will be put to death.
However, at the same time, one of the ten commandments is "Thou shalt not kill", which seems to leave only one "option" open, suicide.
But perhaps I'm confused on this. I do know there are many bible-based religions that don't take it that literally.
I only try to avoid even mentioning things like that with most people, as, quite honestly, few ever give me cause to mention things like that (not that you did, apart from asking:)
>On another topic, throwing around derogatory comments like "desert cult" do nothing to pursuade us, only to get brownie points for yourself with like minded slashdotters.
I agree. There's no excuse for BS like that...
>And the atheist says "what's not good about me? I'm good enough that I don't need God".
Some may say that. Some have simply decided that they feel the bible is far too inconsistent to base one's most important life decisions on. Just because you've rejected religion _doesn't_ automatically mean you've rejected the possibility of doing wrong.
IMHO, bad choices are made by a lack of intelligence on the matter at hand, and since nobody knows everything, and nobody ever will (unless someone builds a time machine + transporter), no atheist should ever think themselves perfect.
>I'd be curious to see just exactly what it is an atheist could possibly believe they are "good enough" at so that they don't need God.
Simple -- I feel I'm "good enough" at making decisions that affect others positively, while also ensuring the effect on myself is either neutral, or positive.
Sure, I make mistakes, but up to now, none serious enough to alienate family, friends I wanted to keep, or neighbours. I think that's a good enough track record, IMHO, without asking "God" to tell me what I should(n't) do.
>After all, without God there is no right or wrong - there is only "something that helps me pass on my seed" and "something that stops me passing on my seed".
Of _course_ there's right and wrong. What's right is what causes humanity to progress in a positive manner, so that any children you have might prosper, and so that your name will be remembered in a good light. Generally, this happns by improving humanity as a whole, which means not doing things to harm it (ie: Hurting other people).
I'd rather that if someone hundreds of years from now crosses my obit. they weren't saying "Look, it's shepd the Tryrant!".
>The fact that atheists come by a set of moral laws independently of religion is a testimony to God's existence and a mockery of what the atheist believes.
Say what? That doesn't compute. If group a produces set b independently of group c, which produces the same set b, it is automatically group c that produced set b?
Which brings me to what I said earlier, and why I don't believe in the bible. Inconsistencies in logic abound.
As an interesting test, you'll find that many animals, despite the fact that such lower life forms cannot understand the mere conception of a "God", do have feelings, many of which seem quite human. Harm an animal and it'll either get enraged or cower. Befriend it and it won't harm you (usually). It may even help you.
The fact that animals can have these simple feelings says something about the fact that humans could be pre-programmed with a set of moral rules from birth. And the fact that the human brain is so large and so much more complex than that of any other species would clearly point to a much more developed and complex rule system. One that helps govern an orderly society, perhaps?
>If natural selection sets any precedence, then almost every atheist I view is not living the way they should.
As an appeal to the bible reader in you, Matthew 7:1 suggests that you might want to avoid this...
>They should all be living in ways that helps them get more children - what path they choose is irrelevant (being nice, deceptive, violent, etc). What is important is producing as many children as possible.
Then again, by this "Atheism's goal is reproduction" logic, that can't happen, can it? There can be no gay Atheists in in a Fox's Hole. Then again, the
>I'd assume there is some justification (possibly stupid), but I can't think what. If there really isn't any good reason, you ought to be able to convince enough other people to get it changed. Sensible government is not automatic. It requires effort by sensible people. Take some responsibility.
Exactly. In fact, it's clear I'm willing to take all the responsibility.
However, extracting power from the hands of others is always a struggle.
That's why I advocate never giving it to them in the first place.
To show that your opinions matter enough to put your name on them. How can I take someone who won't sign their name to anything seriously?
>Modern comb filters do the impossible, huh? Neato.
Like I said, why not check for yourself, with your own two eyes. I have a 50" set, and there's no difference, or, if there is any, it's only measurable with special equipment or telephile (TM) vision.
>I wish you would stop saying things that simply aren't true.
I wish you would check your facts against something other than a radiola brand TV.
>WHAT? I don't care what your source is, once you squeeze Y, Cr, and Cb into a single signal, you're going to get blurring and bleeding. It's inevitable.
Again, get a new TV. Sorry yours is so shitty.
>No. If you want to play your little Slashdot games, go right ahead. I choose not to.
So, you are going to sit about monitoring this thread for my reply all day? Sounds lonely. At least I get IMed every time someone replies, so I don't have to waste my life here.
>My TV is a Sony KD-34XBR2. It's got half a dozen sets of composite, Y-C, and Y-Cr-Cb inputs. Composite video looks like shit. Y-C looks better. Y-Cr-Cb looks very good.
Clearly it's misconverged, or something else is wrong with it if it's as shitty as you suggest. Get it fixed and come back to me.
>Oh, boy. You're really an idiot, aren't you? Nobody's used Betacam for serious production for YEARS. Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, is shot on either Digital Betacam (for SD production) or HDCAM or D5-HD (for HD production). Hell, I haven't even SEEN a Betacam tape since the late 1990's.
YAY! So, if this digital shit is all the rage, why do I get so many analog C-Band uplink feeds still?
You are so full of it. Sure _some_ places use that, but not everywhere is CNN or WB, my friend.
Uh. And your opinion isn't even worth enough to log in.
>Once luminance and chroma signals are squeezed together into a composite signal, they cannot be separated again. So I don't care how good your TV is, it can't do squat to make a composite signal look better than hammered shit.
Sorry, it isn't 1960 anymore. Modern comb filters do that, and do it well.
If you aren't ignorant, you might have at least mentioned that it's a digital source, so the signal was never combined to start with (my mistake).
Can I suggest also learning to use the login button?
>Composite video looks like shit. That's just how it is, and there's no way around it.
LOL. Obviously your TV is 30 odd years old. Can I perhaps suggest you take a look at how an HDTV deals with converting composite NTSC video? I think you'd be surprised. It isn't perfect, but then again, unless you have access to the master BetaCam tape, nothing you'll be dealing with is.
>I would definitely buy water there if it was the only place to buy water, no matter how bad it is. I have no choice and I have nowhere to file a grievance.
So, you're in the same boat, however I disagree with you that there's nowhere to file a grievance. It takes less than 30 minutes to fill out a small claims suit. Sue them under antitrust regulations if they have a monopoly and aren't providing a safe service. Seems clear and cut. You'd win without a lawyer.
>Suing large companies usually gets you nowhere.
Tell that to McDonald's. All they did was serve coffee that was "too hot" and lost millions of dollars. Imagine the result if they purposely served poisoned coffee.
>Who do you think is going to win in a case like that, someone making 30,000 a year or a corporation making 30 billion a year?
Clearly, the person in the right. And sometimes (eg. again, McDonald's coffee lady) it isn't the person in the right, and even then, it isn't always the person with the most money.
>Also look at MS. They make an inferior product that beats out better software that's free.
The product might be inferior, but it isn't hurting anybody (and if it is, MS already told you in BIG LETTERS not to use it for that purpose). The fact is people are paying for it because they want it. That might be because of better marketing. Whatever the reason, especially today, you don't need MS software to "survive". Sure, you might need it for your job, but even then, learning Microsoft Windows isn't going to leave you impaired in any way.
>Politcal scandals nowadays tend to either be about personal doings which are no one's else's business or involve corporations themselves, like Halliburton. The corporate scandals tend to be along the lines of Enron, which is an obvious reason for more regulation.
Hmmm, I have heard in the US that newspapers tend to be like this. In Ontario, they prefer to focus on what the government is ruining. In my case, the "big things" tend to be:
- Is the government ruining education, is privatization of the phone system/hydro a good thing, (locally) how bad did the city screw us over on RIM park, etc, etc.
Rarely do the leaders get their personal lives exposed, except in a few trashy newspapers, or as part of the "editorial" section. Hey, why not take a look at my local paper and see for yourself!:)
(If the registration is a PITA, and it certainly is, try the Sun)
>The point being that it's nice in theory to do that but people are not always in a position to help themselves (just like how communism is nice in theory).
It all depends on how much you believe in something. We're all selfish at heart, and most people, when pushed, will change their minds to suit their needs.
Right now I'd love to tax the hell out of all my competing businesses, but if mine went flat, I couldn't care less. That's human nature. And it's that selfishness (which that conservative is showing in abundance!) that is the reason why people can, and should, be responsible for themselves. Even when they are pretending they aren't, they really are.
>My frustration about building permits is that a lot of people who call themselves libertarians like to argue from this priciple to a lot of things that do affect others, even though they do it on their own land. Building unsafe housing
How does that affect you unless I permit you on my property? And if you do get hurt, you can still sue.
>filling wetlands
If I owned it, so what? If, for some reason, they're supposed to be "protected", then perhaps selling them to people is a bad idea!
>dumping toxic waste
You mean illegally? If you harm someone's property, that's against the law. Now, if you mean "dumping" it on property you own, then what's the problem?
If it leeches onto someone else's property, again, that person has been violated and will sue you.
>Sure we can just hold them responsible for their actions. (Unless they're already dead).
Bingo. Generally, most people don't die all that suddenly, and generally, if you're sickening to the point of death, you're not going to be interested in illegal dumping, wetland destruction, or any number of other things. You'll probably just want to lie on a bed and get it over with.
>And I'm sure we wont find out that a lot of people turn out to be irresponsible, and just figure they won't get caught (at least not before they're already dead.)
Like who? People aren't fruit flies, they usually live for decades. There aren't a lot of serious crimes that are so old that the perpetrator is likely dead. Sure, there's some, but we must be talking the millionths of a percent at that point.
>You can own your property. It's a nice feature of our society. In exchange for this nice feature, if you want to do something that's going to affect your property for longer than it's going to be your property, we'd like some say in it.
Your say should be devaluing my property. If I used it as a nuclear waste dump, but didn't harm any surrounding property in doing so, the only say should be the fact I can't even give the land away.
>If you wan't to do something on it that's going to affect others or their property, we'd like some say in it. If that's not "really" owning your property, sorry, tough luck.
Great. So you want to be able to tell me what I can do with my property?
I was just at the zoning commision about the property I want to rent. They say I can do it, but, for God only knows what reason, I can't have a structure on the land under 1 meter tall. This is the dumb crap people have to put up with because everyone runs about like chicken little thinking I'm going to build a nuclear reactor in their backyard. It's insane. You're more likely to be run over by a car, shot, or any number of other things than die (or be harmed) from someone wanting to do something unusual with their property.
>There are some people out there who insist they should have a say in it even if what you're doing won't affect anyone else or their property. These are known as "shitheads".
And there's the problem. Who is going to watch that there's no shitheads forcing buildings on my property to be over 1 m tall? And who will watch the watchers? And who will watch the watchers of the watchers?
Too much power breeds corruption, or at the very least, idiotic laws to justify the zoning commisions' own existence.
Now, if I could organize a way to vote that shithead out of office, I might be more comfortable with that. But how can I do that? And why is the zoning book for my city 2000 pages thick?
Because there's 1900 shitheads working for the city.
>Funny becuase the reason it is so bad is because of deregulation.
No, that statement itself is funny.
>The market is more free than it is in the US and it is causing major problems.
Where? In Ontario? Yes, it's been more free (somewhat) for about 2 years, if we're talking electricity and gas service. That's 10% of my estimated time it'll take. It simply takes a long time to convert to a free market. The deep-seated problems associated with communist services take a long time to weed out.
And, to top it all off, how many times has your phone not worked lately? Guess what, in Ontario the entire phone service is now privatized and we have some of the lowest (if not THE lowest) rates for phone service in the entire world, despite the fact that it costs more to hook up this vast country than most other developed nations.
Would you like to go back to paying $200 an hour to talk to people in Europe? I know I don't.
>Without regulation, corporations are left to do only what they are meant to do, make money, and that is at the expense of the consumer.
Exactly. And what do you think governments are left to do? Make money!
You know what's nice about corporations, though? If any one company had a debt as high as the Canadian governments' they'd be booted out of business in no time.
The crushing debt caused by government funded services is ruining this country by encouraging investors to find better prospects.
Another plus of corporate run services is that _you_ decide if you want them to exist or not. If you aren't happy with how something is run, you don't buy it. However, if you're not happy with a government service, what can you do? Complain to an Ombudsman? Like hell that'll do you any good.
>We shouldn't pretend that corporations are there to look out for us, that's not their job, it's the government's job.
When has the government looked out for your interests lately? Because of government people are dying in hospitals, they're dying from dirty water, dying from decrepit military equipment, an entire city has been jokingly named sarsborough, I can't participate in American culture, and my Grandmother has been denied medical services because no hospital and few nursing homes will take my money (she's not a landed immigrant yet, she's in limbo land right now for citizenship) and the worst part of it all is that the government stays in business using your money after events and policies like these.
If WalMart had killed a dozen people through a negligently run water supply you'd never buy water there again, and they'd be sued up the wazoo. But if it's the government, well, you don't have a choice, do you? I suppose you could dig a well, but wait, you're not zoned for it.
Don't believe me? Compare and contrast the number of corporate scandals that make front page of your local news to the number of government scandals that do.
There's only (normally) three people whose job it is to look out for you, and for two of them, their job officially ends when you turn 18.
So, tell me, if corporations are so poor at looking after their consumers, how many people in Canada have died from Mad Cow in Alberta beef? How many people die from PeTA (or whoever does it nowadays) poisoned turkeys on thanksgiving?
If people are expendable to corporations, why would they waste so much money ensuring our safety?
I'll tell you why: A dead person can't pay, and the living get the hint pretty quickly. Although, to the government, you're better off dead. That way they can tax your inheritors. And, as an added bonus, they don't have to pay for your medical services anymore.
>>Often the production of unlicensed goods is used by organised crime to launder money made from selling drugs, pornography and prostitution and to generally expand "business" opportunities.
>HUH?! How exactly does pirating anime get used for laundering money?
More importantly, what if you don't believe that any of those things are particularly bad?
Perhaps you should buy pirate anime to support your pet causes? ^_^
>I just don't get how intercepting a signal that is running through my own routers, using equiptment that I own, that just pass through as they would anyway, could be considered theft.
Exactly. And that's why ISPs do it all the time.
Ever heard of a packetshaper?
>Give me a break.
I will if you get in touch!
>You have as little right to hack satellite transmissions as you have to spy on military communications, cell phones, wireless keyboards, mouses and headphone, garage door openers, the EM emissions of my screen or anything else that happens to run across your airspace.
FYI:
>spy on military communications
Legal, if you can. Like hell you can, though.
>cell phones
Fuck, I do this all the time. And if the cops want to know, I'll tell them. There isn't any thing illegal about that.
BTW: The best range is on the 49 Mhz band, if anyone actually uses those old portable phones anymore.
>wireless keyboards, mouses
Again, totally legal.
>headphone
Considering how shitty the transmitters are on some of these, I don't have a lot of choice if I want to listen to a radio nearby.
>garage door openers
Why bother snooping in when the code is a whole 8-bits?
>EM emissions of my screen
I hate to break it to you, but Van Ecking is totally legit, and your government has been known to use it against you.
Slashdot Mirror
Why not just remove the faceplate?
That turns off my stereo mighty fast (an older Pioneer), and it has an "eject" button for that putpose too.
>Bullshit. It'll be on Windows by the end of the year, hence accessible to everyone.
So you're admitting that right now, to use it, you require a Mac?
Seems to me I'm right until Apple changes their idiotic way of doing things (trying to retard PC development by a year or two, and failing miserably every time at their own cost). Note to Apple: You need to come up with something new and "necessary" if you ever want to sway PC users. A different, incompatible music format is neither new nor necessary.
>You may not like the iTunes Music Service, but it's a far better solution than what companies like Microsoft have in mind.
Yes, but not better than emusic. Not at all better, in any way, whatsoever.
I don't give a flying crap about what music M$ releases. I'll never buy anything more than the bare minimum necessary to use my computer from them.
>The weak DRM on the AAC's downloaded from iTMS protect your personal use of the music. You can put them on an unlimited number of portable players, burn 10 CD's of the same playlist and stream to 3 Macs on your home LAN.
How does that protect my personal use of the music?
Seems to me if it were protecting my personal use of the music, I'd be able to transcode it to MP3 for the 99% of today's music players that support it (unlike AAC). I have three standalone players that play MP3 right now, and not a single one will ever play AAC.
Know of anything for under $30 that can handle AAC? Perhaps you can change my mind.
>That covers a lot of personal use ground quite nicely, and frankly I'm surprised that the RIAA went with that kind of scheme.
Why shouldn't they? It stops you from doing things you could easily do with a CD. They always love to shackle the consumer.
>My biggest complaint about iTMS is that I can't get higher bitrate rips.
Then try emusic. They encode at higher bitrates and better quality. And they're far cheaper.
Good point. We'd be totally screwed, because without those 85 lines of code, we'd never be able to get linux to operate.
And there's no possible way to rewrite them either. No sir diddly, never more than one way to do anything at all.
You're a hoot.
Oh, and to the other AC that replied: I'm libertarian. Being that and realising the stupidity of SCO's moves aren't mutually exclusive. And libertarians don't believe in buying laws at all, so that covers pretty much everything else.
You ain't seen nothing yet!
Nortel: $175 in January of 2000, $0.85 in August 2002.
If I had any money at that point, I'd have bought some stock in Nortel. If they went out of business Canada would go down the toilet economically.
>I use Look for my connection...limited to 1mbit DSL, but no bandwidth caps, and I've never been hasssled for excessive use.
Although Look does limit their wireless customers to 7.5 Gigs, tops. Fortunately, they don't rape you on overage fees like some companies do (hint, hint Bell ExpressVu) at $7.95 per GB overage fees. Now, if only I could get rid of the modem uplink, it'd actually be stable...
>In countries like Australia and Canada, the Internet is important (small towns in the middle of nowhere - lived once in a town of 600 people - no where to buy shoes, cloths, books - and 6 hours from the nearest town).
What's funny is that while you are right, those towns are exactly the places that never get internet.
I live in one 100 people shy 600 in Ontario, and a reliable 28.8 connection would be a godsend.
However, I do agree, overall, DSL is available in Canada. Just not to places that really need it the most. If only *I* could walk to the library (at all!) and use high speed internet... that would be nice...
>it really is nothing except stealing.
I think I can change your mind on that with a simple question:
Explain how, if I download a Celine Dion song from KaZaa, Celine Dion (or any other unwilling party) has lost something a court (or reasonable person) would consider compensable. Note I only want it as an intro song for the menu to the DVD I recorded from PPV (or whoever would play Titanic).
Please note, I don't currently own any Celine Dion music, and never plan to. Also note Celine Dion was already compensated monetarialy for that song by my watching PPV.
>we need to either start supporting stores like apple's iTunes
Actually, we need to support emusic. iTunes is worse than the RIAA! 100% of their music is DRM protected and it forces you to buy into a VERY expensive music player (a Macintosh) to use it. BLECH.
And I've been a loyal emusic lover for a long time...
>however, we honestly have -NO- right to give away the music on a transferable media (tape/cd/mp3/etc).
In Canada we pay a pirate tax per CD recordable. This gives me the right to pirate music. I personally hate being treated as a criminal, but what they heck am I going to do about it, apart from only buying US bootlegged CD-Rs (which I already do, like most smart Canadians)?
The fact that the piracy tax only covers CD to CD copies is shortsighted, and unfair. It should include all acts of piracy, limiting it to just a few is lame and pointless. A lot like the RIAA, really.
>His point is just because a crime is convenient and easy to commit doesn't mean it's legal.
Hmmm... and here I was under the impression that all crimes were illegal!
You mean there's exceptions to that rule? SWEET!
Perhaps you meant to suggest that if a crime is easy to commit it doesn't mean it's moral. And you're right, not all crimes are moral.
But some are. Take watching Max Headroom on broadcast TV in Canada. In general, a criminal act, but wrong? Well, okay, bad example...
>My main goal is to help humanity by finding a job that does medical research.
Mother Theresa died a pauper, and get a hell of a lot less press and recognition than Bill Gates.
Consider that for a moment.
>Look at all those rich people who run auto/health insurance, or lawyers. They hurt society but make a great deal of money in the process.
You are only considering the direct effects of their business on one person (the customer that has a hard time recovering their insurance). Let's look at the big picture for an auto insurance company:
- Employs thousands of people.
- Keeps thousands of people from being completely ruined over unintentionally caused harm.
- Employs tens of thousands of contractors.
Overall, the benefits of an auto insrance company outweigh the "costs". The same can be said for lawyers, although as a law firm is generally much smaller than an auto insrance firm (say, Ford for example) the amount of people helped is much smaller.
Not all lawyers are bad people. Deal with one _before_ you get into trouble and you'll appreciate the hell out of them.
If you ask me, a job that has absolutely zero overhead costs (porting software using GNU tools), that you should already know how to do, and will take under a month, and could potentially pay $4000 is almost no risk at all! The only thing you have to lose is your time. I assume you already have a computer. I guess you _might_ have to buy an amiga, but more than likely you would get that donated to you if you said you're taking on this project.
BTW: If you want to help society, take that money and spend it. The more money flowing in the economy, the better it is for everyone.
>Some people seem to reason that after i buy my Saab i should have to buy a third party steeringwheel in order to drive it.
A Saab sold without a steering wheel would be like an OS that requires you to purchase third party keyboard and mouse drivers.
Lets be more realistic. Some people (ie: Moi) seem to think that after you buy your Saab you should have to buy a third party subwoofer for the car, and that you'd probably be smart to replace the stereo while you're at it.
98% of support calls go like this:
User: "I want to print 10,000 mailing labels. What do I do?"
Me: "Use mail merge."
User: "What's that?"
Me: "Click this, then click that, then click, click, etc, etc"
And that's why I re-imaged any machine I found that wasn't company spec (ie: was infected with idiotware, like BonziBuddy or WebShots). I don't have time to sit there and guide you through menus and systems customized to your personal use. If you don't like the corporate standard, don't phone support.
Sorry, I guess I'm just a little grumpy.
>Untrue. the NAMPS cell phone bands were blocked in all North American scanners.
;-)
No, the Bearcat scanners could do it without any modifications (according to some sources I heard). They just cost 3x the cost of the usual line of Radio Shack brand scanners as Canada was the only country that could sell them in North America (and, of course, we don't have the buying power to make such a niche item cheap).
The law in Canada specifically allows you to listen into any communication you like, digital or analog. You simply may not decode or decrypt the communications if they are authorized. There is no such thing as a "banned" frequency in Canada, period.
>That is just one scanner, I realize, but all of them are (were) like that.
The Haruteq book has a list of many scanners for sale (or, with today's sad state, that were for sale) in Canada that are able to receive a complete set of signals, without any purposefully programmed gaps (the only gaps present would be due to the scanner being physically unable to receive the frequencies).
Here's a scanner for sale that can handle what you want. Get the correct version.
>And his life savings was only $12000, which isn't anything to sneeze at, but it's not like a bank robbery here.
For Bill Gates, no. For the average working stiff, still not going to ruin them.
For someone who only has $12,000, this is everything.
Would you be outraged if you saw someone stealing a bum's cardboard box and tin can collection?
I hope so.
>For some reason I feel like talking about some of these things more.
:)
It's only by talking about issues that people can best understand each other's opinions, and by that, better understand one's own opinions.
>I am confused about this paradox you present - gays that believe in the bible are asked to commit suicide peacefully?
Perhaps you can better educate me on this point. It's my understanding that if one takes the KJV bible literally, Leviticus 20:13 suggests that gays will be put to death.
However, at the same time, one of the ten commandments is "Thou shalt not kill", which seems to leave only one "option" open, suicide.
But perhaps I'm confused on this. I do know there are many bible-based religions that don't take it that literally.
I only try to avoid even mentioning things like that with most people, as, quite honestly, few ever give me cause to mention things like that (not that you did, apart from asking
>On another topic, throwing around derogatory comments like "desert cult" do nothing to pursuade us, only to get brownie points for yourself with like minded slashdotters.
I agree. There's no excuse for BS like that...
>And the atheist says "what's not good about me? I'm good enough that I don't need God".
Some may say that. Some have simply decided that they feel the bible is far too inconsistent to base one's most important life decisions on. Just because you've rejected religion _doesn't_ automatically mean you've rejected the possibility of doing wrong.
IMHO, bad choices are made by a lack of intelligence on the matter at hand, and since nobody knows everything, and nobody ever will (unless someone builds a time machine + transporter), no atheist should ever think themselves perfect.
>I'd be curious to see just exactly what it is an atheist could possibly believe they are "good enough" at so that they don't need God.
Simple -- I feel I'm "good enough" at making decisions that affect others positively, while also ensuring the effect on myself is either neutral, or positive.
Sure, I make mistakes, but up to now, none serious enough to alienate family, friends I wanted to keep, or neighbours. I think that's a good enough track record, IMHO, without asking "God" to tell me what I should(n't) do.
>After all, without God there is no right or wrong - there is only "something that helps me pass on my seed" and "something that stops me passing on my seed".
Of _course_ there's right and wrong. What's right is what causes humanity to progress in a positive manner, so that any children you have might prosper, and so that your name will be remembered in a good light. Generally, this happns by improving humanity as a whole, which means not doing things to harm it (ie: Hurting other people).
I'd rather that if someone hundreds of years from now crosses my obit. they weren't saying "Look, it's shepd the Tryrant!".
>The fact that atheists come by a set of moral laws independently of religion is a testimony to God's existence and a mockery of what the atheist believes.
Say what? That doesn't compute. If group a produces set b independently of group c, which produces the same set b, it is automatically group c that produced set b?
Which brings me to what I said earlier, and why I don't believe in the bible. Inconsistencies in logic abound.
As an interesting test, you'll find that many animals, despite the fact that such lower life forms cannot understand the mere conception of a "God", do have feelings, many of which seem quite human. Harm an animal and it'll either get enraged or cower. Befriend it and it won't harm you (usually). It may even help you.
The fact that animals can have these simple feelings says something about the fact that humans could be pre-programmed with a set of moral rules from birth. And the fact that the human brain is so large and so much more complex than that of any other species would clearly point to a much more developed and complex rule system. One that helps govern an orderly society, perhaps?
>If natural selection sets any precedence, then almost every atheist I view is not living the way they should.
As an appeal to the bible reader in you, Matthew 7:1 suggests that you might want to avoid this...
>They should all be living in ways that helps them get more children - what path they choose is irrelevant (being nice, deceptive, violent, etc). What is important is producing as many children as possible.
Tell that to the gay atheists, would you?
Then again, by this "Atheism's goal is reproduction" logic, that can't happen, can it? There can be no gay Atheists in in a Fox's Hole. Then again, the
>I'd assume there is some justification (possibly stupid), but I can't think what. If there really isn't any good reason, you ought to be able to convince enough other people to get it changed. Sensible government is not automatic. It requires effort by sensible people. Take some responsibility.
Exactly. In fact, it's clear I'm willing to take all the responsibility.
However, extracting power from the hands of others is always a struggle.
That's why I advocate never giving it to them in the first place.
>To do what?
To show that your opinions matter enough to put your name on them. How can I take someone who won't sign their name to anything seriously?
>Modern comb filters do the impossible, huh? Neato.
Like I said, why not check for yourself, with your own two eyes. I have a 50" set, and there's no difference, or, if there is any, it's only measurable with special equipment or telephile (TM) vision.
>I wish you would stop saying things that simply aren't true.
I wish you would check your facts against something other than a radiola brand TV.
>WHAT? I don't care what your source is, once you squeeze Y, Cr, and Cb into a single signal, you're going to get blurring and bleeding. It's inevitable.
Again, get a new TV. Sorry yours is so shitty.
>No. If you want to play your little Slashdot games, go right ahead. I choose not to.
So, you are going to sit about monitoring this thread for my reply all day? Sounds lonely. At least I get IMed every time someone replies, so I don't have to waste my life here.
>My TV is a Sony KD-34XBR2. It's got half a dozen sets of composite, Y-C, and Y-Cr-Cb inputs. Composite video looks like shit. Y-C looks better. Y-Cr-Cb looks very good.
Clearly it's misconverged, or something else is wrong with it if it's as shitty as you suggest. Get it fixed and come back to me.
>Oh, boy. You're really an idiot, aren't you? Nobody's used Betacam for serious production for YEARS. Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, is shot on either Digital Betacam (for SD production) or HDCAM or D5-HD (for HD production). Hell, I haven't even SEEN a Betacam tape since the late 1990's.
YAY! So, if this digital shit is all the rage, why do I get so many analog C-Band uplink feeds still?
You are so full of it. Sure _some_ places use that, but not everywhere is CNN or WB, my friend.
>Uh. You are ignorant.
Uh. And your opinion isn't even worth enough to log in.
>Once luminance and chroma signals are squeezed together into a composite signal, they cannot be separated again. So I don't care how good your TV is, it can't do squat to make a composite signal look better than hammered shit.
Sorry, it isn't 1960 anymore. Modern comb filters do that, and do it well.
If you aren't ignorant, you might have at least mentioned that it's a digital source, so the signal was never combined to start with (my mistake).
But since you are, you didn't.
Why not learn something today? My God... it's an AOL link! (And even 3 years out of date, but still quite accurate).
Can I suggest also learning to use the login button?
>Composite video looks like shit. That's just how it is, and there's no way around it.
LOL. Obviously your TV is 30 odd years old. Can I perhaps suggest you take a look at how an HDTV deals with converting composite NTSC video? I think you'd be surprised. It isn't perfect, but then again, unless you have access to the master BetaCam tape, nothing you'll be dealing with is.
>If this thing doesn't do AT LEAST Y-C (a.k.a. S-video), it's useless.
Do you honestly believe that a cheap chinese Comb Filter is better than the one in a 50" widescreen TV?
Unless you're spending mucho $$$ on your hardware, I'd trust the TV more than the player.
>I would definitely buy water there if it was the only place to buy water, no matter how bad it is. I have no choice and I have nowhere to file a grievance.
:)
So, you're in the same boat, however I disagree with you that there's nowhere to file a grievance. It takes less than 30 minutes to fill out a small claims suit. Sue them under antitrust regulations if they have a monopoly and aren't providing a safe service. Seems clear and cut. You'd win without a lawyer.
>Suing large companies usually gets you nowhere.
Tell that to McDonald's. All they did was serve coffee that was "too hot" and lost millions of dollars. Imagine the result if they purposely served poisoned coffee.
>Who do you think is going to win in a case like that, someone making 30,000 a year or a corporation making 30 billion a year?
Clearly, the person in the right. And sometimes (eg. again, McDonald's coffee lady) it isn't the person in the right, and even then, it isn't always the person with the most money.
>Also look at MS. They make an inferior product that beats out better software that's free.
The product might be inferior, but it isn't hurting anybody (and if it is, MS already told you in BIG LETTERS not to use it for that purpose). The fact is people are paying for it because they want it. That might be because of better marketing. Whatever the reason, especially today, you don't need MS software to "survive". Sure, you might need it for your job, but even then, learning Microsoft Windows isn't going to leave you impaired in any way.
>Politcal scandals nowadays tend to either be about personal doings which are no one's else's business or involve corporations themselves, like Halliburton. The corporate scandals tend to be along the lines of Enron, which is an obvious reason for more regulation.
Hmmm, I have heard in the US that newspapers tend to be like this. In Ontario, they prefer to focus on what the government is ruining. In my case, the "big things" tend to be:
- Is the government ruining education, is privatization of the phone system/hydro a good thing, (locally) how bad did the city screw us over on RIM park, etc, etc.
Rarely do the leaders get their personal lives exposed, except in a few trashy newspapers, or as part of the "editorial" section. Hey, why not take a look at my local paper and see for yourself!
(If the registration is a PITA, and it certainly is, try the Sun)
>The point being that it's nice in theory to do that but people are not always in a position to help themselves (just like how communism is nice in theory).
It all depends on how much you believe in something. We're all selfish at heart, and most people, when pushed, will change their minds to suit their needs.
Right now I'd love to tax the hell out of all my competing businesses, but if mine went flat, I couldn't care less. That's human nature. And it's that selfishness (which that conservative is showing in abundance!) that is the reason why people can, and should, be responsible for themselves. Even when they are pretending they aren't, they really are.
>My frustration about building permits is that a lot of people who call themselves libertarians like to argue from this priciple to a lot of things that do affect others, even though they do it on their own land. Building unsafe housing
How does that affect you unless I permit you on my property? And if you do get hurt, you can still sue.
>filling wetlands
If I owned it, so what? If, for some reason, they're supposed to be "protected", then perhaps selling them to people is a bad idea!
>dumping toxic waste
You mean illegally? If you harm someone's property, that's against the law. Now, if you mean "dumping" it on property you own, then what's the problem?
If it leeches onto someone else's property, again, that person has been violated and will sue you.
>Sure we can just hold them responsible for their actions. (Unless they're already dead).
Bingo. Generally, most people don't die all that suddenly, and generally, if you're sickening to the point of death, you're not going to be interested in illegal dumping, wetland destruction, or any number of other things. You'll probably just want to lie on a bed and get it over with.
>And I'm sure we wont find out that a lot of people turn out to be irresponsible, and just figure they won't get caught (at least not before they're already dead.)
Like who? People aren't fruit flies, they usually live for decades. There aren't a lot of serious crimes that are so old that the perpetrator is likely dead. Sure, there's some, but we must be talking the millionths of a percent at that point.
>You can own your property. It's a nice feature of our society. In exchange for this nice feature, if you want to do something that's going to affect your property for longer than it's going to be your property, we'd like some say in it.
Your say should be devaluing my property. If I used it as a nuclear waste dump, but didn't harm any surrounding property in doing so, the only say should be the fact I can't even give the land away.
>If you wan't to do something on it that's going to affect others or their property, we'd like some say in it. If that's not "really" owning your property, sorry, tough luck.
Great. So you want to be able to tell me what I can do with my property?
I was just at the zoning commision about the property I want to rent. They say I can do it, but, for God only knows what reason, I can't have a structure on the land under 1 meter tall. This is the dumb crap people have to put up with because everyone runs about like chicken little thinking I'm going to build a nuclear reactor in their backyard. It's insane. You're more likely to be run over by a car, shot, or any number of other things than die (or be harmed) from someone wanting to do something unusual with their property.
>There are some people out there who insist they should have a say in it even if what you're doing won't affect anyone else or their property. These are known as "shitheads".
And there's the problem. Who is going to watch that there's no shitheads forcing buildings on my property to be over 1 m tall? And who will watch the watchers? And who will watch the watchers of the watchers?
Too much power breeds corruption, or at the very least, idiotic laws to justify the zoning commisions' own existence.
Now, if I could organize a way to vote that shithead out of office, I might be more comfortable with that. But how can I do that? And why is the zoning book for my city 2000 pages thick?
Because there's 1900 shitheads working for the city.
>Funny becuase the reason it is so bad is because of deregulation.
No, that statement itself is funny.
>The market is more free than it is in the US and it is causing major problems.
Where? In Ontario? Yes, it's been more free (somewhat) for about 2 years, if we're talking electricity and gas service. That's 10% of my estimated time it'll take. It simply takes a long time to convert to a free market. The deep-seated problems associated with communist services take a long time to weed out.
And, to top it all off, how many times has your phone not worked lately? Guess what, in Ontario the entire phone service is now privatized and we have some of the lowest (if not THE lowest) rates for phone service in the entire world, despite the fact that it costs more to hook up this vast country than most other developed nations.
Would you like to go back to paying $200 an hour to talk to people in Europe? I know I don't.
>Without regulation, corporations are left to do only what they are meant to do, make money, and that is at the expense of the consumer.
Exactly. And what do you think governments are left to do? Make money!
You know what's nice about corporations, though? If any one company had a debt as high as the Canadian governments' they'd be booted out of business in no time.
The crushing debt caused by government funded services is ruining this country by encouraging investors to find better prospects.
Another plus of corporate run services is that _you_ decide if you want them to exist or not. If you aren't happy with how something is run, you don't buy it. However, if you're not happy with a government service, what can you do? Complain to an Ombudsman? Like hell that'll do you any good.
>We shouldn't pretend that corporations are there to look out for us, that's not their job, it's the government's job.
When has the government looked out for your interests lately? Because of government people are dying in hospitals, they're dying from dirty water, dying from decrepit military equipment, an entire city has been jokingly named sarsborough, I can't participate in American culture, and my Grandmother has been denied medical services because no hospital and few nursing homes will take my money (she's not a landed immigrant yet, she's in limbo land right now for citizenship) and the worst part of it all is that the government stays in business using your money after events and policies like these.
If WalMart had killed a dozen people through a negligently run water supply you'd never buy water there again, and they'd be sued up the wazoo. But if it's the government, well, you don't have a choice, do you? I suppose you could dig a well, but wait, you're not zoned for it.
Don't believe me? Compare and contrast the number of corporate scandals that make front page of your local news to the number of government scandals that do.
There's only (normally) three people whose job it is to look out for you, and for two of them, their job officially ends when you turn 18.
So, tell me, if corporations are so poor at looking after their consumers, how many people in Canada have died from Mad Cow in Alberta beef? How many people die from PeTA (or whoever does it nowadays) poisoned turkeys on thanksgiving?
If people are expendable to corporations, why would they waste so much money ensuring our safety?
I'll tell you why: A dead person can't pay, and the living get the hint pretty quickly. Although, to the government, you're better off dead. That way they can tax your inheritors. And, as an added bonus, they don't have to pay for your medical services anymore.
>>Often the production of unlicensed goods is used by organised crime to launder money made from selling drugs, pornography and prostitution and to generally expand "business" opportunities.
>HUH?! How exactly does pirating anime get used for laundering money?
More importantly, what if you don't believe that any of those things are particularly bad?
Perhaps you should buy pirate anime to support your pet causes? ^_^
>I just don't get how intercepting a signal that is running through my own routers, using equiptment that I own, that just pass through as they would anyway, could be considered theft.
Exactly. And that's why ISPs do it all the time.
Ever heard of a packetshaper?
>Give me a break.
I will if you get in touch!
>You have as little right to hack satellite transmissions as you have to spy on military communications, cell phones, wireless keyboards, mouses and headphone, garage door openers, the EM emissions of my screen or anything else that happens to run across your airspace.
FYI:
>spy on military communications
Legal, if you can. Like hell you can, though.
>cell phones
Fuck, I do this all the time. And if the cops want to know, I'll tell them. There isn't any thing illegal about that.
BTW: The best range is on the 49 Mhz band, if anyone actually uses those old portable phones anymore.
>wireless keyboards, mouses
Again, totally legal.
>headphone
Considering how shitty the transmitters are on some of these, I don't have a lot of choice if I want to listen to a radio nearby.
>garage door openers
Why bother snooping in when the code is a whole 8-bits?
>EM emissions of my screen
I hate to break it to you, but Van Ecking is totally legit, and your government has been known to use it against you.
Where's your argument? I don't see one.
>Does this mean Microsoft will just abandon all of their users still running older versions of Windows?
Yes. They already have for windows 95. Windows 98 isn't far down the road, as is ME.