I can't even open this drive in Explorer. I let it sit for about 20 minutes once and my PC slowed to a crawl
That tells me that they haven't fixed one of my pet peeves with explorer — where it takes forever scanning subfolders with thousands of files in them. As in, when I expand a portion of the folder tree in the left pane and it scans the subfolders that show up.
Why does it do this scanning? Well, my educated guess based on observations is that it's looking for sub-subfolders so that it knows whether or not to put that damn "+" next to them in the left pane. This should be trivial to fix in my mind — use NTFS attributes. A simple "has_subfolder" attribute on every folder that is set and cleared when subfolders are created and deleted would make things so much quicker. That way the correct folders can have the little "+" next to them and scanning happens only when I look at the contents of the folder.
It seems apparent that Microsoft thinks that hard drives are faster than they really are. The explorer HTML icon handler that Office 2003 installs also drives me up the wall. I don't care whether or not my HTML files were created by Office, and every time explorer stutters due to my hard drive grinding as it reads every HTML file in a folder just to decide which fucking icon to show, I get ready to blow a nut. Hopefully, the ACLs I've set up on the pertinent registry keys will stop that handler from showing up again.
80. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the act of reproducing all or any substantial part of
(a) a musical work embodied in a sound recording,
(b) a performer's performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording, or
(c) a sound recording in which a musical work, or a performer's performance of a musical work, is embodied
onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the musical work, the performer's performance or the sound recording.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the act described in that subsection is done for the purpose of doing any of the following in relation to any of the things referred to in paragraphs (1)(a) to (c):
(a) selling or renting out, or by way of trade exposing or offering for sale or rental;
(b) distributing, whether or not for the purpose of trade;
(c) communicating to the public by telecommunication; or
(d) performing, or causing to be performed, in public.
Around christmas time you were able to buy spindles of 200 CDs for like 25 bucks CDN at many major retailers. That's 12.5 cents a disk before tax.
Did you actually buy any at that price?
Some places include the levy in the sticker price, some don't. London Drugs, for example, doesn't. Kinda like how many places don't include deposit and environmental handling charge in the price of a 12-pack of pop.
The media levy only applies to cds and 90% of the time it's ignored by vendors. You can go and buy a 50 pack of brand name cd-r disks at best buy for $25 (levy included)
$0.59 is the levy on Audio CD-Rs, i.e. the ones that stereo component CD writers require. The levy on normal CD-Rs is $0.21 per disc.
First, the Canadian Music Industry said "Well, we can't stop online pirating, so we will propose a bill to tax all blank media", which basically included everything from hard-drive, USB sticks, and, of course, blank CDs and DVDs. The bill was passed and the levy went into effect.
Of the four storage media you list, only one has the levy applied to it — blank CDs. The levy applies to "blank audio recording media", and according to the way they define that, hard drives, USB sticks and blank DVDs are not affected. At one point, the Copyright Board, who decides what media have the levy applied, applied it to portable digital audio players, but the courts struck that down.
About a year later, they said "Well, we *can* stop online piracy, so we will propose a bill that makes it illegal and we will make additional income from legal bullying and litigation".
My biggest problem with that, is that they "forgot" to remove the levy. So now, file-sharing is basically illegal...
Wait, wait, wait. Lost somewhere in your story is the point at which the bill you refer to (bill C-60, I presume) became law. And bill C-60 has not become law. So I don't know what you're on about.
If the mp3 codec doesn't support it, then how was the Rio Karma able to do it with mp3 files?
By reading the necessary encoder delay info from the LAME tag, which isn't in the de jure MP3 standard and therefore isn't supported by the overwhelming majority of players.
The Copyright Act says nothing about where the copy is required to come from. If I'm wrong, and you can point to a place in the Act where it does say otherwise, then by all means tell us where. Be sure to let the Copyright Board know as well, because they couldn't find anything either.
There is no requirement in Part VIII that the source copy be a non-infringing copy. Hence, it is not relevant whether the source of the track is a pre-owned recording, a borrowed CD, or a track downloaded from the Internet.
Actually, from what I've seen on the Our Lady Peace CD is that you "DECLINE" their EULA and the OS spits out the disc.
Wow, that's hard to get around.
If you do that, the anti-ripping garbage gets installed anyway. The reasoning is that one could rip the CD while the "Do You Accept?" dialog is on-screen, then click No once that's done.
There is no seperate physical port for USB vs Firewire on any of the iPods with dock connector. It's not an issue of having two plugs -- previous generations of iPod had the necessary circuitry within a single port to handle either connection type. So we're not talking about Apple dropping a physical port on the unit to make it smaller -- the port is the same size now that it has been for the last several iPod generations.
He's referring to the space saved by not having firewire hardware on the circuit board, not space on the exterior. FireWire is a complex spec and the chips that support it are of significant size, especially to portable devices like the iPod.
I want to be able to access local radio, AM and FM.
And there's a big problem right there: AM. Ever noticed that there are very few, if any portable MP3 players with an AM tuner? That's because the antenna for an AM tuner must be very, very long. Normally what's done is that it's coiled up much like an electric stove burner, but even then it's long enough to need a decent-sized cross-sectional area to fit in. So to cram in an AM tuner would increase the size of the player very noticeably.
So I don't fault the manufacturers for not including AM, but at the same time my philosophy is 'I need a seperate tuner for AM anyway, so I don't care if my MP3 player has a radio'.
I asked a question: "but how many programs actually generate zip files that use [LZW]?" Please answer it.
Actually, I've done some research, and a fewsources tell me that LZW is called "shrink" in zip vernacular and was only commonly used in the days of PKZip 1.1. It moved to Deflate as the default after that, and indeed, Info-Zip's unzip utility doesn't even enable unshrink by default. If LZW in zip files were common, that wouldn't be a very pragmatic thing to do, would it?
Every zip utility out there now uses Deflate, not LZW. Thus when comparing gzip to zip you're comparing Deflate to Deflate. Any differences in compression level are merely different implementations with different optimizations (cf. pngcrush, pngout, etc).
It looks like you're munging compress and zip together here. gzip was created in response to the patent status of the algorithm in compress, and the GP said that gzip uses the same algorithm as zip.
So not only do they not use the same algorithm, but that's the whole point of gzip in the first place!
Well, let's look at a quote from the gzip page you linked:
The first version of the compression algorithm used by gzip appeared in zip 0.9, publicly released on July 11th 1991.
There you have it. Zip uses deflate, just like gzip does. Sure, newer versions of zip can use LZW, but how many programs actually generate zip files that use it?
Slashdot Mirror
The list of players you linked to has nothing to do with iTMS music or AAC. It's a list of MP3 players that iTunes version 3 can manage files on.
That tells me that they haven't fixed one of my pet peeves with explorer — where it takes forever scanning subfolders with thousands of files in them. As in, when I expand a portion of the folder tree in the left pane and it scans the subfolders that show up.
Why does it do this scanning? Well, my educated guess based on observations is that it's looking for sub-subfolders so that it knows whether or not to put that damn "+" next to them in the left pane. This should be trivial to fix in my mind — use NTFS attributes. A simple "has_subfolder" attribute on every folder that is set and cleared when subfolders are created and deleted would make things so much quicker. That way the correct folders can have the little "+" next to them and scanning happens only when I look at the contents of the folder.
It seems apparent that Microsoft thinks that hard drives are faster than they really are. The explorer HTML icon handler that Office 2003 installs also drives me up the wall. I don't care whether or not my HTML files were created by Office, and every time explorer stutters due to my hard drive grinding as it reads every HTML file in a folder just to decide which fucking icon to show, I get ready to blow a nut. Hopefully, the ACLs I've set up on the pertinent registry keys will stop that handler from showing up again.
--
80. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the act of reproducing all or any substantial part of
(a) a musical work embodied in a sound recording,
(b) a performer's performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording, or
(c) a sound recording in which a musical work, or a performer's performance of a musical work, is embodied
onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the musical work, the performer's performance or the sound recording.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the act described in that subsection is done for the purpose of doing any of the following in relation to any of the things referred to in paragraphs (1)(a) to (c):
(a) selling or renting out, or by way of trade exposing or offering for sale or rental;
(b) distributing, whether or not for the purpose of trade;
(c) communicating to the public by telecommunication; or
(d) performing, or causing to be performed, in public.
--
(emphasis mine)
Did you actually buy any at that price?
Some places include the levy in the sticker price, some don't. London Drugs, for example, doesn't. Kinda like how many places don't include deposit and environmental handling charge in the price of a 12-pack of pop.
$0.59 is the levy on Audio CD-Rs, i.e. the ones that stereo component CD writers require. The levy on normal CD-Rs is $0.21 per disc.
Of the four storage media you list, only one has the levy applied to it — blank CDs. The levy applies to "blank audio recording media", and according to the way they define that, hard drives, USB sticks and blank DVDs are not affected. At one point, the Copyright Board, who decides what media have the levy applied, applied it to portable digital audio players, but the courts struck that down.
About a year later, they said "Well, we *can* stop online piracy, so we will propose a bill that makes it illegal and we will make additional income from legal bullying and litigation".
My biggest problem with that, is that they "forgot" to remove the levy. So now, file-sharing is basically illegal...
Wait, wait, wait. Lost somewhere in your story is the point at which the bill you refer to (bill C-60, I presume) became law. And bill C-60 has not become law. So I don't know what you're on about.
Close. The set-top burners will reject non-"audio" CD-Rs. PC burners aren't designed to reject any type of CD blank.
Too late!
They briefly had an exclusive deal with the NHLPA, but the NHL got in the way, saying they wanted competition. Link
Old & busted: "Every program expands until it can send mail."
New hotness: "Every program expands until it supports podcasting."
By reading the necessary encoder delay info from the LAME tag, which isn't in the de jure MP3 standard and therefore isn't supported by the overwhelming majority of players.
It's official. That joke is so old and tired, not even Slashdot moderators think it's funny anymore.
There is no requirement in Part VIII that the source copy be a non-infringing copy. Hence, it is not relevant whether the source of the track is a pre-owned recording, a borrowed CD, or a track downloaded from the Internet.
Wow, that's hard to get around.
If you do that, the anti-ripping garbage gets installed anyway. The reasoning is that one could rip the CD while the "Do You Accept?" dialog is on-screen, then click No once that's done.
He's referring to the space saved by not having firewire hardware on the circuit board, not space on the exterior. FireWire is a complex spec and the chips that support it are of significant size, especially to portable devices like the iPod.
And there's a big problem right there: AM. Ever noticed that there are very few, if any portable MP3 players with an AM tuner? That's because the antenna for an AM tuner must be very, very long. Normally what's done is that it's coiled up much like an electric stove burner, but even then it's long enough to need a decent-sized cross-sectional area to fit in. So to cram in an AM tuner would increase the size of the player very noticeably.
So I don't fault the manufacturers for not including AM, but at the same time my philosophy is 'I need a seperate tuner for AM anyway, so I don't care if my MP3 player has a radio'.
NM, should've read further. -NT-
Honest question: Why won't Miranda allow me to put the '@' character in my jabber username (necessary for using the gmail address as the username)?
No, they didn't.
Read this.
Incorrect. The levy is 21 cents per regular CD-R/CD-RW, and 77 cents per Audio CD-R/CD-RW.
To the grandparent, there's no levy on writable DVD discs.
Actually, I've done some research, and a few sources tell me that LZW is called "shrink" in zip vernacular and was only commonly used in the days of PKZip 1.1. It moved to Deflate as the default after that, and indeed, Info-Zip's unzip utility doesn't even enable unshrink by default. If LZW in zip files were common, that wouldn't be a very pragmatic thing to do, would it?
Every zip utility out there now uses Deflate, not LZW. Thus when comparing gzip to zip you're comparing Deflate to Deflate. Any differences in compression level are merely different implementations with different optimizations (cf. pngcrush, pngout, etc).
So not only do they not use the same algorithm, but that's the whole point of gzip in the first place!
Well, let's look at a quote from the gzip page you linked:
There you have it. Zip uses deflate, just like gzip does. Sure, newer versions of zip can use LZW, but how many programs actually generate zip files that use it?Wrong. The levy collected on portable digital audio players was struck down. The levy on blank media remains in effect.
There was a C1 HALT disconnect problem with the nForce2 that caused lockups, but AFAIK that's been fixed since 2.6.7.
They've pretty much declared that Soundstorm is dead, save for the possibility of it showing up as add-on card in the future.