Yes, music sharing people are doing me a favor, at least.
I don't use kazaa, gnutella, or any other file sharing product (not for music:), because they don't work for me. Not a principle thing, I just can't get the music I want that way. So I buy it at concerts. And copy from friends (locally).
If the major labels fall flat on their backs, I insist that I would lose nothing. Any new musician that I would like to learn about has to be good enough that I could hear of them via word of mouth. Music and other media is all my friends talk about, and it's all we're interested in. If mass market artists made less money due to filesharing, there would be less reason for the labels to pimp them so hard. We might have even more channels to discover independent musicians.
We don't need no water. Let the mother fucker burn.
That's almost hard to believe. Perhaps the kerberos software they're running has fscked the computers. My computer has much much less than half the processing power of a flat panel imac, but I've never had that kind of problem.
Not that it isn't slow... it just isn't *that* slow.
Although it's far from noble or anything. Try this one.
Mr Brogan declined to elaborate on why Sendo is severing its software ties with Microsoft but said the Nokia platform will give Sendo more flexibility to customise phones for different operators.
Not that Sendo has an obligation to be noble or anything, but I assume they want the source so they can segment their market in a more fine-grained manner. I hate that crap. It's the only drawback to cell phones.
Our right to bear arms is a trade off. We have the right to bear arms, which means that more people will die of gun violence, in exchange for guarantees on our freedom. If you prefer safety and less freedom, then you just don't agree with the authors of the constitution.
Of course, that's most americans. It's not required that we agree with the founding fathers on that point. But removing guns from the country would reduce the number of violent deaths, guaranteed. Hopefully there are better ways.
If criminal law was reasonable in the first place (drug laws, dmca, tax laws, blah), then it wouldn't even be bad if they *did* report it.
As long as they were consistent. The stuff where they leaked ugly things about MLK was unbelievably wrong... but if they were doing it to Hoover, the president, and every single public or private figure, it wouldn't have been nearly as wrong or nearly as damaging.
Of course, ideal would be privacy. It's just that legal sanity and consistency would mitigate the loss.
quartzgl makes all the difference in the world.
on
Is Mac OS X Slow?
·
· Score: 2
In terms of UI speed, for macs running quartzgl, the differences between windows, mac os x, and linux are more or less just religious. My dad has an eMac that I could never complain about. App speed is... highly app specific. Some apps are ungodly slow for unknown reasons. It doesn't seem tied to carbon/cocoa. A large minority of bad apps are just oddly slow. Whatever.
For macs w/o quartzgl capable graphics cards, UI frequently bogs down the processor and makes even non UI performance pretty mediocre. Kill the GUI and run X, and you're doing pretty well in terms of speed. Not that you'd likely want to make that trade.
My 600 mHz ibook is the fastest mac I've ever owned, and it feels really slow because of the window manager. But I love it and my PCs are collecting dust anyway. If you get a new machine with a G4 and a real graphics card, I'm sure you'll never complain. The last two revisions of ibook have been quartzgl compatible, so I imagine they're not too bad either.
Yeah, but the point is that RIAA bands make as much on concerts as on record sales, much of the time. And the concerts are a huge source of marketting. So a lot of the price of a CD may be subsidized as well. Probably not as much, admittedly.
If indy artists weren't competing with RIAA thugs, they'd get more press and more fame w/o spending more on advertising. No, really. They'd sell more records w/o increasing their costs. Their prices would drop.
Since I only care about indy artists, I could give a fuck about the RIAA model failing. That just means more dollars for their competitors.
A friend of mine knows that crazy guy with the question marks on his bright green suit. She went to high school with his son.
He's very serious about his product. He has several full time researchers that look for different programs that people can take part in. In addition to being very serious, he's also very insane. He actually wears that question mark suit in public.
But he's not a scam artist. Whether or not he makes a good product, he works his ass off, and he thinks it's a good product.
From my understanding, it's that there are many different non-interoperable ways to implement the bluetooth standard. Nokia's bluetooth car kit is not guaranteed to work with Ericsson's bluetooth phone. Each vendor had certain features that they wanted, products they were already working on, so instead of making all the features fit one architecture, they basically made many different standards, and included them all in the spec. The standard isn't standard.
If this is actually the problem, hopefully we'll eventually get someone willing to stick their neck out and commit to a certain type of bluetooth, and everyone will gradually conform to them. Or someone will hack together a way to be interoperable with all BT devices, no matter how odd their configuration is. It's just gonna take even more time now.
This is just hearsay and rumor, though. I'd love to hear from someone that knows what they're talking about.
Bluetooth would have provided perfect convergence if it had been designed properly: Your headphones would play the audio feed from your MP3 player, but give your cell phone a higher priority when it rang.
I get a little teary when I think of the lost potential in Bluetooth. Maybe they'll get things working right in a couple more years.
Re:Aren't APPS the real issue?
on
Halloween VII
·
· Score: 2
Um. I would like both the underbelly of Linux and the ability to run win32 API programs. Why shouldn't Linux have the ability to do everything? It wouldn't mean you'd *have* to run Office.
There are some Linux users that desire these features. There are some people that would like to be Linux users (to save money) but cannot because they depend on certain Windows features. Why not write all the Linux features and all the Windows features? You can turn off the Windows stuff, and the people that are just doing it for the price can make it as windows like as they please.
If that many more people were interested in Linux, then there would be more cash involved, and Linux would become better for all purposes, yours and theirs. Don't forget that a lot of GPL programmers *are* paid. By companies that want specific features.
They could use a family member as collateral. That way they get the book and save a bit on upkeep while the family member is in the care of the libray. And the library could use the help dusting books for fingerprints anyway.
All of a sudden, anonimity doesn't sound worth it anymore...
We can debate it publicly just fine. The librarians are allowed to complain about the law. They just aren't allowed to tell you you're being monitored. We know the law is in place. That's in the public record. There's no secret about what's going on.
The problem is Americans don't care about their freedoms any more. Hell, how many slashdotters didn't know about this law 'till they read it here today?
I said: "I do not agree with you. Tom Jefferson did not seem to agree with you."
You said: "Uh huh. Do you agree with ol'Tom regarding the right to own slaves?"
I say now: No, I don't agree with Jefferson's views on slavery (although you could argue that he didn't either) but we aren't talking about slavery. We are talking about the proper interpretation of the DOI, which he was instrumental in constructing. So I'd suggest that his opinion would trump either of ours.
To address your "root of the matter": the government has one regard in which it is required to treat all Americans as equals. That regard is the fourteenth amendment.
To explain your logical question, which seems unrelated to our discussion given my previous comments: In the DOI, when they say that all men are created equal, do you think that means they are created with an equal height, an equal hair color, and an equal amount of wealth? So, I'm sure you'd agree that they said equal, but they did not mean equal in all regards. And, again, it is not an unalienable right that we are equal. It is a self evident truth. This truth does not, imho, imply any rights whatsoever. You'll have to *show* why it does in order to convince me.
Anyway, at this point I'm not sure if you're serious. If you're trolling, you've already won.
I'm sorry, I miscommunicated. You made the distinction that your vote is not the measure of your equality, but rather the weight of your vote. I intended to contradict the idea that the weight of your vote is the measure of your equality as well.
You have decided that the measure of equality is if all voices have an equal weight in choosing the system of government. I do not agree with you. Tom Jefferson did not seem to agree with you. You will have to show the reason that this is true, rather than act as if it is obvious. It is not obvious.
Note, for example, that different laws apply to people in different states. Is this unfair? When I vote for a public referendum in California, my vote has much less sway than a referendum vote in Rhode Island. And when I vote for a senator, as well. We are not all equal in all regards. We are equal in very specific regards: We were endowed with three unalienable rights by our Creator. None of those rights are a vote for a president. With that perspective on equality, a monarchy is acceptable. Remember, the DOI was not a rejection of monarchy in general, but just a rejection of a monarchy that did not respect their rights.
Rather than repeating yourself, show how I am wrong.
I'm glad you're continuing to respond. If we can limit our conversation to the subject at hand, and remain respectful, I believe we can come to an agreement.
And don't worry. I read the thing. The constitution is my web browser's homepage.
The DOI's preamble lists three unalienable rights: life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. It also states as a self evident truth that all men are created equal. Neither of these things dictate a republic rather than a monarchy. You could have a monarchy, and a ducal system, in which those truths are respected. The intrinsic equality of man is represented in the fourteenth amendment to our constitution. If you want to convince me of your point of view, you'd do better to argue it from the guarantee of equal protection under the law. You'd have a lot of work to do, because no constitutional scholar seems to have ever agreed with you.
Your vote for president is *not* the weight of your equality. Not in our government, and, coincidentally, not under any reasonable interpretation of the DOI. The equality of man is only related to the enumerated unalienable rights in that they are both self evident. This may offend your personal sensibilities, but it obviously did not offend the sensibilities of the authors of the Declaration of Independence.
BTW, I think the electoral college is messed up too. But for completely different reasons. It's certainly not counter to our ideals of liberty.
Yeah, well, that's what happened. Florida has legal systems in place to determine what happens in the event of a tie. Those legal systems were clearly not layed out well enough.
All I was trying to say (sorry if I got distracted) is that you can't just remove the small state bonus. You'd have to go to a national popular vote. And that would have all kinds of complications, and it wouldn't have meant that Gore would have won necessarily.
Well, when I read the Declaration of Independence, I read "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
I don't read "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men must hold identical sway in their federal government, and every man must be able to vote for their head of state."
First, no, it absolutely does not violate that principle. That principle dictates that if I feel my government is not sufficiently representing me, then I must revolt. You think you've figured this out in some manner that Jefferson did not? Is your vote for your president the only manner in which you can effect the government? I hope not.
Second, the DOI isn't our constitution. While the supremes have used it to explain their reasoning in interpretation of the constitution, there is no case in which the DOI has been interpreted as law.
Anyway. Please respond. Explain to me how your vote for president is the measure of your equal protection under the law.
He won the national popular vote by a tiny tiny margin, iirc. It seemed like it would have been within the margin of error. In a popular vote system, we would have had to call it a tie.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, music sharing people are doing me a favor, at least.
:), because they don't work for me. Not a principle thing, I just can't get the music I want that way. So I buy it at concerts. And copy from friends (locally).
I don't use kazaa, gnutella, or any other file sharing product (not for music
If the major labels fall flat on their backs, I insist that I would lose nothing. Any new musician that I would like to learn about has to be good enough that I could hear of them via word of mouth. Music and other media is all my friends talk about, and it's all we're interested in. If mass market artists made less money due to filesharing, there would be less reason for the labels to pimp them so hard. We might have even more channels to discover independent musicians.
We don't need no water. Let the mother fucker burn.
Fair 'nuff.
Of course, I wasn't trying to imply that Japan's situation was *good* in that regard. But my reasoning was different. Thanks.
That's almost hard to believe. Perhaps the kerberos software they're running has fscked the computers. My computer has much much less than half the processing power of a flat panel imac, but I've never had that kind of problem.
Not that it isn't slow... it just isn't *that* slow.
Although it's far from noble or anything. Try this one.
Mr Brogan declined to elaborate on why Sendo is severing its software ties with Microsoft but said the Nokia platform will give Sendo more flexibility to customise phones for different operators.
Not that Sendo has an obligation to be noble or anything, but I assume they want the source so they can segment their market in a more fine-grained manner. I hate that crap. It's the only drawback to cell phones.
As much as I believe in the right to bear arms...
no. See Japan.
Our right to bear arms is a trade off. We have the right to bear arms, which means that more people will die of gun violence, in exchange for guarantees on our freedom. If you prefer safety and less freedom, then you just don't agree with the authors of the constitution.
Of course, that's most americans. It's not required that we agree with the founding fathers on that point. But removing guns from the country would reduce the number of violent deaths, guaranteed. Hopefully there are better ways.
If criminal law was reasonable in the first place (drug laws, dmca, tax laws, blah), then it wouldn't even be bad if they *did* report it.
As long as they were consistent. The stuff where they leaked ugly things about MLK was unbelievably wrong... but if they were doing it to Hoover, the president, and every single public or private figure, it wouldn't have been nearly as wrong or nearly as damaging.
Of course, ideal would be privacy. It's just that legal sanity and consistency would mitigate the loss.
In terms of UI speed, for macs running quartzgl, the differences between windows, mac os x, and linux are more or less just religious. My dad has an eMac that I could never complain about. App speed is... highly app specific. Some apps are ungodly slow for unknown reasons. It doesn't seem tied to carbon/cocoa. A large minority of bad apps are just oddly slow. Whatever.
For macs w/o quartzgl capable graphics cards, UI frequently bogs down the processor and makes even non UI performance pretty mediocre. Kill the GUI and run X, and you're doing pretty well in terms of speed. Not that you'd likely want to make that trade.
My 600 mHz ibook is the fastest mac I've ever owned, and it feels really slow because of the window manager. But I love it and my PCs are collecting dust anyway. If you get a new machine with a G4 and a real graphics card, I'm sure you'll never complain. The last two revisions of ibook have been quartzgl compatible, so I imagine they're not too bad either.
Yeah. Subjective.
Yeah, but Daikatana has been out for years now. So who knows.
Yeah, but the point is that RIAA bands make as much on concerts as on record sales, much of the time. And the concerts are a huge source of marketting. So a lot of the price of a CD may be subsidized as well. Probably not as much, admittedly.
If indy artists weren't competing with RIAA thugs, they'd get more press and more fame w/o spending more on advertising. No, really. They'd sell more records w/o increasing their costs. Their prices would drop.
Since I only care about indy artists, I could give a fuck about the RIAA model failing. That just means more dollars for their competitors.
We need to make the p2p system perfect enough that this is the case. It isn't there yet.
A friend of mine knows that crazy guy with the question marks on his bright green suit. She went to high school with his son.
He's very serious about his product. He has several full time researchers that look for different programs that people can take part in. In addition to being very serious, he's also very insane. He actually wears that question mark suit in public.
But he's not a scam artist. Whether or not he makes a good product, he works his ass off, and he thinks it's a good product.
From my understanding, it's that there are many different non-interoperable ways to implement the bluetooth standard. Nokia's bluetooth car kit is not guaranteed to work with Ericsson's bluetooth phone. Each vendor had certain features that they wanted, products they were already working on, so instead of making all the features fit one architecture, they basically made many different standards, and included them all in the spec. The standard isn't standard.
If this is actually the problem, hopefully we'll eventually get someone willing to stick their neck out and commit to a certain type of bluetooth, and everyone will gradually conform to them. Or someone will hack together a way to be interoperable with all BT devices, no matter how odd their configuration is. It's just gonna take even more time now.
This is just hearsay and rumor, though. I'd love to hear from someone that knows what they're talking about.
Bluetooth would have provided perfect convergence if it had been designed properly: Your headphones would play the audio feed from your MP3 player, but give your cell phone a higher priority when it rang.
I get a little teary when I think of the lost potential in Bluetooth. Maybe they'll get things working right in a couple more years.
Um. I would like both the underbelly of Linux and the ability to run win32 API programs. Why shouldn't Linux have the ability to do everything? It wouldn't mean you'd *have* to run Office.
There are some Linux users that desire these features. There are some people that would like to be Linux users (to save money) but cannot because they depend on certain Windows features. Why not write all the Linux features and all the Windows features? You can turn off the Windows stuff, and the people that are just doing it for the price can make it as windows like as they please.
If that many more people were interested in Linux, then there would be more cash involved, and Linux would become better for all purposes, yours and theirs. Don't forget that a lot of GPL programmers *are* paid. By companies that want specific features.
Good answer?
I use Chimera, a moz based browser for the mac, and https works for me.
They could use a family member as collateral. That way they get the book and save a bit on upkeep while the family member is in the care of the libray. And the library could use the help dusting books for fingerprints anyway.
All of a sudden, anonimity doesn't sound worth it anymore...
Yeah, but you get the money back.
We can debate it publicly just fine. The librarians are allowed to complain about the law. They just aren't allowed to tell you you're being monitored. We know the law is in place. That's in the public record. There's no secret about what's going on.
The problem is Americans don't care about their freedoms any more. Hell, how many slashdotters didn't know about this law 'till they read it here today?
I said: "I do not agree with you. Tom Jefferson did not seem to agree with you."
You said: "Uh huh. Do you agree with ol'Tom regarding the right to own slaves?"
I say now: No, I don't agree with Jefferson's views on slavery (although you could argue that he didn't either) but we aren't talking about slavery. We are talking about the proper interpretation of the DOI, which he was instrumental in constructing. So I'd suggest that his opinion would trump either of ours.
To address your "root of the matter": the government has one regard in which it is required to treat all Americans as equals. That regard is the fourteenth amendment.
To explain your logical question, which seems unrelated to our discussion given my previous comments: In the DOI, when they say that all men are created equal, do you think that means they are created with an equal height, an equal hair color, and an equal amount of wealth? So, I'm sure you'd agree that they said equal, but they did not mean equal in all regards. And, again, it is not an unalienable right that we are equal. It is a self evident truth. This truth does not, imho, imply any rights whatsoever. You'll have to *show* why it does in order to convince me.
Anyway, at this point I'm not sure if you're serious. If you're trolling, you've already won.
I'm sorry, I miscommunicated. You made the distinction that your vote is not the measure of your equality, but rather the weight of your vote. I intended to contradict the idea that the weight of your vote is the measure of your equality as well.
You have decided that the measure of equality is if all voices have an equal weight in choosing the system of government. I do not agree with you. Tom Jefferson did not seem to agree with you. You will have to show the reason that this is true, rather than act as if it is obvious. It is not obvious.
Note, for example, that different laws apply to people in different states. Is this unfair? When I vote for a public referendum in California, my vote has much less sway than a referendum vote in Rhode Island. And when I vote for a senator, as well. We are not all equal in all regards. We are equal in very specific regards: We were endowed with three unalienable rights by our Creator. None of those rights are a vote for a president. With that perspective on equality, a monarchy is acceptable. Remember, the DOI was not a rejection of monarchy in general, but just a rejection of a monarchy that did not respect their rights.
Rather than repeating yourself, show how I am wrong.
I'm glad you're continuing to respond. If we can limit our conversation to the subject at hand, and remain respectful, I believe we can come to an agreement.
And don't worry. I read the thing. The constitution is my web browser's homepage.
The DOI's preamble lists three unalienable rights: life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. It also states as a self evident truth that all men are created equal. Neither of these things dictate a republic rather than a monarchy. You could have a monarchy, and a ducal system, in which those truths are respected. The intrinsic equality of man is represented in the fourteenth amendment to our constitution. If you want to convince me of your point of view, you'd do better to argue it from the guarantee of equal protection under the law. You'd have a lot of work to do, because no constitutional scholar seems to have ever agreed with you.
Your vote for president is *not* the weight of your equality. Not in our government, and, coincidentally, not under any reasonable interpretation of the DOI. The equality of man is only related to the enumerated unalienable rights in that they are both self evident. This may offend your personal sensibilities, but it obviously did not offend the sensibilities of the authors of the Declaration of Independence.
BTW, I think the electoral college is messed up too. But for completely different reasons. It's certainly not counter to our ideals of liberty.
Yeah, well, that's what happened. Florida has legal systems in place to determine what happens in the event of a tie. Those legal systems were clearly not layed out well enough.
All I was trying to say (sorry if I got distracted) is that you can't just remove the small state bonus. You'd have to go to a national popular vote. And that would have all kinds of complications, and it wouldn't have meant that Gore would have won necessarily.
Well, when I read the Declaration of Independence, I read "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
I don't read "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men must hold identical sway in their federal government, and every man must be able to vote for their head of state."
First, no, it absolutely does not violate that principle. That principle dictates that if I feel my government is not sufficiently representing me, then I must revolt. You think you've figured this out in some manner that Jefferson did not? Is your vote for your president the only manner in which you can effect the government? I hope not.
Second, the DOI isn't our constitution. While the supremes have used it to explain their reasoning in interpretation of the constitution, there is no case in which the DOI has been interpreted as law.
Anyway. Please respond. Explain to me how your vote for president is the measure of your equal protection under the law.
He won the national popular vote by a tiny tiny margin, iirc. It seemed like it would have been within the margin of error. In a popular vote system, we would have had to call it a tie.