Well, I don't know what you're trying to say. He might have written BASIC for the Apple. I am saying that he did not invent BASIC, which is what I thought you were trying to say. If that is not what you were trying to say, I apologize. If you ARE trying to say that he invented BASIC, you're wrong.
This is more readable if you view source. At least it is for me. I'm not good with huge blocks of text.
I find it sad that Woz acknowledges that Jobs really is that much of an asshole. I had just chalked it up to Hollywood exaggeration.
He was such a jerk that my girlfriend, when the movie was finished, said "I'm never going to buy another Mac again!" I laughed and said, "What do you mean another Mac?", to which she replied, "Well, I'm glad I just threw that one out!" (referring to the old Mac Classic she trashed last week).
1y, 2nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnoooooooo
on
DIVX is dead
·
· Score: 1
1. (assuming no phone line monitoring, selfcontained system, no credit card involved, and for this pole forget about "unlocking it" convinience here is the issue, no late fees, buy it in june watch it in august if you want, PLUS you get a great coaster afterwords)
2. How about $3 a CD you can listen to twice?
With #1, maybe. I'd rather pay the same price as the rental place ($3 to $4) and just watch it once, but what happens if you're in the middle of watching it and the phone rings or something, or you've gotta leave. Maybe a 1 day viewing period. Movies are so much different from music. Which brings me to question #2.
#2, no way!! Who the hell ever listens to a CD twice? I suppose if you are talking about a preview thing, but with my $3 preview, what's to stop me from making a tape/dat copy? I think music encryption would be tougher than video. Anyway, as far as previewing is concerned, I predict MP3 will take over that realm soon enough. of the last 10 CDs I've bought, I don't think there were any that I didn't think were great. What I generally do now is hunt around for the MP3s of a few of the songs on an album and if there are 2 or 3 I like, then I wait for a sale at CDNOW and get 2 CDs a total of $10 to $15 (I got Metallica and Aerosmith's Toys in The Attic for about $15 with one of their recent sales, for example). I wouldn't pay anything to "preview" a CD, the prices are already exorbitant enough as-is. Well, maybe I'd pay $0.50.
It's been a while since I read up on this type of thing, but I seem to remember reading that as more stuff gets pulled into the black hole its radius increases in size. Is the schwartschild radius the actual "boundary" of the black hole, or is it the radius that feels the effects of the gravity? Well I guess there isn't really a limit on the second one... I don't know if any of what I said is correct. But I don't think the original guy was asking if the black hole would be "big" enough to engulf us, I think he was asking if its gravity would be enough to pull us in. And since the black hole will grow, I guess it's conceivable that it will someday pull us in.
But like I said, I don't know what I'm talking about.
"What makes Linux so attractive is that it's ``open source,'' which means the underlying code is publicly available. Anybody can use it and make changes in the software, provided they make those changes available to the rest of the community.
A previous post pointed out that this "law" will be passed by some state attorneys-general, and "a few state legislatures." How does that enact national law? Is that not the task for which Congress was expressly designed?
And to whom do we express our rage? As far as I can tell, the worst part of this "law" is not the clause that allows vendors to auto-destruct software -- though that is admittedly horrible -- but the part which states that the creator of the software cannot be held liable if the software sucks. What the hell is that? I mean honestly, what the hell is that? How can that even be under consideration by lawmakers (RESPONSIBLE TO THE PEOPLE, RIGHT?)?
What if the auto industry tried something like that? What kind of cars would we be pumping out if auto makers were not responsible for the quality of their merchandise? Sure, I guess nobody would buy the newest Mustang if it had a bad habit of exploding over 25 mph, but are they claiming that that would be good-enough punishment for the manufacturer? Where are we? Am I in the right universe?
Some may say that the situation is much different with software. But I contend that it is exactly the same. Let's say NASA used Windows as the operating system on the next space shuttle or something (as if). As America watches the in-cockpit camera, we see the blue-screen-of-death pop up and ten seconds later the shuttle blows up. Oops, MS says, but not our fault! See! Look at the license!
Maybe that's an overexaggeration, but there are many situations in which failure of software is simply not an option. If we remove all responsibility for responsible programming, what kinds of programs will we end up with?
But then again, every time I start up emacs it tells me that it's distributed with "ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY". And it's a pretty solid piece of software. So I don't know where that leaves this argument.:-(
Here are the paragraphs in question:
11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.
12. IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY MODIFY AND/OR REDISTRIBUTE THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
What's to stop any software company from adding a line like this to their program? What's stopping them now?? Is it the "applicable law" part? Somebody please tell me. I know there must be something or else every software maker would have implemented this already.
Communicator just grew on me. It's not as snappy at rendering, but it does a better job of it. It doesn't crash as often (for me) and when it does crash, it crashes cleanly and doesn't take my system down with it, unlike IE, which sometimes dies so horribly that a hard reset is needed. Your machine might well respond differently.
Boy, I'll say they're different. The problems you're describing with your IE experience are the ones I had with Netscape. Not to repeat my original post, but Netscape would usually crash the entire system several times a day, whereas IE has only crashed 5 or 6 times in the past few months, and has never taken down the rest of the computer with it. It wasn't until I stopped using Netscape that I realized how bad it was.
I guess this is just an example of the idiosyncracies of computers. One program behaves nicely and another badly on one system, and the exact opposite occurs on another system. Weird. I guess when I get my new Lombard (yeah, right) I'll have to reevaluate the browser situation. Though with all the UI prettiness of IE, I'd probably stand some crashing. God knows I did for 2 years with Netscape... Hopefully Mozilla will change things around for Netscape.
BTW, I assume you're referring to LinuxPPC PRE-R5, right? They didn't release R5 without telling me, I hope.
What version of IE are you running on the Mac???! I was a longtime "I'll-never-use-anything-from-evil-MS" person, but after the horrible speed + memory usage + crashing (program AND entire system) of Communicator/Navigator, I gave in to The Dark Side and realized that it wasn't all that dark. Since switching to IE about 5 months ago, my computer has crashed maybe 3 or 4 times. You have no idea what kind of a record that is. If I tried running Netscape and playing any MP3s the system would bomb. Netscape would bomb randomly, often taking the rest of the system down with it.
As much as I love to root for the underdog, in my experience, Netscape is too big, too slow, and too horrible to use. Explorer (I'm using 4.5 and Communicator 4.5. All of 4.x all gave me the same problems) runs much more quickly, has a MUCH better user interface (eg it lets me use my own email program when clicking on mailto: links, as opposed to Netscape's super-annoying habit of forcing me to use communicator's email regardless of my IC prefs) and has hosts of other nice features from which Netscape could take some serious hints. Another example that comes to mind is the "Go" button next to the URL box. Yes, I know it's a symptom of my supreme laziness, but if I cut&paste a URL, it's a pain to have to go and hit the enter key. As I said, I am that lazy. And like I said, it runs several orders of magnitude faster and more stably than any Netscape 4.x.
Maybe Netscape has given up on the older Macs and is designing programs that work fantastically on the g3s or something, I have no idea honestly. All I know is that on this little ol' 7300/180/32MB, IE kicks Navigator/Communicator's ass wayyy around the block. A few times.
I'd be interested to know what kind of Mac you're using as well as which versions of the progams.
I don't know if anybody else feels the way I do, but for me, listening to anything in real audio is slightly less fun than, say, eating glass. Will a transcript of this show be made available?
I wonder what the slashdot effect will do to the realaudio server...
Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of them not taking off from airports. If they had to behave like normal planes, why would this even be news? I think it would be a neat idea if you could call this Skycar thing and have them pick you up in front of your house and bring you right to your destination. Or in the cities, the tops of skyscrapers could be landing ports. What I was implying, pretty much, was that the time savings from not having to get to an airport and deal with the crazy security and all the waiting would cut hours off any trip.
Of course, from what I've read of the other posts here, this guy has been talking about making this thing for like 20 years, so I'm not exactly betting on it making its debut anytime soon.
Let's see... 1 liter ==.2426 gallons... it comes out to something like 19 MPG!! That's really incredible. That's honestly about what my car gets, and it's not a gas guzzling SUV (which is not to say it's not a gas guzzler).
Odd thing is they listed it in "miles per liter." Shouldn't it be either "miles per gallon" or "kilometers per liter"? I guess they wanted to make sure they confused everybody -- Americans and Europeans.
I don't know what the purpose of this would be. We have enough accidents at 30 mph, the last thing I want is some drunk driver crashing into my house at 600 mph. Maybe there could be some market for a super-taxi -- you know, NY to DC in 20 minutes, or NY to Boston in a half an hour, or something like that. Not for consumer use, that's for sure.
I hope this never takes off (no pun intended -- honestly).
The queenie already has a contract for the next 2 movies, doesn't she? So it will look really stupid if the queen is 17 and Anakin is 7 in one movie, and then in the next movie Anakin is 25 and the queen is 19. I know we have to suspend disbelief with sci fi, but something like that is just way too far out to happen. It's just a rumor; I doubt they'd get someone as old as Leo to play Anakin if they're going to use the same queen.
No, I never heard of Pearl Jam putting up MP3s. But if you go to this site they have some great live MP3s.
But Pearl Jam had their well-known battle with the other evil music institution -- Ticketmaster -- so maybe one day (hopefully soon) they (or some other well known artist(s)) will push their stuff on the web. Artist contracts are not forever, are they? Why don't bands, once they become famous, let their contracts run out and push their stuff over the net? I mean, they've got plenty of money at that point so they don't need whatever money the label would be paying them.
Of course, if Pearl Jam was just doing its Ticketmaster thing as a publicity stunt, I doubt they'll ever be giving away free singles or anything like that.
But like Tom Petty said on Letterman a couple of months ago, the artist doesn't really make any money off radio play anymore, it's all about the publicity the radio gives. So why not just give it away? But like Tom said, the suits didn't like that idea.
Maybe we should combine the "Music" category and the "Almighty Buck" category to create an "RIAA" category.
...when I give a resounding (and pardon my language, but I feel it's appropriate) "FUCK THAT" to that idea. I hated the DIVX idea from the get-go. The notion of somebody charging/tracking/regulating etc. my music is so grotesque that I can barely comprehend it. The only thing that makes DIVX less bad than the suggested Music-DIVX scheme is that I don't watch movies that often. 75% of the time I'm in my room, I'm listening to music... grr. What a horrible idea that would be.
But I'm sure they'll try it soon enough. Lawyers started DIVX, lawyers'll start this too.
I don't see how the RIAA is going to enforce their new stuff. If there is even one machine in the new crop of MP3 players that will allow the playback of non-RIAA-approved MP3s, their entire effort will fail. For example, I would expect whatever device I eventually buy to play all my current MP3s. Well, I still have all the programs I used to encode those (that were mine, anyway), so if the machine will read old files, it's going to have to read new files coded the same way.
The only ace I can see up the RIAA's sleeve is Sony. They seem to be the only member who has the know-how to make anything decent. But who would buy something that doesn't work with existing MP3s? Especially knowing the type of people who use MP3 -- Slashdot types and other college students with fat pipes (Ethernet, of course, not crack pipes...) -- who seem to hate the RIAA and what it stands for. Even the casual MP3 listener will be infuriated when, after spending $150 on that new Sony MP3 player, he finds all his MP3s are useless because of the RIAA.
The RIAA seems to thrive on making enemies. Personally, I don't think I'm ever going to give up CDs in favor of MP3s. I can still hear differences between the original CD and the MP3, even encoded at 192, sometimes even higher. I've downloaded plenty of songs, and the ones that I like I eventually buy. The ones I don't like get trashed, and the "ehh" ones linger around my HD for a while before eventually being tossed. I think MP3 is the ultimate try-before-you-buy for music.
If the RIAA was REALLY worried about MP3, why don't they just lower the prices of CDs? If they cut the average price of a CD from $18 (or whatever fscking ridiculous price it is nowadays) to something like $8, there would be a huge buying spike. If they'd stop being so greedy they might be able to save themselves. But, of course, there's little chance of that happening in an organization comprised of such behemoths as Sony and Columbia (same company?) and the other record companies.
I'm not too good at physics anymore. Does this new info mean that the universe is expanding at a rate fast enough to counteract gravity (expanding forever)? Or is it not fast enough, and will eventually collapse upon itself again? I had seen some calculations a while back that said it was expanding forever, but now that there's apparently new info, has the situation changed (well, at least our perception of it)??
Before you start flaming away, think about the huge differences between an organization like Slashdot and one like the NY Times. The Times and the other newspapers have squads of reporters that go out, find stories, then write the articles to inform the public. Slashdot has squads of people who go out and find the articles that those reporters wrote. Journalism isn't linking to stories other people wrote, it's the original stories. How often do we see "CmdrTaco on location in Kosovo," or "Hemos interviews Linus Torvalds"?
Now please don't think I am trying to put Slashdot down in any way. But I don't think it's journalism in the true sense of the word. It still depends about 99% on the work of others. Reporters do most of their own work.
It just occurred to me (ok, I'm slow), tonight's the opening of Phantom Menace! Linux.com actually averted the Slashdot (+ all other nerd portal sites) effect! Pretty cool. I wonder what their stats will look like for tonight + tomorrow.
Wow, if the site actually has real help for real newbies, I'll be ecstatic. I've pretty much been winging it for the past few months, and when I have a question, I don't know who to ask.
I really hope they're not lopsided towards one distribution or another. I'd especially like to see LinuxPPC newbie help.
-----BEGIN ANNOYING SIG BLOCK----- Evan
But what right does John "Maddog" Hall have to...
on
GNU Inside?
·
· Score: 1
What right does John "Maddog" Hall ("and others") have to decide the future name for Linux? I was reading the chat with Linus that was posted a couple of weeks ago where somebody asked him about Linux / GNU/Linux, and he seemed pretty pissed, and said pretty flatly that, no, it shouldn't be called GNU/Linux, and while he credited the FSF for their great compiler & other dev tools, he said Linux was his, and I'm inclined to agree. If it's his OS, as it seems to me to be, what right does anybody else have to tell him what to name it? Shouldn't he be allowed to call it whatever he wants?
Maybe he should change it to Linus-Torvalds-Not-Affiliated-With-The-FSF-But-Tha nks-For-g++-ix, then all this would be settled. Er... maybe not. I don't know the ins and outs of Linux so I don't know how important GNU stuff is to Linux, but to me it just seems that he should be able to call it whatever he wants.
Bush is not trying to stifle free speech at all. He is trying to get more hits to his site. Do you really think that he can buy every conceivable domain name? What about www.busheatsmonkeyshit.com ? How about www.georgebushismygaylover.com? I don't think they got that one. How is this a free speech issue? Who is stopping free speech? How are they even hindering it? The only time I would type in "bushsucks" or "goresucks" int he url box is to see if it exists. If I want real info, I go to hotbot and type "bush sucks" in the box and then the pages all show up. It's not that hard. Really.
Slashdot Mirror
Here is one source. Search for basic.
http://www.irn.pdx.edu/~ke rlinb/myresearch/timeline.html
Like I said before, if I am misunderstanding you, I apologize.
-----BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH-----
Blah.
I find it sad that Woz acknowledges that Jobs really is that much of an asshole. I had just chalked it up to Hollywood exaggeration.
He was such a jerk that my girlfriend, when the movie was finished, said "I'm never going to buy another Mac again!" I laughed and said, "What do you mean another Mac?", to which she replied, "Well, I'm glad I just threw that one out!" (referring to the old Mac Classic she trashed last week).
-----BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH-----
Blah.
Do you mean invent BASIC for the Apple? BASIC was invented at Dartmouth by John Kemeny and Thomas Kurtz.
-----BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH-----
Blah.
With #1, maybe. I'd rather pay the same price as the rental place ($3 to $4) and just watch it once, but what happens if you're in the middle of watching it and the phone rings or something, or you've gotta leave. Maybe a 1 day viewing period. Movies are so much different from music. Which brings me to question #2.
#2, no way!! Who the hell ever listens to a CD twice? I suppose if you are talking about a preview thing, but with my $3 preview, what's to stop me from making a tape/dat copy? I think music encryption would be tougher than video. Anyway, as far as previewing is concerned, I predict MP3 will take over that realm soon enough. of the last 10 CDs I've bought, I don't think there were any that I didn't think were great. What I generally do now is hunt around for the MP3s of a few of the songs on an album and if there are 2 or 3 I like, then I wait for a sale at CDNOW and get 2 CDs a total of $10 to $15 (I got Metallica and Aerosmith's Toys in The Attic for about $15 with one of their recent sales, for example). I wouldn't pay anything to "preview" a CD, the prices are already exorbitant enough as-is. Well, maybe I'd pay $0.50.
-----BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH-----
Blah.
But like I said, I don't know what I'm talking about.
-----BEGIN ANNOYING SIG BLOCK-----
Evan
Well, their heart was in the right place.
-----BEGIN ANNOYING SIG BLOCK-----
Evan
And to whom do we express our rage? As far as I can tell, the worst part of this "law" is not the clause that allows vendors to auto-destruct software -- though that is admittedly horrible -- but the part which states that the creator of the software cannot be held liable if the software sucks. What the hell is that? I mean honestly, what the hell is that? How can that even be under consideration by lawmakers (RESPONSIBLE TO THE PEOPLE, RIGHT?)?
What if the auto industry tried something like that? What kind of cars would we be pumping out if auto makers were not responsible for the quality of their merchandise? Sure, I guess nobody would buy the newest Mustang if it had a bad habit of exploding over 25 mph, but are they claiming that that would be good-enough punishment for the manufacturer? Where are we? Am I in the right universe?
Some may say that the situation is much different with software. But I contend that it is exactly the same. Let's say NASA used Windows as the operating system on the next space shuttle or something (as if). As America watches the in-cockpit camera, we see the blue-screen-of-death pop up and ten seconds later the shuttle blows up. Oops, MS says, but not our fault! See! Look at the license!
Maybe that's an overexaggeration, but there are many situations in which failure of software is simply not an option. If we remove all responsibility for responsible programming, what kinds of programs will we end up with?
But then again, every time I start up emacs it tells me that it's distributed with "ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY". And it's a pretty solid piece of software. So I don't know where that leaves this argument.
Here are the paragraphs in question:
What's to stop any software company from adding a line like this to their program? What's stopping them now?? Is it the "applicable law" part? Somebody please tell me. I know there must be something or else every software maker would have implemented this already.
-----BEGIN ANNOYING SIG BLOCK-----
Evan
Boy, I'll say they're different. The problems you're describing with your IE experience are the ones I had with Netscape. Not to repeat my original post, but Netscape would usually crash the entire system several times a day, whereas IE has only crashed 5 or 6 times in the past few months, and has never taken down the rest of the computer with it. It wasn't until I stopped using Netscape that I realized how bad it was.
I guess this is just an example of the idiosyncracies of computers. One program behaves nicely and another badly on one system, and the exact opposite occurs on another system. Weird. I guess when I get my new Lombard (yeah, right) I'll have to reevaluate the browser situation. Though with all the UI prettiness of IE, I'd probably stand some crashing. God knows I did for 2 years with Netscape... Hopefully Mozilla will change things around for Netscape.
BTW, I assume you're referring to LinuxPPC PRE-R5, right? They didn't release R5 without telling me, I hope.
-----BEGIN ANNOYING SIG BLOCK-----
Evan
As much as I love to root for the underdog, in my experience, Netscape is too big, too slow, and too horrible to use. Explorer (I'm using 4.5 and Communicator 4.5. All of 4.x all gave me the same problems) runs much more quickly, has a MUCH better user interface (eg it lets me use my own email program when clicking on mailto: links, as opposed to Netscape's super-annoying habit of forcing me to use communicator's email regardless of my IC prefs) and has hosts of other nice features from which Netscape could take some serious hints. Another example that comes to mind is the "Go" button next to the URL box. Yes, I know it's a symptom of my supreme laziness, but if I cut&paste a URL, it's a pain to have to go and hit the enter key. As I said, I am that lazy. And like I said, it runs several orders of magnitude faster and more stably than any Netscape 4.x.
Maybe Netscape has given up on the older Macs and is designing programs that work fantastically on the g3s or something, I have no idea honestly. All I know is that on this little ol' 7300/180/32MB, IE kicks Navigator/Communicator's ass wayyy around the block. A few times.
I'd be interested to know what kind of Mac you're using as well as which versions of the progams.
-----BEGIN ANNOYING SIG BLOCK-----
Evan
I wonder what the slashdot effect will do to the realaudio server...
-----BEGIN ANNOYING SIG BLOCK-----
Evan
Of course, from what I've read of the other posts here, this guy has been talking about making this thing for like 20 years, so I'm not exactly betting on it making its debut anytime soon.
-----BEGIN ANNOYING SIG BLOCK-----
Evan
Odd thing is they listed it in "miles per liter." Shouldn't it be either "miles per gallon" or "kilometers per liter"? I guess they wanted to make sure they confused everybody -- Americans and Europeans.
I don't know what the purpose of this would be. We have enough accidents at 30 mph, the last thing I want is some drunk driver crashing into my house at 600 mph. Maybe there could be some market for a super-taxi -- you know, NY to DC in 20 minutes, or NY to Boston in a half an hour, or something like that. Not for consumer use, that's for sure.
I hope this never takes off (no pun intended -- honestly).
-----BEGIN ANNOYING SIG BLOCK-----
Evan
-----BEGIN ANNOYING SIG BLOCK-----
Evan
But Pearl Jam had their well-known battle with the other evil music institution -- Ticketmaster -- so maybe one day (hopefully soon) they (or some other well known artist(s)) will push their stuff on the web. Artist contracts are not forever, are they? Why don't bands, once they become famous, let their contracts run out and push their stuff over the net? I mean, they've got plenty of money at that point so they don't need whatever money the label would be paying them.
Of course, if Pearl Jam was just doing its Ticketmaster thing as a publicity stunt, I doubt they'll ever be giving away free singles or anything like that.
But like Tom Petty said on Letterman a couple of months ago, the artist doesn't really make any money off radio play anymore, it's all about the publicity the radio gives. So why not just give it away? But like Tom said, the suits didn't like that idea.
Maybe we should combine the "Music" category and the "Almighty Buck" category to create an "RIAA" category.
-----BEGIN ANNOYING SIG BLOCK-----
Evan
But I'm sure they'll try it soon enough. Lawyers started DIVX, lawyers'll start this too.
-----BEGIN ANNOYING SIG BLOCK-----
Evan
The only ace I can see up the RIAA's sleeve is Sony. They seem to be the only member who has the know-how to make anything decent. But who would buy something that doesn't work with existing MP3s? Especially knowing the type of people who use MP3 -- Slashdot types and other college students with fat pipes (Ethernet, of course, not crack pipes...) -- who seem to hate the RIAA and what it stands for. Even the casual MP3 listener will be infuriated when, after spending $150 on that new Sony MP3 player, he finds all his MP3s are useless because of the RIAA.
The RIAA seems to thrive on making enemies. Personally, I don't think I'm ever going to give up CDs in favor of MP3s. I can still hear differences between the original CD and the MP3, even encoded at 192, sometimes even higher. I've downloaded plenty of songs, and the ones that I like I eventually buy. The ones I don't like get trashed, and the "ehh" ones linger around my HD for a while before eventually being tossed. I think MP3 is the ultimate try-before-you-buy for music.
If the RIAA was REALLY worried about MP3, why don't they just lower the prices of CDs? If they cut the average price of a CD from $18 (or whatever fscking ridiculous price it is nowadays) to something like $8, there would be a huge buying spike. If they'd stop being so greedy they might be able to save themselves. But, of course, there's little chance of that happening in an organization comprised of such behemoths as Sony and Columbia (same company?) and the other record companies.
And it'll be their downfall, I tell you.
-----BEGIN ANNOYING SIG BLOCK-----
Evan
Thanks in advance to anybody who knows...
-----BEGIN ANNOYING SIG BLOCK-----
Evan
Now please don't think I am trying to put Slashdot down in any way. But I don't think it's journalism in the true sense of the word. It still depends about 99% on the work of others. Reporters do most of their own work.
-----BEGIN ANNOYING SIG BLOCK-----
Evan
-----BEGIN ANNOYING SIG BLOCK-----
Evan
I really hope they're not lopsided towards one distribution or another. I'd especially like to see LinuxPPC newbie help.
-----BEGIN ANNOYING SIG BLOCK-----
Evan
Maybe he should change it to Linus-Torvalds-Not-Affiliated-With-The-FSF-But-Th
-----BEGIN ANNOYING SIG BLOCK-----
Evan
-----BEGIN ANNOYING SIG BLOCK-----
Evan
-----BEGIN ANNOYING SIG BLOCK-----
Evan
-----BEGIN ANNOYING SIG BLOCK-----
Evan
-----BEGIN ANNOYING SIG BLOCK-----
Evan