I made the initial switch to Linux a year ago. I now feel capable enough with using Linux, from an end user's point of view, so that when things go wrong, I can fix them.
Now I know it is de rigeur not to read the article, but there wasn't even an article to read here - did you even read the question?
I'm not entirely sure what 4) is meant to mean, but I find that if I hover over the volume control in Kaffeine and roll the mouse wheel towards me (usually scroll down in an application) then the volume goes up! Granted the volume control is laying on its side - though that may may just add to the confusion without some kind of graphic to insicate which way is which, but it seems pretty counterintuitive to me.
In the UK we have a record store called Fopp. They tend to buy up large quantities of albums from labels (getting a large discount in the process) and do a back catalogue campaign at £5 per CD, and maybe the new offering from the artist for around £10. The prices for new bands/material are very competitive too.
I often find myself going in with nothing particular in mind and coming out £35 lighter with a bunch of missing Tom Waits, Kate Bush or Nick Cave stuff. It simply will not happen that I go into HMV/Virgin and spend £30 on two albums. I probably won't even buy one when they are £15 a time.
I don't understand why the labels/stores don't seem to understand price elasticity. You'll get more money out of me if the goods seem like decent value - the cost of you physically manufacturing/distributing them will be easily covered anyway. Once you've sold a certain amount all the rest is gravy!
I suppose each artist is like a little monopoly though, so there's not the same sort of competition you get with commodity goods. If you want to buy something by Nick Drake you aren't going to settle for a Rick Shake CD instead...
It is a pretty despicable practice, but your analogy is not quite right (to the extent that any analogy can be, particularly something that is going to be as emotive as rape).
It would be more like the girl going into a park but having to sign a "By walking through this park you agree to have sexual intercourse with me -- A Rapist" disclaimer.
If they do only what they declare -- send invites to the selected contacts -- and don't use the addresses harvested or your account for any other purposes then fair enough. It might be hiding in plain sight, a bit sneaky, and a bit of a shit thing to do, but the user consented.
Clearly the girl who signs such a disclaimer in order to walk through the park or to accept a drink would be a fool.
Something about sea air makes fish and chips particularly appealing. Perhaps landlocked chip shops could blast out some synthetic sea air and make passers-by particularly hungry?
May not be quite the same thing, but you can get a Jetway 1.5GHz C7D (http://linitx.com/product_info.php?cPath=12_138&p roducts_id=1044) for just under £100.
It's no speed demon, takes just over twice as long to encode an ogg as my 2GHz P4 for example, and even with the openchrome drivers under Linux, window redraws etc are dog slow. Plays video fine though, and 3D graphics appear to work.
It's pretty usable as a desktop - gnome, openoffice all work OK, and the only really noticable thing is when you draw a window you get a trail as mentioned above.
I heard about this on the BBC too, though I thought they ought to tell people to be very careful taking the things out of the microwave as they would be extremely hot (I could see someone putting a cloth on the tray directly rather than in a container like most foodstuffs and retrieving it with bare hands). Little did I realise that they would be falling well before they got to that particular hurdle.
Argh, you are right, I take that back unreservedly. My previous opinion was probably based on an old encoder and replaygain being turned on, which can be a pain in the ass as all the volume settings go wonky.
As a sibling post mentions though, MP3 goes south at low bitrates. I spent too much time listening to internet "radio". AAC+ is really good for low bitrates.
I'd still prefer OGG though because of patent issues and my iAudio plays it happily:)
AAC or OGG please, but not MP3 - you need twice the bitrate for comparable quality:(
Also:
In addition, Bainwol said, the ability of consumers to use legally purchased tunes on different devices is not crippled by DRM systems per se. "We're for interoperability," he said, "and there's nothing intrinsic to DRM that prevents interoperability."
There's nothing intrinsic about handcuffs that stops you from riding a bike, but you'd be stupid to think that it helped or was not some kind of hinderance.
It's a fairly minor point, but he wasn't "released" because he was never detained. "Mr Blair was not interviewed under caution and he was not accompanied by a lawyer, his spokesman said". Basically he was questioned as a witness, not a suspect (heh, yet;).
It would be funny (though I'm not suggesting likely, as the second part of the bill hasn't come in yet I believe) if Jack Straw got put in the position of having to provide a password/phrase for some account/key or other that he had either forgotten or never knew on pain of five years in prison if he doesn't or speaks about it to anyone else but his solicitor pursuant to the Regulation Of Investigatory Powers act he was pushing for.
The sheer amount of articles out there talking about how only now within the last 4 months labels are beginning to decide that DRM on CDs is costing them sales.
Of course, indie labels for years have known DRM is stupid, but the big 5 swore by it up till now despite you accusations of the contrary, or would you like me to google up 5 years of articles that prove you a liar?
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
OK. You clearly have some kind of personal demons about the whole "lying" thing.
1) I stated that labels sell unprotected music on CD. Therefore labels do not "require" DRM to sell music. If they did they would not sell CDs.
2) I stated that DRM is pushed by tech companies. OK that's an opinion, but it is one that I honestly hold.
3) I stated that stuff will always end up on P2P anyway - an opinion again, but the emergence of the first HD-DVD title on p2p backs that up.
4) 'Some labels might "want" DRM, but it is the illusion that they are buying, not the reality.' - OK, labels want to stop people copying stuff and mke them buy all their stuff again, but current DRM doesn't stop people copying stuff (see previous point) so the labels are being sold a pup.
5) You: Easy, they havent found a DRM that works well on a CD without breaking things all over the place and making them look bad. Sony, Universal, Warner and EMI have all used copy protection on their CDs recently to mixed results. So your idea that the labels are not pushing it is completely and totally false.
I actually only disagreed with your assertation that labels "require" it (see 1), they don't on CDs, some do on online but look at somewhere like http://www.playloudershop.com/browse/labels/ for (indie admitedly) labels that don't; XL Recordings (The Prodigy), Play It Again Sam, Skint (Fatboy Slim), Beggars Banquet (Cult), 4AD (Pixies), or somewhere like bleep.com or juno.co.uk. These are all selling MP3s with no protection, so your statement "The labels require it" is false because not all labels do. You might want to qualify it as "The major labels". My assertion would be that most labels don't care (an opinion again, but there would seem to be a lot of labels that don't).
6) You'll have to take my word that our labels aren't bothered, but to my knowledge none have used any protected CDs and I wrote the system which has processed a good deal of them for sending to Juno (which has no protection). This statement could be a lie, but you don't have any proof to the contrary, do you?
7) You: The sheer amount of articles out there talking about how only now within the last 4 months labels are beginning to decide that DRM on CDs is costing them sales. Of course, indie labels for years have known DRM is stupid, but the big 5 swore by it up till now despite you accusations of the contrary, or would you like me to google up 5 years of articles that prove you a liar?
So you admit that indie labels don't want it and the majors now see that what they have been given by the tech companies is hurting them. Again, I will state that what I think (opinion) is that the ones who do use DRM like the idea of DRM, but they can't buy it. Like a junkie expecting a better hit each time they are buying DRM pushed to them by tech companies.
The labels are hurting (pissed off customers, class action suits), consumers are hurting (some might not have realised it yet though until they try and switch media player), and who is the only one getting any benefit out of each and every sale of track with a lovely little DRM license? Yeah, DRM manufacturers. I think that the push on DRM is coming from the tech companies like Apple and Microsoft who want a liiittle bit of money on every track sold. Their product is, however, not up to the job so they are selling the illusion of protection. I might be wrong, but it not a lie that that is what I think.
OK, I work for a record label (and distributor). We don't give a stuff about DRM and neither do the labels we distribute. They just want to sell records.to people that want to buy them.
Then how do you explain that *all* the labels on iTunes sell *all* that music in a higher quality (ie. not lossily compressed) unprotected form? It's called a CD.
DRM is pushed by tech companies like a narcotic and some music labels are stupid enough to buy into it.
It will *always* be possible for content to end up on the P2P networks in a "good enough" (for 95% of the audience) form anyway, and as soon as one person does it that nixes the value of the DRM to the label anyway.
Some labels might "want" DRM, but it is the illusion that they are buying, not the reality.
yeah, you're right. duh, forgot about that. it's fine for regular http of course, but the client does have to do the lookup for https. maybe port forward a socks proxy then:)
You are right, but they will be doing your DNS lookups for you too, so let's say they see www.myxxxporn.com get resolved to aaa.bbb.ccc.ddd for your client, then an https request to aaa.bbb.ccc.ddd from your client then there's a pretty good chance you're viewing pages at www.myxxxporn.com. Exactly what you are viewing they don't know, they can't see the content or the path part of the URL, but it's probably good enough to work out what you might be interested in.
Set up an squid/ssh server at home/work, set your browser's proxy settings to a localhost:port and portforward everything with ssh to your home machine. I personally also would only use web based mail (via ssh/proxy) or imaps to read mail too, I wouldn't trust a client not to connect insecurely with imap+starttls, but that's probably just paranoia.
If you are on some kind of public network just assume that someone is watching/mitming everything you do. You don't want to end up on the wall of sheep.
Slashdot Mirror
You are Chairface Chippendale and I claim my five pounds!
Damnit, I've been wasting all that time reading the summary?
No wonder I don't get any first posts
Err, he stated:
I made the initial switch to Linux a year ago. I now feel capable enough with using Linux, from an end user's point of view, so that when things go wrong, I can fix them.
Now I know it is de rigeur not to read the article, but there wasn't even an article to read here - did you even read the question?
but i read it as guSTy at first.
maybe something to do with its guts is making it gusty?
http://www.splint.org/
END OF LINE
I'm not entirely sure what 4) is meant to mean, but I find that if I hover over the volume control in Kaffeine and roll the mouse wheel towards me (usually scroll down in an application) then the volume goes up! Granted the volume control is laying on its side - though that may may just add to the confusion without some kind of graphic to insicate which way is which, but it seems pretty counterintuitive to me.
In the UK we have a record store called Fopp. They tend to buy up large quantities of albums from labels (getting a large discount in the process) and do a back catalogue campaign at £5 per CD, and maybe the new offering from the artist for around £10. The prices for new bands/material are very competitive too.
...
I often find myself going in with nothing particular in mind and coming out £35 lighter with a bunch of missing Tom Waits, Kate Bush or Nick Cave stuff. It simply will not happen that I go into HMV/Virgin and spend £30 on two albums. I probably won't even buy one when they are £15 a time.
I don't understand why the labels/stores don't seem to understand price elasticity. You'll get more money out of me if the goods seem like decent value - the cost of you physically manufacturing/distributing them will be easily covered anyway. Once you've sold a certain amount all the rest is gravy!
I suppose each artist is like a little monopoly though, so there's not the same sort of competition you get with commodity goods. If you want to buy something by Nick Drake you aren't going to settle for a Rick Shake CD instead
That's as maybe (and I'm not saying that I disagree with you) - it was the analogy I was contesting.
It is a pretty despicable practice, but your analogy is not quite right (to the extent that any analogy can be, particularly something that is going to be as emotive as rape).
It would be more like the girl going into a park but having to sign a "By walking through this park you agree to have sexual intercourse with me -- A Rapist" disclaimer.
If they do only what they declare -- send invites to the selected contacts -- and don't use the addresses harvested or your account for any other purposes then fair enough. It might be hiding in plain sight, a bit sneaky, and a bit of a shit thing to do, but the user consented.
Clearly the girl who signs such a disclaimer in order to walk through the park or to accept a drink would be a fool.
The only worse than being pirated is *not* being pirated
Clockwork Software do a package called PayThyme.
Mostly replaced by synthetics nowadays apparently: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambergris
Something about sea air makes fish and chips particularly appealing. Perhaps landlocked chip shops could blast out some synthetic sea air and make passers-by particularly hungry?
May not be quite the same thing, but you can get a Jetway 1.5GHz C7D (http://linitx.com/product_info.php?cPath=12_138&
It's no speed demon, takes just over twice as long to encode an ogg as my 2GHz P4 for example, and even with the openchrome drivers under Linux, window redraws etc are dog slow. Plays video fine though, and 3D graphics appear to work.
It's pretty usable as a desktop - gnome, openoffice all work OK, and the only really noticable thing is when you draw a window you get a trail as mentioned above.
I heard about this on the BBC too, though I thought they ought to tell people to be very careful taking the things out of the microwave as they would be extremely hot (I could see someone putting a cloth on the tray directly rather than in a container like most foodstuffs and retrieving it with bare hands). Little did I realise that they would be falling well before they got to that particular hurdle.
Argh, you are right, I take that back unreservedly. My previous opinion was probably based on an old encoder and replaygain being turned on, which can be a pain in the ass as all the volume settings go wonky.
As a sibling post mentions though, MP3 goes south at low bitrates. I spent too much time listening to internet "radio". AAC+ is really good for low bitrates.
I'd still prefer OGG though because of patent issues and my iAudio plays it happily
AAC or OGG please, but not MP3 - you need twice the bitrate for comparable quality :(
Also:
In addition, Bainwol said, the ability of consumers to use legally purchased tunes on different devices is not crippled by DRM systems per se. "We're for interoperability," he said, "and there's nothing intrinsic to DRM that prevents interoperability."
There's nothing intrinsic about handcuffs that stops you from riding a bike, but you'd be stupid to think that it helped or was not some kind of hinderance.
It's a fairly minor point, but he wasn't "released" because he was never detained. "Mr Blair was not interviewed under caution and he was not accompanied by a lawyer, his spokesman said". Basically he was questioned as a witness, not a suspect (heh, yet ;).
It would be funny (though I'm not suggesting likely, as the second part of the bill hasn't come in yet I believe) if Jack Straw got put in the position of having to provide a password/phrase for some account/key or other that he had either forgotten or never knew on pain of five years in prison if he doesn't or speaks about it to anyone else but his solicitor pursuant to the Regulation Of Investigatory Powers act he was pushing for.
The sheer amount of articles out there talking about how only now within the last 4 months labels are beginning to decide that DRM on CDs is costing them sales.
Of course, indie labels for years have known DRM is stupid, but the big 5 swore by it up till now despite you accusations of the contrary, or would you like me to google up 5 years of articles that prove you a liar?
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
OK. You clearly have some kind of personal demons about the whole "lying" thing.
1) I stated that labels sell unprotected music on CD. Therefore labels do not "require" DRM to sell music. If they did they would not sell CDs.
2) I stated that DRM is pushed by tech companies. OK that's an opinion, but it is one that I honestly hold.
3) I stated that stuff will always end up on P2P anyway - an opinion again, but the emergence of the first HD-DVD title on p2p backs that up.
4) 'Some labels might "want" DRM, but it is the illusion that they are buying, not the reality.' - OK, labels want to stop people copying stuff and mke them buy all their stuff again, but current DRM doesn't stop people copying stuff (see previous point) so the labels are being sold a pup.
5) You: Easy, they havent found a DRM that works well on a CD without breaking things all over the place and making them look bad. Sony, Universal, Warner and EMI have all used copy protection on their CDs recently to mixed results. So your idea that the labels are not pushing it is completely and totally false.
I actually only disagreed with your assertation that labels "require" it (see 1), they don't on CDs, some do on online but look at somewhere like http://www.playloudershop.com/browse/labels/ for (indie admitedly) labels that don't; XL Recordings (The Prodigy), Play It Again Sam, Skint (Fatboy Slim), Beggars Banquet (Cult), 4AD (Pixies), or somewhere like bleep.com or juno.co.uk. These are all selling MP3s with no protection, so your statement "The labels require it" is false because not all labels do. You might want to qualify it as "The major labels". My assertion would be that most labels don't care (an opinion again, but there would seem to be a lot of labels that don't).
6) You'll have to take my word that our labels aren't bothered, but to my knowledge none have used any protected CDs and I wrote the system which has processed a good deal of them for sending to Juno (which has no protection). This statement could be a lie, but you don't have any proof to the contrary, do you?
7) You: The sheer amount of articles out there talking about how only now within the last 4 months labels are beginning to decide that DRM on CDs is costing them sales. Of course, indie labels for years have known DRM is stupid, but the big 5 swore by it up till now despite you accusations of the contrary, or would you like me to google up 5 years of articles that prove you a liar?
So you admit that indie labels don't want it and the majors now see that what they have been given by the tech companies is hurting them. Again, I will state that what I think (opinion) is that the ones who do use DRM like the idea of DRM, but they can't buy it. Like a junkie expecting a better hit each time they are buying DRM pushed to them by tech companies.
The labels are hurting (pissed off customers, class action suits), consumers are hurting (some might not have realised it yet though until they try and switch media player), and who is the only one getting any benefit out of each and every sale of track with a lovely little DRM license? Yeah, DRM manufacturers. I think that the push on DRM is coming from the tech companies like Apple and Microsoft who want a liiittle bit of money on every track sold. Their product is, however, not up to the job so they are selling the illusion of protection. I might be wrong, but it not a lie that that is what I think.
So, am I a liar as you claim? On
OK, I work for a record label (and distributor). We don't give a stuff about DRM and neither do the labels we distribute. They just want to sell records.to people that want to buy them.
Your move.
Then how do you explain that *all* the labels on iTunes sell *all* that music in a higher quality (ie. not lossily compressed) unprotected form? It's called a CD.
DRM is pushed by tech companies like a narcotic and some music labels are stupid enough to buy into it.
It will *always* be possible for content to end up on the P2P networks in a "good enough" (for 95% of the audience) form anyway, and as soon as one person does it that nixes the value of the DRM to the label anyway.
Some labels might "want" DRM, but it is the illusion that they are buying, not the reality.
Awww, that's stiiill too long for my short attention span to deal with
Can't you trim it down to a simple "yes" or "no"?
yeah, you're right. duh, forgot about that. it's fine for regular http of course, but the client does have to do the lookup for https. maybe port forward a socks proxy then
You are right, but they will be doing your DNS lookups for you too, so let's say they see www.myxxxporn.com get resolved to aaa.bbb.ccc.ddd for your client, then an https request to aaa.bbb.ccc.ddd from your client then there's a pretty good chance you're viewing pages at www.myxxxporn.com. Exactly what you are viewing they don't know, they can't see the content or the path part of the URL, but it's probably good enough to work out what you might be interested in.
Set up an squid/ssh server at home/work, set your browser's proxy settings to a localhost:port and portforward everything with ssh to your home machine. I personally also would only use web based mail (via ssh/proxy) or imaps to read mail too, I wouldn't trust a client not to connect insecurely with imap+starttls, but that's probably just paranoia.
If you are on some kind of public network just assume that someone is watching/mitming everything you do. You don't want to end up on the wall of sheep.