VirtualPC + AudioGalaxy, or VirtualPC + KaZaA. Oh, just do it already. I love my Mac as much as anyone, but let's face it: for the foreseeable future, most of the good stuff is going to come to Windoze first, or maybe Linux. (AG claims to be working on a Mac client, but I wouldn't hold my breath.)
>Grassroots activism counts for a lot more than money.
On what planet, exactly? Or, okay, in what country? There are probably still democracies in which this is the case, but I can't agree that ours is one of them. As an activist in areas ranging from drug policy to free speech to electronic freedom to consumer protection, I would submit that the power of money is paramount in the year 2000. Political realities demand it. If other politicians are exchanging influence for cash, yours probably will be too -- or else she won't be able to pay for the ads, and she probably won't get elected. There are brave exceptions, of course, but they're few and far between. Even when a political battle goes my way, it's usually because an organization like the ACLU or the EFF -- with the help of my financial contributions -- has been able to *pay* to fight the expensive legal or legislative fights that are, sadly, vital to overturning unconstitutional legislation.
And yes, I am a member of the Libertarian Party, and I regularly vote that way (though I also vote for Democrats and sometimes even Republicans, based on the candidates and my perception of the closeness of the race). As such, while I'll try to be succinct, I'd like to counter just a couple of the accusations which have been made against Libertarians in this thread.
First of all, not all Libertarians wish to abolish the income tax, eliminate foreign aid, and axe all government programs that aren't directly involved in protecting liberties. That's the perception of some, but it's far from reality. I happen to agree with those who have argued that pure libertarianism would never work. But, so what? I would argue that neither pure conservatism nor pure liberalism would work either; there are strengths and weaknesses to both, and the reason that there are so many passionate people on both sides probably has something to do with the fact that the "best" course lies somewhere in between. I am a Libertarian because I have seen, time and time again, that neither the Democratic nor the Republican parties are any longer truly committed to protecting civil liberties. The economic axis of the political map gets most of the attention, while with respect to the personal-freedom axis, both major parties are content to blame the other for our undeniable shift toward authoritarianism. And most of us buy it, though even a cursory perusal of the Congressional Record and voting logs makes it clear that attacking civil liberties has become a truly bipartisan sport. Following the money trails may help me understand why this is, but it doesn't make me want to be a part of it any more than I have to.
I would also take issue with the suggestion that Libertarians wish to take power out of the hands of the government and put it into the hands of the corporations. Far from it. Indeed, another of the primary reasons I became a Libertarian was to fight the undeniable influence of the latter on the former. Look at the Napster battle. Look at the DVD/DeCSS battle. Heck, look at the Drug War, and follow the money trails back from the most vociferous warriors in Congress to the alcohol, tobacco, and pharmaceutical industries, all of whom have major vested interests in keeping illicit substances illicit (even for medicinal purposes). All of this stuff tends to annoy Libertarians -- who, not coincidentally, tend to be among the strongest advocates of the kind of campaign finance reform to which *most* Republicrat politicians pay lip service and little else, since they just don't see it as being in their best interests.
Finally, there's the last major accusation which is regularly made against Libertarian/Green/Reform/Natural Law etc. voters, which is that we're "throwing our votes away." However you happen to come down on the Nader issue, I'd say that a glance at the Florida totals would demonstrate that this isn't the case. Enough Florida progressives simply couldn't vote for Gore with a clean conscience that he lost the election. It's that simple. Don't feel like playing that kind of roulette and taking a chance that you'll be helping the candidate you consider the greater of two evils? Hey, fine! Just *register* Libertarian; it'll still have an impact. Or give to the ACLU, the EFF, or other groups that fight for liberties. All I ask is that you don't judge my party until you're sure you know what we're about.
Macster is cool, and probably still the best Mac clone overall (though it still crashes on my G3 every hour or so under heavy use). But it does insist on going through the query server and won't connect manually, which is gonna become a fatal flaw in under 48 hours.:) For a Mac clone with Napigator-like functionality, try Rapster.
I appreciate the spirit of the devil's advocacy, but I'd also like to suggest that the RIAA may be completely aware that the courts are not likely to support them in such an extremist position. (The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee certainly seemed about to rip them a new orifice when they tried that maneuver.) But claiming to have the law on your side can be almost as good as actually having it, considering how few of us are likely to check.
Precedent? Try Disney's DVD splash screen, which goes further than any other studio's in claiming "Duplication in whole or in part of this DVD is prohibited." Well... I never agreed to such terms when I bought the disc, and there is nothing in even the DMCA (which still provides for fair use) that enforces such terms inherently. It's pure rubbish. They know it. We should know it, but practically everyone I know thought (until I explained otherwise) that I'd be breaking the law by taping a personal copy of a movie that I paid for.
(If a Betamax case falls in the forest and there are no consumers there to hear it, did it truly happen?)
If the RIAA insists that I agreed to their terms WRT ripping audio for personal use when that piece of plastic and aluminum passed into my possession, then I will indeed see them in court. The only thing I signed was the credit slip.
And write their congressmen they actually did. 70,000 of them, IIRC...over one Napster user in 100. Granted, I wish the campaign had asked them to spare some ire for Feinstein in addition to the praise for Hatch and Leahy, but that's just the bitter, betrayed California ex-Democrat in me speaking.;)
Man. If I could figure out how to inspire the kind of activism for my pet political causes that folks are willing to expend when their access to free tunes is threatened...well, let's just say the drug war would be over tomorrow...
Absolutely true. Thus I've been dropping in on the most high-traffic Napster channels tonight, posting little public-service announcements, directing people to www.napster.org.uk, talking up Napigator and Audiognome, explaining that, yes, the Napster servers are being shut down, but no, this does not mean that the sky is falling, and so on.
Sheep are good. We need sheep. (Especially the willing ones!) But I do have to say, as a public-service to this forum, and after subjecting myself to the incessant profanity, homophobia, xenophobia, sexism, apathy, cynicism, selfishness, and sheer mind-boggling lack of clue that characterizes the typical Napster Alternative channel...
If you value your positive outlook on humanity and sense of hope for our future as a species, stay away. Very far away.
Well, count at least one person who sees it the way you do. I've always known that I chose my side in the Napster controversy not because I see free music as some sort of inalienable right all of a sudden, but because I consider it a terrible legal precedent to state that a search engine is responsible for the actions of its users. I can find all manner of copyrighted material using AltaVista, and if I refine my search well enough, I don't even get all that much chaff with the wheat. In the final analysis, where is the distinction? Here's where: Napster made it too easy and fulfilled its function too well, and its reward for that act of innovation was a corporate lynching.
This is the single argument that the Boies and co. should have hammered home, and perhaps did. Unfortunately, non-technical participants such as Judge Patel and my own dear Senator Feinstein (whose thoroughly ignorant pro-industry comments at the recent Judiciary Committee hearing very nearly made me ill) simply may not be qualified to recognize the larger implications of ignoring such an argument.
It has long been acknowledged that our politicians and judges don't exactly tend to be on the technological bleeding edge. (Remember how long it took them just to get Congress wired for email?) Unfortunately, bad laws and bad verdicts are the direct results. I don't see this changing any time soon. Even Senator Hatch, who somehow ended up on the right side of an issue for perhaps the first time in his life, made it implicitly clear during his tongue-lashing of the RIAA that he was more worried about the prospect of pissing off tens of thousands of young voters than he was concerned about the technical ramifications of the discussion.
Our only saving grace is the fact that the Internet, at least in this case, is inherently unregulatable. I suppose the lesson is that we should just let the powers that be (or that think they be) enjoy their delusions of regulatory potency, smirk quietly to ourselves as the Internet routes effortlessly around them, and extend our condolences and our support to those poor unfortunates who, like the employees of Napster, Inc., find themselves caught up in the in(s)anity.
Well, one reason Napster focuses on a single specific file type is that it can thereby provide some extremely handy information that doesn't necessarily apply to generic content--length and bit rate in particular. When I get several dozens hits on a song, I generally sort first by length, which lets me determine which range of lengths is appropriate for the version I'm looking for (excluding incomplete files, live versions, remixes, and so on). Then I sort again by ping time, and finally pick the file with the lowest ping time that's also in the right length range and bit rate. As a result, I rarely end up with the wrong file. With gnutella, I'm flying more or less blind.
Of course, Napster could have been designed so that it could be "trained" to extract length and bit-rate information for different types of audio (and maybe even video) files. I'd like to see a system that would take advantage of that possibility, while enforcing a reasonably strict (though expandable) set of file types so that searching for just MP3s or just DivX:-) files would still be a reasonable proposition.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, everyone knows that gyrocopters are the future of tasty Greek food delivery.
VirtualPC + AudioGalaxy, or VirtualPC + KaZaA. Oh, just do it already. I love my Mac as much as anyone, but let's face it: for the foreseeable future, most of the good stuff is going to come to Windoze first, or maybe Linux. (AG claims to be working on a Mac client, but I wouldn't hold my breath.)
>Grassroots activism counts for a lot more than money.
On what planet, exactly? Or, okay, in what country? There are probably still democracies in which this is the case, but I can't agree that ours is one of them. As an activist in areas ranging from drug policy to free speech to electronic freedom to consumer protection, I would submit that the power of money is paramount in the year 2000. Political realities demand it. If other politicians are exchanging influence for cash, yours probably will be too -- or else she won't be able to pay for the ads, and she probably won't get elected. There are brave exceptions, of course, but they're few and far between. Even when a political battle goes my way, it's usually because an organization like the ACLU or the EFF -- with the help of my financial contributions -- has been able to *pay* to fight the expensive legal or legislative fights that are, sadly, vital to overturning unconstitutional legislation.
And yes, I am a member of the Libertarian Party, and I regularly vote that way (though I also vote for Democrats and sometimes even Republicans, based on the candidates and my perception of the closeness of the race). As such, while I'll try to be succinct, I'd like to counter just a couple of the accusations which have been made against Libertarians in this thread.
First of all, not all Libertarians wish to abolish the income tax, eliminate foreign aid, and axe all government programs that aren't directly involved in protecting liberties. That's the perception of some, but it's far from reality. I happen to agree with those who have argued that pure libertarianism would never work. But, so what? I would argue that neither pure conservatism nor pure liberalism would work either; there are strengths and weaknesses to both, and the reason that there are so many passionate people on both sides probably has something to do with the fact that the "best" course lies somewhere in between. I am a Libertarian because I have seen, time and time again, that neither the Democratic nor the Republican parties are any longer truly committed to protecting civil liberties. The economic axis of the political map gets most of the attention, while with respect to the personal-freedom axis, both major parties are content to blame the other for our undeniable shift toward authoritarianism. And most of us buy it, though even a cursory perusal of the Congressional Record and voting logs makes it clear that attacking civil liberties has become a truly bipartisan sport. Following the money trails may help me understand why this is, but it doesn't make me want to be a part of it any more than I have to.
I would also take issue with the suggestion that Libertarians wish to take power out of the hands of the government and put it into the hands of the corporations. Far from it. Indeed, another of the primary reasons I became a Libertarian was to fight the undeniable influence of the latter on the former. Look at the Napster battle. Look at the DVD/DeCSS battle. Heck, look at the Drug War, and follow the money trails back from the most vociferous warriors in Congress to the alcohol, tobacco, and pharmaceutical industries, all of whom have major vested interests in keeping illicit substances illicit (even for medicinal purposes). All of this stuff tends to annoy Libertarians -- who, not coincidentally, tend to be among the strongest advocates of the kind of campaign finance reform to which *most* Republicrat politicians pay lip service and little else, since they just don't see it as being in their best interests.
Finally, there's the last major accusation which is regularly made against Libertarian/Green/Reform/Natural Law etc. voters, which is that we're "throwing our votes away." However you happen to come down on the Nader issue, I'd say that a glance at the Florida totals would demonstrate that this isn't the case. Enough Florida progressives simply couldn't vote for Gore with a clean conscience that he lost the election. It's that simple. Don't feel like playing that kind of roulette and taking a chance that you'll be helping the candidate you consider the greater of two evils? Hey, fine! Just *register* Libertarian; it'll still have an impact. Or give to the ACLU, the EFF, or other groups that fight for liberties. All I ask is that you don't judge my party until you're sure you know what we're about.
Ethan
Macster is cool, and probably still the best Mac clone overall (though it still crashes on my G3 every hour or so under heavy use). But it does insist on going through the query server and won't connect manually, which is gonna become a fatal flaw in under 48 hours. :) For a Mac clone with Napigator-like functionality, try Rapster.
Precedent? Try Disney's DVD splash screen, which goes further than any other studio's in claiming "Duplication in whole or in part of this DVD is prohibited." Well... I never agreed to such terms when I bought the disc, and there is nothing in even the DMCA (which still provides for fair use) that enforces such terms inherently. It's pure rubbish. They know it. We should know it, but practically everyone I know thought (until I explained otherwise) that I'd be breaking the law by taping a personal copy of a movie that I paid for.
(If a Betamax case falls in the forest and there are no consumers there to hear it, did it truly happen?)
If the RIAA insists that I agreed to their terms WRT ripping audio for personal use when that piece of plastic and aluminum passed into my possession, then I will indeed see them in court. The only thing I signed was the credit slip.
Man. If I could figure out how to inspire the kind of activism for my pet political causes that folks are willing to expend when their access to free tunes is threatened...well, let's just say the drug war would be over tomorrow...
Sheep are good. We need sheep. (Especially the willing ones!) But I do have to say, as a public-service to this forum, and after subjecting myself to the incessant profanity, homophobia, xenophobia, sexism, apathy, cynicism, selfishness, and sheer mind-boggling lack of clue that characterizes the typical Napster Alternative channel...
If you value your positive outlook on humanity and sense of hope for our future as a species, stay away. Very far away.
This is the single argument that the Boies and co. should have hammered home, and perhaps did. Unfortunately, non-technical participants such as Judge Patel and my own dear Senator Feinstein (whose thoroughly ignorant pro-industry comments at the recent Judiciary Committee hearing very nearly made me ill) simply may not be qualified to recognize the larger implications of ignoring such an argument.
It has long been acknowledged that our politicians and judges don't exactly tend to be on the technological bleeding edge. (Remember how long it took them just to get Congress wired for email?) Unfortunately, bad laws and bad verdicts are the direct results. I don't see this changing any time soon. Even Senator Hatch, who somehow ended up on the right side of an issue for perhaps the first time in his life, made it implicitly clear during his tongue-lashing of the RIAA that he was more worried about the prospect of pissing off tens of thousands of young voters than he was concerned about the technical ramifications of the discussion.
Our only saving grace is the fact that the Internet, at least in this case, is inherently unregulatable. I suppose the lesson is that we should just let the powers that be (or that think they be) enjoy their delusions of regulatory potency, smirk quietly to ourselves as the Internet routes effortlessly around them, and extend our condolences and our support to those poor unfortunates who, like the employees of Napster, Inc., find themselves caught up in the in(s)anity.
Well, one reason Napster focuses on a single specific file type is that it can thereby provide some extremely handy information that doesn't necessarily apply to generic content--length and bit rate in particular. When I get several dozens hits on a song, I generally sort first by length, which lets me determine which range of lengths is appropriate for the version I'm looking for (excluding incomplete files, live versions, remixes, and so on). Then I sort again by ping time, and finally pick the file with the lowest ping time that's also in the right length range and bit rate. As a result, I rarely end up with the wrong file. With gnutella, I'm flying more or less blind.
:-) files would still be a reasonable proposition.
Of course, Napster could have been designed so that it could be "trained" to extract length and bit-rate information for different types of audio (and maybe even video) files. I'd like to see a system that would take advantage of that possibility, while enforcing a reasonably strict (though expandable) set of file types so that searching for just MP3s or just DivX