You cannot cover up the fact that the last time that Microsoft tried this little stunt, they failed miserably. Sure, maybe it's not exactly the height of "journalistic integrity" to allude to this laughable failure in the headline, but it's certainly relevant, particularly to those Slashdot readers who also happen to be Hotmail users. (If I was a Hotmail user, Yahweh knows that I would want to know about these plans ahead of time!)
Actually, there's not much clumsy about it at all. With a lot of the newer burning software (I use Nero), all you have to do is drag and drop each MP3 that you want into the album structure, click on "Burn", and that's it. It decodes the MP3 on the fly and records it (I usually record at 2x.. unfortunately my machine isn't fast enough to decode at 4x:)) Really, nothing could be simpler than pulling some select MP3s off of Napster and then burning a CD. Note that I'm not defending the practice of pirating copyrighted music. Most of the stuff that I download is live material that has been "blessed" by the artist. But I think you're exaggerating when you're talking about the process being "clumsy."
older CD players won't even play CDR's.
Is this true? I've never met a CD player that didn't like a CD-R, and I've got some OLD players. On the other hand, CD-RWs, obviously, are a different story. I've found that CD-RWs aren't playable in any of my CD players, but my DVD player recognizes it just fine (which, I guess, you would expect.)
Not the point. You can make the case that IE 5 is better than Netscape 4 (I cannot make this case because I've never used IE 5, and cannot use it on my platform of choice) but if you claim this, it's OBVIOUSLY not because the version number of the software is higher. THIS is misconception that must be addressed.
Software quality is judged by functionality, stability, performance, and value.. not by version numbers. Clueful people (i.e., Slashdot readers) understand this. Non-clueful people (i.e., John Q. Katz) by and large do not.
.. like it or not, public perception of Linux comes from what RedHat are doing more than any other organisation - hence this'll be seen as Linux 7.0..
While I agree that the public perception of Linux is slanted very heavily towards whatever release Red Hat happens to be selling at the moment, I'm not so sure if it's a good idea to encourage or participate in this misconception. The concept of a distribution is not a particularly difficult one to understand; rather than furthering the incorrect ideas that many in the general public have about Linux, shouldn't we be exerting energy to set the record straight?
There are a lot of silly games that are being played these days with names and version numbers. People are encouraged to make meaningless numeric comparisons ("hmm, Internet Explorer Five versus Netscape Four? Gee, since five is greater than four, that must mean IE 5 is better!") It seems that everybody is all of a sudden in a hurry to "out-version" each other, which does nothing but add fuel to the fire of public ignorance about software releases and quality. I don't think that the continuance of this type of viscious cycle is something that should be encouraged. The public needs to be gently (but authoritatively!) educated about things like this. And software developers need to focus on things that really matter, instead of pie-in-the-sky obstructions that are little more than public posturing.
Let's see. The "roblimo" sid hack last week demonstrated how simple it is to spoof user numbers. And now you expect the Slashdot community to be impressed with -- excuse me -- #29473? Come on, whoever you are, this is ridiculous. Again I say: if you don't want to play nice and participate in the discussion, why are you here?
Looks like the thieves have won again.:( When will people realize that their right to free speech does not give them the right to rob artists blind? And don't give me "this is all about file sharing and banning FTP." That's called dodging the issue. The issue is theft. So you got yourself a few days. I hope that the law eventually comes down on the right side of this.:(
Sorry, but Radiohead is ridiculous, as is anybody who listens to them. Personally I've always been a big Lawrence Welk fan myself. A few good notes out of the old "squeeze box" are a hell of a lot better than some screeching on some out-of-tune guitar. But maybe that's just me.
Slashdot Mirror
Geez, somebody's a bit over-sensitive.
You cannot cover up the fact that the last time that Microsoft tried this little stunt, they failed miserably. Sure, maybe it's not exactly the height of "journalistic integrity" to allude to this laughable failure in the headline, but it's certainly relevant, particularly to those Slashdot readers who also happen to be Hotmail users. (If I was a Hotmail user, Yahweh knows that I would want to know about these plans ahead of time!)
Burning a CD copy is still clumsy and slow ..
.. unfortunately my machine isn't fast enough to decode at 4x :)) Really, nothing could be simpler than pulling some select MP3s off of Napster and then burning a CD. Note that I'm not defending the practice of pirating copyrighted music. Most of the stuff that I download is live material that has been "blessed" by the artist. But I think you're exaggerating when you're talking about the process being "clumsy."
Actually, there's not much clumsy about it at all. With a lot of the newer burning software (I use Nero), all you have to do is drag and drop each MP3 that you want into the album structure, click on "Burn", and that's it. It decodes the MP3 on the fly and records it (I usually record at 2x
older CD players won't even play CDR's.
Is this true? I've never met a CD player that didn't like a CD-R, and I've got some OLD players. On the other hand, CD-RWs, obviously, are a different story. I've found that CD-RWs aren't playable in any of my CD players, but my DVD player recognizes it just fine (which, I guess, you would expect.)
Umm... I think that was a bad example ;-).
.. not by version numbers. Clueful people (i.e., Slashdot readers) understand this. Non-clueful people (i.e., John Q. Katz) by and large do not.
Not the point. You can make the case that IE 5 is better than Netscape 4 (I cannot make this case because I've never used IE 5, and cannot use it on my platform of choice) but if you claim this, it's OBVIOUSLY not because the version number of the software is higher. THIS is misconception that must be addressed.
Software quality is judged by functionality, stability, performance, and value
.. like it or not, public perception of Linux comes from what RedHat are doing more than any other organisation - hence this'll be seen as Linux 7.0 ..
While I agree that the public perception of Linux is slanted very heavily towards whatever release Red Hat happens to be selling at the moment, I'm not so sure if it's a good idea to encourage or participate in this misconception. The concept of a distribution is not a particularly difficult one to understand; rather than furthering the incorrect ideas that many in the general public have about Linux, shouldn't we be exerting energy to set the record straight?
There are a lot of silly games that are being played these days with names and version numbers. People are encouraged to make meaningless numeric comparisons ("hmm, Internet Explorer Five versus Netscape Four? Gee, since five is greater than four, that must mean IE 5 is better!") It seems that everybody is all of a sudden in a hurry to "out-version" each other, which does nothing but add fuel to the fire of public ignorance about software releases and quality. I don't think that the continuance of this type of viscious cycle is something that should be encouraged. The public needs to be gently (but authoritatively!) educated about things like this. And software developers need to focus on things that really matter, instead of pie-in-the-sky obstructions that are little more than public posturing.
This is why I screw with the trolls in the troll sids.
Okay, this has got to be Shoeboy. Ha, ha. You made your point. Now can you kindly slither back from whence you came?
Let's see. The "roblimo" sid hack last week demonstrated how simple it is to spoof user numbers. And now you expect the Slashdot community to be impressed with -- excuse me -- #29473? Come on, whoever you are, this is ridiculous. Again I say: if you don't want to play nice and participate in the discussion, why are you here?
"He who cannot express himself without using profanity has nothing worthwhile to say." Emerson, IIRC.
Looks like the thieves have won again. :( When will people realize that their right to free speech does not give them the right to rob artists blind? And don't give me "this is all about file sharing and banning FTP." That's called dodging the issue. The issue is theft. So you got yourself a few days. I hope that the law eventually comes down on the right side of this. :(
Sorry, but Radiohead is ridiculous, as is anybody who listens to them. Personally I've always been a big Lawrence Welk fan myself. A few good notes out of the old "squeeze box" are a hell of a lot better than some screeching on some out-of-tune guitar. But maybe that's just me.