Sony, like all other companies, has the right to charge what the market will bear
This applies only where there is a free market. For music distribution (at least in the US and EU) the RIAA (and local equivalents) have all the market for themselves, or are at least overly dominant.
The free market rule does not apply in such a market. And this goes against the benefit of all three parties involved (Us, the artists and the labels) as far as I'm concerned.
None of these lawsuits have seen a courtroom yet AFAIK. This means that they were all settled out of court, and a settlement means (legally at least) that both parties agree that one was wrong and then decide to compensate with money for the loss of the other one. So the persons sued agree that they were wrong and willfully ( *sic* ) decide to compensate the label for their rightful benefit ( *sic* )
I am happy to live in America, since it could be much worse elsewhere
Frankly, I don't know anymore. With the DMCA, the Patriot Act and all the crap that deep-pockets are trying to get in (and they can, they already did!) I am frankly more and more skeptical over the close future (say, in the next ~10 years) and frankly pessimistic over that period.
But without using a "Great Firewall of America", how are they going to prevent americans from using other search engines and other websites? Is that the way we're going?
I think the general audience (read: most of the people) will come to its senses. It is just a matter of time. When the iPod guy will find that Apple is not the greatest portable music player producer anymore, he will have to realise that his $750 worth of music legally purchased needs to be paid for again. Having to come to that is most unfortunate, but it seems as if it's going to be the way to go.
BTW: Is it legal to burn a CDA out of your iTMS tunes and then rip it to MP3? I know it's horrible in plenty of ways, but is it legal?
Re:On behalf of Canadian Musicians...
on
CRIA Falling Apart?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
What is the Sam Bulte incident anyway? (Not trolling, I just don't know)
An 8 KHz file is already, de facto, compressed. It throws away a huge chunk of human-audible spectrum.
It's not compressed, it's sampled. Audio is easy to quantize the way you do it because we more or less understand the human hear. Video is not. When I sample a movie at 720x480, I am not compressing, even though I threw away a few millions pixels that would have been visible on a huge screen.
It's not compression, it's sampling. Sampling is always going to remove information. Taking a scene and digitizing it at 720x480 is sampling, not compression. Even if you could have done it at 1920x1080. It all depends on the resolution of your eyes and the size of the screen you're going to view it on. There are no absolutes when it comes to that.
Let's talk video then. I'll take a 1080i/component over a 480i/HDMI any time of the day. Or another one: I'll take a good analog cable service over a HD satellite badly tuned any time of the day. And on, and on...
The problem with sentences like "Digital is always superior to analog" is that it's just not true, not even in specific cases.
Someone in your car can tell you "Hey watch out!" when they see something they interpret as potentially dangerous. Someone on the phone drags you out of the context of your car.
Firstly, digital is superior to analog, at least where there isn't overcompression
I haven't read something that dumb in a while. Digital and Analog are two different ways to store/transmit data, nothing more. The quality of each is bound to be the quality that it was designed to hold, nothing more, nothing less. The ONE property digital data has over analog, is that it _can_ be duplicated without loss.
A 8KHz PCM (no compression) stereo file will sound worse than a LP or a cassette, you can be sure of that.
A good DTS track on a regular DVD is going to provide the same experience than a SACD/DVD-A for 99% of the persons interested in multichannel sound. This is what is killing SACD and DVD-A, not their stupid war.
They don't provide anything more than what the regular user already has.
as for HDDVD, most people will need to get a lot of money out to see any difference. Not just a player. You and I are not the norm.
handsfree kits are the sensible way to go I actually tend to think that this is more dangerous. You see, there is actually two problems with cellphones and driving: A. One hand is taken. That forces the driver to use a pretty uncomfortable position to be able to drive and hold the phone at the same time. B. Talking to someone you can't see over a link that is not great. This is much harder that talking to someone in your car. And if you're really into the conversation, your reflexes are just numb.
handsfree kits are solving A while increasing B, because you don't NEED to pay attention to your driving anymore. With a real phone, you are in an uncomfortable situation, so you pay attention because it is unpleasant.
I think the only way is to just BAN any cellphone activity by the driver. Of course, that's unfortunately science fiction.
And since Apache has around 70% market-share, I guess it's safe to say that Windows/IIS is doomed?
Numbers can mean what you want them to mean. The point is that IIS came from 0% to 25% in 5 years, and is still growing. Some will find this slow, others fast. The point is that MS is 'en route' to dominate (or at least be a major player) yet another CS-related market. Time only will tell if they'll be able to sustain this growth.
as the other posters have said, nothing makes up for some image stablization and a quality lighting/flash
You are forgetting one very important factor in digital camera's quality: The CCD. A CCD can hardly be summarized to its number of pixels. The amount of light needed to actually impress a good image on the CCD can vary tremendously, thus lowering the need for a stabilizer/flash with a good CCD.
Of course, there is a catch, which is that often the size of the CCD is directly proportional to its quality, where the bigger the better, so in cellphones, we're bound to have tiny CCDs, hence much light needed to avoid a lot of noise.
Here or here. But do I really need to point out that nothing could tell our young that smoking was dangerous untils a few years ago? That fuel is bad for the environment? That asbestos was terribly bad for health?
Believing that the cellphone businesses and all connex businesses are doing absolutely no effort to burry the truth (admitting there is something to burry) is terribly naive.
We even got a fireman in France thet got burned to the third degree putting his hands on a cellphone antenna. And noone denied that an antenna could burn someone from 1-10 cm. So when you live 24/7 a few meters below, one wonders if the long time effects might really be null. Cellphones are one thing, relays are another, but they're still part of the same business.
Denying any effect on health is just being blind or biaised.
Slashdot Mirror
Sony, like all other companies, has the right to charge what the market will bear
This applies only where there is a free market. For music distribution (at least in the US and EU) the RIAA (and local equivalents) have all the market for themselves, or are at least overly dominant.
The free market rule does not apply in such a market. And this goes against the benefit of all three parties involved (Us, the artists and the labels) as far as I'm concerned.
Two ASS sentors who haven't a clue
They have a perfect clue of how much money they did pocket from the RIAA just before trying to get that stupid stuff in.
None of these lawsuits have seen a courtroom yet AFAIK. This means that they were all settled out of court, and a settlement means (legally at least) that both parties agree that one was wrong and then decide to compensate with money for the loss of the other one. So the persons sued agree that they were wrong and willfully ( *sic* ) decide to compensate the label for their rightful benefit ( *sic* )
;)
Of course, IANAL
I am happy to live in America, since it could be much worse elsewhere
Frankly, I don't know anymore. With the DMCA, the Patriot Act and all the crap that deep-pockets are trying to get in (and they can, they already did!) I am frankly more and more skeptical over the close future (say, in the next ~10 years) and frankly pessimistic over that period.
If throwing some libertarian policies into their platform
You should read:
If throwing some libertarian policies into their campaign (and throwing it away just after)
But without using a "Great Firewall of America", how are they going to prevent americans from using other search engines and other websites? Is that the way we're going?
One interesting thing about the article you linked to is the last sentence:
"(...) and to steer consumers toward such legal download sites as Pressplay, MusicNet and Rhapsody"
What about iTunes? I guess these people don't like Apple all that much.
I thought current DVD players already have several lasers... because there is no common wavelength to be able to read : CD, CD-R(W), DVD, DVD-/+R(W)
I may be wrong though. But for sure, the expensive part in a DVD player is certainly not the laser.
I think the general audience (read: most of the people) will come to its senses. It is just a matter of time. When the iPod guy will find that Apple is not the greatest portable music player producer anymore, he will have to realise that his $750 worth of music legally purchased needs to be paid for again. Having to come to that is most unfortunate, but it seems as if it's going to be the way to go.
BTW: Is it legal to burn a CDA out of your iTMS tunes and then rip it to MP3? I know it's horrible in plenty of ways, but is it legal?
What is the Sam Bulte incident anyway? (Not trolling, I just don't know)
An 8 KHz file is already, de facto, compressed. It throws away a huge chunk of human-audible spectrum.
It's not compressed, it's sampled. Audio is easy to quantize the way you do it because we more or less understand the human hear. Video is not. When I sample a movie at 720x480, I am not compressing, even though I threw away a few millions pixels that would have been visible on a huge screen.
It's not compression, it's sampling. Sampling is always going to remove information. Taking a scene and digitizing it at 720x480 is sampling, not compression. Even if you could have done it at 1920x1080. It all depends on the resolution of your eyes and the size of the screen you're going to view it on. There are no absolutes when it comes to that.
Let's talk video then. I'll take a 1080i/component over a 480i/HDMI any time of the day. Or another one: I'll take a good analog cable service over a HD satellite badly tuned any time of the day. And on, and on...
The problem with sentences like "Digital is always superior to analog" is that it's just not true, not even in specific cases.
Someone in your car can tell you "Hey watch out!" when they see something they interpret as potentially dangerous. Someone on the phone drags you out of the context of your car.
Firstly, digital is superior to analog, at least where there isn't overcompression
I haven't read something that dumb in a while. Digital and Analog are two different ways to store/transmit data, nothing more. The quality of each is bound to be the quality that it was designed to hold, nothing more, nothing less. The ONE property digital data has over analog, is that it _can_ be duplicated without loss.
A 8KHz PCM (no compression) stereo file will sound worse than a LP or a cassette, you can be sure of that.
A good DTS track on a regular DVD is going to provide the same experience than a SACD/DVD-A for 99% of the persons interested in multichannel sound. This is what is killing SACD and DVD-A, not their stupid war.
They don't provide anything more than what the regular user already has.
as for HDDVD, most people will need to get a lot of money out to see any difference. Not just a player. You and I are not the norm.
handsfree kits are the sensible way to go
I actually tend to think that this is more dangerous. You see, there is actually two problems with cellphones and driving:
A. One hand is taken. That forces the driver to use a pretty uncomfortable position to be able to drive and hold the phone at the same time.
B. Talking to someone you can't see over a link that is not great. This is much harder that talking to someone in your car. And if you're really into the conversation, your reflexes are just numb.
handsfree kits are solving A while increasing B, because you don't NEED to pay attention to your driving anymore. With a real phone, you are in an uncomfortable situation, so you pay attention because it is unpleasant.
I think the only way is to just BAN any cellphone activity by the driver. Of course, that's unfortunately science fiction.
And since Apache has around 70% market-share, I guess it's safe to say that Windows/IIS is doomed?
Numbers can mean what you want them to mean. The point is that IIS came from 0% to 25% in 5 years, and is still growing. Some will find this slow, others fast. The point is that MS is 'en route' to dominate (or at least be a major player) yet another CS-related market. Time only will tell if they'll be able to sustain this growth.
Hardly doomed.
Do such stats ever influence companies choosing a platform?
Such stats are the reason Windows is in the place it is today.
Well, you can't define birthdays in gmail's contact list, so you obviously can't be notified by the Calendar. Didn't test the notifications yet.
BTW, why didn't they call it Galendar?
Hi,
The world you live in seems quite nice.
Let us know when you're back into our real one.
as the other posters have said, nothing makes up for some image stablization and a quality lighting/flash
You are forgetting one very important factor in digital camera's quality: The CCD. A CCD can hardly be summarized to its number of pixels. The amount of light needed to actually impress a good image on the CCD can vary tremendously, thus lowering the need for a stabilizer/flash with a good CCD.
Of course, there is a catch, which is that often the size of the CCD is directly proportional to its quality, where the bigger the better, so in cellphones, we're bound to have tiny CCDs, hence much light needed to avoid a lot of noise.
No picture in article
One could guess it's like a Blackberry, but Red.
Not only that. I clearly remember running Windows 2.0 on a 286 with 512K of RAM.
Here or here. But do I really need to point out that nothing could tell our young that smoking was dangerous untils a few years ago? That fuel is bad for the environment? That asbestos was terribly bad for health?
Believing that the cellphone businesses and all connex businesses are doing absolutely no effort to burry the truth (admitting there is something to burry) is terribly naive.
We even got a fireman in France thet got burned to the third degree putting his hands on a cellphone antenna. And noone denied that an antenna could burn someone from 1-10 cm. So when you live 24/7 a few meters below, one wonders if the long time effects might really be null. Cellphones are one thing, relays are another, but they're still part of the same business.
Denying any effect on health is just being blind or biaised.