It would be interesting to compare against the popular Open Soure ports to see if they're any less invasive by nature.
What about Shareaza?
Many Receivers & DVD Players have this..
on
Normalizing Music?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Some home theater receivers and tv's have "Night Mode" which is used to do this. Feature is great in that you don't have to crank it to hear all of the dynamic ranges of a movie thus not loosing too much when you watch at lower volumes. (perfect for those with kids..)
Everyone gives google so much credit for what others have been doing fine for YEARS.
I don't think gmail is the bomb, yahoo works fine and many others are easier to use.
I don't think google maps is any better than the integration yahoo already offers
I think its hilarious that google gets credit for being cool and innovative when i have had the features they're struggling to implement for YEARS.
Sure, it may look different, but it sure as heck isn't something i haven't already BEEN doing.
Therefore i still use yahoo because it isn't google in the sense i give yahoo credit for being the pioneers they are.
IF google did something unique, i would give them credit. Searching the web as quickly as they did was unique for about a year or so, but even then there index isn't what it used to be.
How is this championing when it suits him? I don't think he owns a media company, i don't think he was sponsored by a fortune 500 and i don't tink his PAC support was all that much to lean him towards "helping us out".
Politics is politics, but we can't discount people who DO work and do their job simply because you focus on the people that don't.
Look him up on google, he says he wants to RULE on indecency. Right now the rules are so vague hey have no way to set precedence and he wants to do just that.
I say its about time people work on rules that are enforceable and not just something on a whim..
Uhm.. so your saying that someone who says the government isn't here to control municipalities is a bad thing?
He is saying the municipalities are allowed to do whatever they wish. You have the right to vote and make your voice heard within that municipality so if your against it speak your voice..
Simple as that. VOTE. Not because of looks, appearences or if someone has a twang or not, but vote because someone supports democracy, freedom and the american way.
Executive powers decide who leads the FCC, but you can put that executive in.
I'm not debating your beliefs, just asking how you defign them.
As far as testing on people, it does happen. Many critically sick children the world over are taking medicines that can pose risk but often ofset such risk with the potential for great rewards.
The shame of it all is its usually American investment and American money doing such in 3rd world countries and importing the technology back home.
I Consider it a bigger crime when you take the rights of the family, parents, mothers and fathers and legislate them so they can't do what is best for THERE family based upon YOUR unique moral views.
So with that All i support stem cell research, i support IVF as a means to start a family and i support the parents and families that choose leading edge medecine and the risk thereof for the commitment to life they have made in an effort to not just make life better for themselves but for all. The risk is certainly death but a moot risk if the end result is death without any action to begin with.
How would you be able to master IVF without the risk of scientific process violating your moral beliefs?
Obviously the capacity of science involves many failures before the end result can be achieved. Why does your belief in the end result here differ than the process that leads to the end result in building stem cells that can heal people/save babies and whatnot?
Kleenex is a brand of tissues. I ask for a tissue, not for a kleenex.
The issue is Redhat made a brand and a product and an IDEA based upon the word "redhat". They didn't make anything specific enough to distinguish what is or isn't redhat - and they did that by design to make it make linux synonomous with redhat and not the vice versa. (better to associate linux as redhat vs redhat as a flavor of unix in the marketing sense)
With that said, if redhat didn't want to dilute its name then stop using its name in packages, code, and programs that are distributed and used within the GPL.
It may just be redhat found a way to make the GPL non commercial only. If someone patents/trademarks the name within the submited code or application base then derrivitives thereof can't even recognize that (link back, relate or give credit to) and thus the grey area of lincensing comes in.
If there is one place where Microsoft has actually achivieved "Innovation" it *IS* on the xbox and services surrounding it.
I for one am excited to see the potential, excited for the competition and look forward to the "big 3" duking it out.
I also think its funny how people bash Microsoft for being anti competitive in the PC world and then bash them for being HIGHLY competitive in the Console world.
How is it that a company could be trying to "enforce" trademark recognition but obviously has released the trademark into public domain through its own contributions?
centOS or Whitebox for that matter are not doing anything but using srpms as released by RedHat to build a binary distribution based off of redhat linux.
If RedHat had wanted to keep its trademark viable it sould have named the product differently. RedHat should have been the company name and RedHat "fedora" or "red cap" or some other name should have been the label of its linux project so packages such as RPM (Redhat package manager) could be implemented without potential to violate trademark.
So i guess the only resolution is for the community to drop redhat all together and to remove RPM, come up with your own version that has no mention of redhat (cpm) and migrate to an ebuild or apt-get method of managing the system...
i guess in a way RedHat is using this to try and beat around the bush and make it only possible for personal builds of there gpl'd systems and not a community or commercial effort.
right.. but this bill proposes the executive homeland security branch can act on its own without regards to congress, senate or anyone else and to cease all laws for the purpose it sees fit.
This law has little to do with driving (none at all to be frank)
Yes, driving is a right that you earn in each state by meeting the requirements to obtain that right.
Just like i got my polits license, and the right to fly legally in our airspace as long as i maintain the proper credentials.
Its not a right by the bill of rights per say, but thats not the issue.
I need a license to buy beer, buy PAINT, go to a bar/club and some restaurants or to signup for credit cards or buy auto insurance or do many things that don't necessarily reflect the need to drive. I don't want the government having the ability to violate my rights of personal information without the due process of judicial oversight and an official warrant for that information.
That is where liberty and freedom are being killed.
Have you read the bill to understand the purpose of the bill?
The bill isn't being created to catch DUI'ers escaping or driving illegaly, it isn't being created to catch criminals, crooks, thieves, rappists and what not.
We don't know why it is being created other then at the request of congress, the "homeland security" and other federal agencies.
What the "Homeland Security" has to do with my driving record is beyond me since states, not federal government control my ability to drive and should be pro-active in maintaining that right.
We are neither safer nor are we funding any initiative to catch bad guys by this law. There is no more police, there is no coordination to actually take charge and solve the problems you mention.
What is happening is the government is excluding itself from the law and creating infrastructure for it to do as it sees fit without judicial/congressional or representative oversite.
You support that for what? And you assume this law is solving your afformentioned issues how?
You're a shinning example of those who ignore the purpose of government and laws as long as it supposedly doesn't affect them.
Your interpretation is based upon your view of the law, and the issue is the law shouldn't be open to such a drastic interpretaion. It should have a subject, and speak about that subject clearly.
It's really satisfying to read childish comments like yours that refuse to actually comprehend the issue based upon the assumptions your now safer or not affected because you are mr goody 2 shoes. Satisfying in the sense that i feel accomplished for having read the bill, written my congressment and raised a stink about the issues and taken the time to analyze it. You on the otherhand seem to get satisfaction out of debunking the issue because you can.
Please, look at the law and understand what is happening. Don't defend it because your a republcian or whatnot, but defend it for its face value. If you can't, then don't twist it to make it look good just because its republican sponsored.
Look at the Bill, and look what all is included outside of the Drivers license issue. To me the DL issue is moot when you see that the congress has given Homeland security the precedence that it can assume responsibility to act without regard to all laws as it sees fit. Ofcourse its targeted to stopping immigration in California but there is no limits and it's open to interpretation.
The entire law isn't setting precedence on purpose (for which all laws should be created) but setting precedence on what can be done.
When you open the door to taking away my liberties, my rights and the laws we are bound to by our constitution that is infringing on my rights, my liberties and my freedoms.
How do you see it or better what why do you feel indifferent or amoral to the concept? Do you think your safer? Do you think because you don't "ever" do anything you will be alright?
1.
1. The condition of being free from restriction or control.
2. The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing.
3. The condition of being physically and legally free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor. See synonyms at freedom.
2. Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.
3. A right or immunity to engage in certain actions without control or interference: the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights.
4.
1. A breach or overstepping of propriety or social convention. Often used in the plural.
2. A statement, attitude, or action not warranted by conditions or actualities: a historical novel that takes liberties with chronology.
3. An unwarranted risk; a chance: took foolish liberties on the ski slopes.
5. A period, usually short, during which a sailor is authorized to go ashore.
You see liberty as i see it is free from government (aka federal) control. It is federal control when the government can exclude itself from law to build this fence and it is government control when the stated law has no purpose and is left to interpretation thus the cost to my liberties.
Look at #2 and tell me you still don't understand the quote. Benjamin Franklin basically said your not free and your don't have liberties when you give away those freedoms under the guise of safety.
The people that don't deserve liberty are the ones so willing to give it away, thus not knowing or caring what freedom and liberties actually mean. Our constitution and Democracy ceases to exist when you give in and the quote is a polite way to describe those who don't bother to understand the issues. (for whatever reason that may be)
Since you don't understand what your giving away you assume it is OK. That is wrong, and not how many other Americans feel.
I also find it laughable you would say Benjamin Franklin was full of dung as you put it. Is that how you cope with todays issues?
The fact its included to bill to build a fence in California to keep people out and that the department of Homeland security has the rights being granted to them to be above the law and even cease to adhere to the law when it sees fit. (under the guise of immigration control)..
The federalization of licensing is sick in itself, however the fluff the republicans are putting into the bills is downright scary and simply UN CONSTITUTIONAL. So much for the "roots" of the RNC.
Benjamin Franklin Said it best:
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ---
Your not safer by assuming this information is used for your safety. Your personal rights, freedoms are being violated. You are innocent until proven guilty and your history and or driving records should not become government property and used to estimate or forecast your innocence or guilt.
This law has nothing to do with refusal to testify against yourself but the simple fact the government now assumes you are guilty until you defend your innocence. Which is the true crime people like you ignore because it makes you feel happy.
Slashdot Mirror
It would be interesting to compare against the popular Open Soure ports to see if they're any less invasive by nature.
What about Shareaza?
Some home theater receivers and tv's have "Night Mode" which is used to do this. Feature is great in that you don't have to crank it to hear all of the dynamic ranges of a movie thus not loosing too much when you watch at lower volumes. (perfect for those with kids..)
I think even my DVD player does this.
Can you play the MP3's as hold music?
Indeed..
Everyone gives google so much credit for what others have been doing fine for YEARS.
I don't think gmail is the bomb, yahoo works fine and many others are easier to use.
I don't think google maps is any better than the integration yahoo already offers
I think its hilarious that google gets credit for being cool and innovative when i have had the features they're struggling to implement for YEARS.
Sure, it may look different, but it sure as heck isn't something i haven't already BEEN doing.
Therefore i still use yahoo because it isn't google in the sense i give yahoo credit for being the pioneers they are.
IF google did something unique, i would give them credit. Searching the web as quickly as they did was unique for about a year or so, but even then there index isn't what it used to be.
I use yahoo because it isn't google.
How is this championing when it suits him? I don't think he owns a media company, i don't think he was sponsored by a fortune 500 and i don't tink his PAC support was all that much to lean him towards "helping us out".
Politics is politics, but we can't discount people who DO work and do their job simply because you focus on the people that don't.
Look him up on google, he says he wants to RULE on indecency. Right now the rules are so vague hey have no way to set precedence and he wants to do just that.
I say its about time people work on rules that are enforceable and not just something on a whim..
Uhm.. so your saying that someone who says the government isn't here to control municipalities is a bad thing?
He is saying the municipalities are allowed to do whatever they wish. You have the right to vote and make your voice heard within that municipality so if your against it speak your voice..
otherwise just get out of the way..
Search google for him:
0 &s tart=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org. mozilla:en-US:official
http://www.google.com/search?q=fcc+copps&start=
Against Big media, looks out for the indi media and is looking to actually SET RULES instead of "notions" of what is wrong.
VOTE.
Simple as that. VOTE. Not because of looks, appearences or if someone has a twang or not, but vote because someone supports democracy, freedom and the american way.
Executive powers decide who leads the FCC, but you can put that executive in.
I'm not debating your beliefs, just asking how you defign them.
As far as testing on people, it does happen. Many critically sick children the world over are taking medicines that can pose risk but often ofset such risk with the potential for great rewards.
The shame of it all is its usually American investment and American money doing such in 3rd world countries and importing the technology back home.
I Consider it a bigger crime when you take the rights of the family, parents, mothers and fathers and legislate them so they can't do what is best for THERE family based upon YOUR unique moral views.
So with that All i support stem cell research, i support IVF as a means to start a family and i support the parents and families that choose leading edge medecine and the risk thereof for the commitment to life they have made in an effort to not just make life better for themselves but for all. The risk is certainly death but a moot risk if the end result is death without any action to begin with.
How would you be able to master IVF without the risk of scientific process violating your moral beliefs?
Obviously the capacity of science involves many failures before the end result can be achieved. Why does your belief in the end result here differ than the process that leads to the end result in building stem cells that can heal people/save babies and whatnot?
I'm not a fan at all of Business setting policy or acting like this, i'm just stating a fact and being blunt about what business is.
It's horrible when tax dollars are used to subsidize places that don't do anything but collect profits for investors..
It's horrible what Microsoft stated..
Philadelphia gets screwed by Newark and vice versa all the time.
Especially when it comes to businesses that move every 5 years for tax advantages.
It's the republican Mantra "If you can't hang with the big boys, then get out of the way"
Xbox exceeded in many ways where many others have failed.
Show me this "poor performance" you speak of and then maybe i'll listen to you.
Kleenex is a brand of tissues. I ask for a tissue, not for a kleenex.
The issue is Redhat made a brand and a product and an IDEA based upon the word "redhat". They didn't make anything specific enough to distinguish what is or isn't redhat - and they did that by design to make it make linux synonomous with redhat and not the vice versa. (better to associate linux as redhat vs redhat as a flavor of unix in the marketing sense)
With that said, if redhat didn't want to dilute its name then stop using its name in packages, code, and programs that are distributed and used within the GPL.
It may just be redhat found a way to make the GPL non commercial only. If someone patents/trademarks the name within the submited code or application base then derrivitives thereof can't even recognize that (link back, relate or give credit to) and thus the grey area of lincensing comes in.
If there is one place where Microsoft has actually achivieved "Innovation" it *IS* on the xbox and services surrounding it.
I for one am excited to see the potential, excited for the competition and look forward to the "big 3" duking it out.
I also think its funny how people bash Microsoft for being anti competitive in the PC world and then bash them for being HIGHLY competitive in the Console world.
How is it that a company could be trying to "enforce" trademark recognition but obviously has released the trademark into public domain through its own contributions?
centOS or Whitebox for that matter are not doing anything but using srpms as released by RedHat to build a binary distribution based off of redhat linux.
If RedHat had wanted to keep its trademark viable it sould have named the product differently. RedHat should have been the company name and RedHat "fedora" or "red cap" or some other name should have been the label of its linux project so packages such as RPM (Redhat package manager) could be implemented without potential to violate trademark.
So i guess the only resolution is for the community to drop redhat all together and to remove RPM, come up with your own version that has no mention of redhat (cpm) and migrate to an ebuild or apt-get method of managing the system...
i guess in a way RedHat is using this to try and beat around the bush and make it only possible for personal builds of there gpl'd systems and not a community or commercial effort.
good way to "protect" there profits.
right.. but this bill proposes the executive homeland security branch can act on its own without regards to congress, senate or anyone else and to cease all laws for the purpose it sees fit.
This law has little to do with driving (none at all to be frank)
Yes, driving is a right that you earn in each state by meeting the requirements to obtain that right.
Just like i got my polits license, and the right to fly legally in our airspace as long as i maintain the proper credentials.
Its not a right by the bill of rights per say, but thats not the issue.
I need a license to buy beer, buy PAINT, go to a bar/club and some restaurants or to signup for credit cards or buy auto insurance or do many things that don't necessarily reflect the need to drive. I don't want the government having the ability to violate my rights of personal information without the due process of judicial oversight and an official warrant for that information.
That is where liberty and freedom are being killed.
Have you read the bill to understand the purpose of the bill?
The bill isn't being created to catch DUI'ers escaping or driving illegaly, it isn't being created to catch criminals, crooks, thieves, rappists and what not.
We don't know why it is being created other then at the request of congress, the "homeland security" and other federal agencies.
What the "Homeland Security" has to do with my driving record is beyond me since states, not federal government control my ability to drive and should be pro-active in maintaining that right.
We are neither safer nor are we funding any initiative to catch bad guys by this law. There is no more police, there is no coordination to actually take charge and solve the problems you mention.
What is happening is the government is excluding itself from the law and creating infrastructure for it to do as it sees fit without judicial/congressional or representative oversite.
You support that for what? And you assume this law is solving your afformentioned issues how?
Kierthos,
You're a shinning example of those who ignore the purpose of government and laws as long as it supposedly doesn't affect them.
Your interpretation is based upon your view of the law, and the issue is the law shouldn't be open to such a drastic interpretaion. It should have a subject, and speak about that subject clearly.
It's really satisfying to read childish comments like yours that refuse to actually comprehend the issue based upon the assumptions your now safer or not affected because you are mr goody 2 shoes. Satisfying in the sense that i feel accomplished for having read the bill, written my congressment and raised a stink about the issues and taken the time to analyze it. You on the otherhand seem to get satisfaction out of debunking the issue because you can.
Please, look at the law and understand what is happening. Don't defend it because your a republcian or whatnot, but defend it for its face value. If you can't, then don't twist it to make it look good just because its republican sponsored.
Why are you an Anonymous Coward?
Look at the Bill, and look what all is included outside of the Drivers license issue. To me the DL issue is moot when you see that the congress has given Homeland security the precedence that it can assume responsibility to act without regard to all laws as it sees fit. Ofcourse its targeted to stopping immigration in California but there is no limits and it's open to interpretation.
The entire law isn't setting precedence on purpose (for which all laws should be created) but setting precedence on what can be done.
When you open the door to taking away my liberties, my rights and the laws we are bound to by our constitution that is infringing on my rights, my liberties and my freedoms.
How do you see it or better what why do you feel indifferent or amoral to the concept? Do you think your safer? Do you think because you don't "ever" do anything you will be alright?
You misunderstand the quote.
Liberty is:
1.
1. The condition of being free from restriction or control.
2. The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing.
3. The condition of being physically and legally free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor. See synonyms at freedom.
2. Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.
3. A right or immunity to engage in certain actions without control or interference: the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights.
4.
1. A breach or overstepping of propriety or social convention. Often used in the plural.
2. A statement, attitude, or action not warranted by conditions or actualities: a historical novel that takes liberties with chronology.
3. An unwarranted risk; a chance: took foolish liberties on the ski slopes.
5. A period, usually short, during which a sailor is authorized to go ashore.
You see liberty as i see it is free from government (aka federal) control. It is federal control when the government can exclude itself from law to build this fence and it is government control when the stated law has no purpose and is left to interpretation thus the cost to my liberties.
Look at #2 and tell me you still don't understand the quote. Benjamin Franklin basically said your not free and your don't have liberties when you give away those freedoms under the guise of safety.
The people that don't deserve liberty are the ones so willing to give it away, thus not knowing or caring what freedom and liberties actually mean. Our constitution and Democracy ceases to exist when you give in and the quote is a polite way to describe those who don't bother to understand the issues. (for whatever reason that may be)
Since you don't understand what your giving away you assume it is OK. That is wrong, and not how many other Americans feel.
I also find it laughable you would say Benjamin Franklin was full of dung as you put it. Is that how you cope with todays issues?
I can't believe what you choose to ignore.
The fact its included to bill to build a fence in California to keep people out and that the department of Homeland security has the rights being granted to them to be above the law and even cease to adhere to the law when it sees fit. (under the guise of immigration control)..
The federalization of licensing is sick in itself, however the fluff the republicans are putting into the bills is downright scary and simply UN CONSTITUTIONAL. So much for the "roots" of the RNC.
Benjamin Franklin Said it best:
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ---
Your not safer by assuming this information is used for your safety. Your personal rights, freedoms are being violated. You are innocent until proven guilty and your history and or driving records should not become government property and used to estimate or forecast your innocence or guilt.
This law has nothing to do with refusal to testify against yourself but the simple fact the government now assumes you are guilty until you defend your innocence. Which is the true crime people like you ignore because it makes you feel happy.