If you PURCHASED an album, encode it to mp3 (or download its mp3's off kazaa) and then your origional is stolen, you are not the liable party for copyright infringement, the thief is (that is, he stole a copy of the work you rightfully had, thus breaking the fair use clause, and infringing himself.
If however, you GIVE That CD to your friend, and claim it was stolen, you are nothing more than a pirate.
1) your suggestion might be technically possible, but impractical. For instance, there is no practical reason to build a codec that has this capability if it will cost more to build than to just use lossless codecs.
2) You still don't have a way to archive the ORIGIONAL SOUND. Would you store your master copy on a record? surely not. The same should be true for lossless v lossy compression/storage.
3) After you decode an mp3, and edit it, then re-encode it, you are no longer re-encoding the origional mp3's output, so you cannot predict its re-encodeability, EVEN IF you did build a codec that could do what you propose.
An example of #3:
have you ever tried to run a.jpg image through photoshop filters? decode it to.psd (basically bitmap image), apply the filter, then re-encode to.jpg, and you will surely see that it won't be anywhere CLOSE to if you had applied the filter to the origional non-jpeg file. The reasoning for this is that the filters do a pixel by pixel filter application, which takes the current pixel, and sometimes surrounding pixels, and alters them depending on what surrounds them. Since you started with a jpg, the surrounding pixels will be somewhat obscured from the origional, and these slight obscurities from the origional could produce drastic changes in the final output.
"This has been suggested before, _but would require all Vorbis decoders to decode to the exact same result_, which is not practical (Vorbis decodes to float samples)." [emphasis mine]
Not true.
I don't know if this has been tried before, but the limitation you propose does not exist. This would not require all OGG decoders to produce the same exact result. It would require just all FLAC decoders to produce the same ogg output for the ogg data in the flac file, which is possible.
You'r.ogg personal mp3 player doesn't have to decode the ogg's exactly for a completely unrelated FLAC codec to take advantage of this principle. The only requirement is that all FLAC codecs use the same OGG decoding algorithm.
I believe the problem that is actual has nothing to do with practicality, but that the residual wave form that is produced via the diff between the.ogg output and the.wav output is nothing more than noise, which is not significantly compressable by any means currently known (IOW, the noise would take up as much space as the origional.wav file, because it can't be compressed very well)
If someone found the "trick" to compress this noise (because this noise will definately have a pattern to it, depending on which codec you used to encode the origional.ogg file, and depending on what type of music is being encoded) then this principle would be an awesome breakthrough.
In my opinion, the problem with popularity is that websites that use bittorrent don't promote it properly, and bittorrent is too much of a hassel.
What if bittorrent came with your web browser and was already part of its download manager built into the product. Or what if bittorrent could be installed with the click of a button much like flash, etc..
Rather than telling people "please leave your bittorrent window opened for as long as possible after downloading..." and making a big fuss out of leechers, etc.. (This kind of stuff scares people away) just force everyone to use bittorrent. Or cap the number of open slots for non-bittorrent users downloading the file.
Bittorrent already saves bandwidth even if people don't leave the window opened. If you ONLY offered files via bittorrent, then people would use bittorrent, and there would be enough people downloading the file that you wouldn't need people to leave the window opened.
Re-reading, the above looks more like a ramble. But with a few tweeks, usability features added, and the annoying parts taken out, bittorrent could be as seamless as just "clicking" on the link to download.
Insted, they make you sit there and install an application, configure an application, etc etc etc.. jump through hoops... just to download a file. Joe Schmoe doesn't want to do that, and neither do I..
(PS, I do use bittorrent when a website offers files for it)
I think you are correct, and your parent also correct. I think the difference is:
1) these hard drives are built much like laptop hard drives, whereas they are more shock resistant than desktop hard drives, even when reading and writing
2) these hard drives also could (whether or not they do) be spinning at a very very slower speed than any standard laptop or desktop hard drive (for mp3 players, below 1000 RPM would be all that is needed).
Also, I don't know if the manufacturers realize this or not, but using larger disks spinning slower for a camcorder would decrease your RPM requirements drastically (obviously, an mp3 player is going for size, so this wouldn't work)
All of the above of course assumes that the manufacturers are using proprietary hard drives that are specified for slower RPM's than normal.
I don't have any technical specifications to the iPod or this HDD camcorder, but my guess is that the hard drive isn't spinning even as fast as a laptop hard drive (4200RPM)
On an iPod, all it has to do is store and retrieve mp3 files, which you wouldn't need anything faster than a zip drive. My bet is that the heat the iPod generates is mostly due to the decoder chip, and power source/battery.
On a camcorder, the bandwidth required is much more than an iPod, but still very much less than any laptop hard drive would need.
Whether or not the manufacturer realises this and puts this principle to use is beyond the scope of my arguments. But considering they are proprietary hard drives in both the iPod and this digital camcorder, My guess is that they spin something around 100-1000 RPM for iPod and maybe more for the camcorder (and on the camcorder, it would be easy to vent this even without active fans).
I'm not an expert, and correct me if im wrong, but I believe that DV Camcorders, and Digital8 camcorders encode to standard mpeg2 and then put it on tape. Keyframes happen quite often, (any time there is a significant difference in the next frame, and regularly even if there isn't a difference) so this issue would not be a problem for tape recording or playback.
Yes, digital8 tapes aren't optimal media to store digital video on. After many viewings/rewinds/fast forwards, there is migration and you will get artifacts in your video. On the other hand, personal experience with digital8 is that I have not experienced any of these problems with casual use of these tapes.
Another great advantage to using tape is shock resistance.
Hard drives will crash if your camera is jolted during recording or playback. On a tape, you will not damage the recording head or the tape, and might just get 1 or 2 lost frames in your video (unless of course, you jolt the camcorder way way way too much)
In my opinion, that is why tapes are so damn good for camcorders, and probably why they will not go out of style for a long long time. Random seek on camcorders is not that huge of a priority when you take into consideration the huge advantage of cheaper and more shock resistant media that is known as tapes.
My sony digital camera digital8 has a battery that lasts 4 hours. It wasn't very expensive, and it is not that big. (as long as you aren't using the color LCD, and insted use the black and white viewfinder)
I recorded more than half the Trey Anastasio performance at Bonnaroo 2002 and ran out of tape (i had 2 of them allocated for that show) way way way before i ran out of battery life on a single charge.
I guess my main point is that battery life on camcorders is no longer the main constraint on consumer camcorder technology. (untill maybe when they come out with camcorders with 20+gb hard drives in them).
In IE, on windows XP patched latest updates, default font size at 1024x768 32 bit colors on a 17" monitor, the font size isnt even close to being too small to use.
In linux using mozilla, with default fonts, 1024x768, 17" monitor, the links are about 6 pixels high.
Yea, thank god for mozilla. If you weren't using it in the first place, you wouldnt have that problem.
On the other hand, IE can also resize font sizes. click "View" -> "Text Size" -> and select what size you want.
I am not a microsoft troll, and I dont much like IE, but you sir just want to start crap about mozilla (on the other hand, maybe you are just annoyed about 1 letter links, but im afraid that has nothing at all to do with mozilla vs. IE. sorry)
Just a difference in opinion but, lets look at the facts of the matter...
1) Yes, these crimes did happen in 1991, and in 1999, and probably many other places that are within the scope of these laws.
2) These lawyers are looking out for people's lives and human rights(and maybe other things, but that is beside the point).
3) The Bush Administration has already assasinated 8 people in afganistan (yes, assasinated) one of which was a US citizen who had not been charged of any crime, or brought before any court. 3 of which were afganistan civilians who had no ties to any terrorist network, and 4 of which may have been "high ranking al-Queda officials" (just how many of these high ranking officials are there anyway? 99% of al-queda is high ranking? gime a break)
4) None of these people were charged for any crime, and the latter 5 (us citizen/al-queda officials) were murdered during peace time (not part of the war in afganistan) These crimes also may fall under the relevant laws you quote in the news article.
5) [speculation] Given George W. Bush's and George Bush Sr.'s record, there is a very strong propensity of war crimes to happen at the fault of the Administration. [/speculation]
For the above reasons, I see no wrongdoing by these 100 lawyers and law professors.
I believe the US Supreme Court once ruled that interstate commerce can be considered as any exchange of currency within the United States (I'm not sure which case, or what the circumstances of the case are). This is exactly how prohibition of alcohol happened, and how prohibition of most illegal drugs are also handled (marijuana).
Without this Supreme Court ruling, the war on the American public (ie, War on Drugs/Marijuana) would not exist. and laws like the one currently in question would not be "constitutional" (in quotes because the SC has repeadatly been literally insane with constitutional rulings in recent time.
On a personal note, I believe the only real thing protecting our people from mass insanity is the supreme court. Once they are overrun by presidential appointments by insane presidents, we will have nobody else to turn to (see: Eldred v Ashcroft, Bush v Gore, et al )
If im wrong, someone please correct me. I don't have all the details of the case.
A nice corraLarry;-) of this is that if you want, you can trade SHN's, but encode to mp3 or OGG for your own personal use. The main thing you want to consider is that you should NEVER distribute an MP3 for the purpose of a "trade" (which implies that you are getting origional source). Especially if you are trading with people that have no earthly idea of the underlying issues.
The biggest problem I have come across is people downloading mp3's, and then converting them to Audio CD's and trading them. This is wrong on so many levels, yet stupid people do it all the time not even realizing what problems they are adding to the community. As long as nobody converts MP3's/OGG's to audio CD's or SHN or WAV, we are all going to be doing just fine.
On the other hand, MP3 distribution is very very usefull if done properly. As long as you are downloading an MP3 knowing you dont have the origional, your goal should be to have a fast download, and something to listen to, but not a master copy.
For instance, what if someone's only means to listen to music is via their car MP3 player, or their PC, and they don't plan on converting them to WAV or SHN or CD Audio, then by all means, download the mp3 if it makes you happier.
I'm not sure about your parent's post about the "license" but any time you recieve a work that is copyrighted, you are automatically bound by copyright law, without having to sign or agree to anything.
All a license does is give you EXTRA rights aside from that already granted to you via copyright law (fair use). Under copyright law, if you recieve (because you paid for it, or obtained it in other legal ways) a work without any type of license, that means that you are 100% restricted to not redistribute the work. The only copies you are allowed are fair use copies, etc.
If an EULA or license does not grant you extra rights, sometimes they do bad and _RESTRICT_ those rights guaranteed to you by copyright law. In these cases, those parts of the EULA are effectively unenforceable. No EULA can restrict fair use and be valid.
So in a sence, your right, you didn't sign or accept any agreement when you purchased the work. On the other hand, you are not legally allowed to do anything except listen to it consistant to the fair use clause in US copyright law, and not copy it under any other circumstances. So you are in fact bound, but not by a contract, but by US Criminal law, wether you accept any extra agreements/EULA's or not.
In effect, the "spirit" of your parent is correct, though it is technically incorrect.
I'm sorry, but you have not given any good reasons about why this makes you mad, or less likely to go to a show.
Phish has always allowed tapers to tape the show for free (in some cases, you need a special tapers ticket, but usually just buy a regular one and bring your equipment to the show)
These recorded shows are legally distributeable for FREE. The only restriction is that you are not allowed to sell them.
Recently, Phish started selling live soundboard recordings of these same shows on CD. You can buy them at your local CD store, or off the phish website for about $20 US. All that is changing is that now, insted of waiting for these new volumes of live shows to be released, they are going to have every show available on their website, for a $13 US fee, and you bring your own media. Not only that, but now Phish is making $13 off each show they sell (minus cost), insted of $2 that their record label gives them.
If you don't want to buy the $13 SHN's, then keep downloading the legal bootleg releases insted. The quality is almost just as good, and its free, and freely distributeable. This will not put an end to bootleg trading, it will just give the people that want to support the band, and who want higher quality recordings, the opportunity to do so. (BTW, almost none of the officially released shows are freely distributeable, only the SHN's taped by independant tapers)
These shows sold off livephish.com will NOT show up on etree. It is etree's policy to not serve any content that is not legally distributeable. The etree community polices itself very well, and anybody who offered an FTP account containing illegal content will be removed from the list in a heartbeat.
SHN is very usefull for archives. It is also very usefull for listening to. Imagine you want to store your master copy of all your music on a hard drive in a computer along with the rest of your stero system. Now imagine you want to replicate audio CD's for friends (this is legal for all the bands that allow taping at concerts, phish allows you to distribute SHN's of their shows if they were taped by independant tapers)
So you can listen to these SHN's on your stero, and if you want a MP3 CD for your car, you just run the shn's through a perl script, and now you have an MP3 cd of the same material. Now imagine a friend stops by with some CD-R's and wants to spin a few disks of the new shows you just downloaded off etree. just stick the blank in, and run it through a perl script, and boom, instant audio cd with no compression loss.
MP3's are good for the end result, but for the source file, you dont want mp3, you want lossLESS. and SHN will cut most wav's in half. Not only this, but data integrity of SHN's is much better than storing your master copy in an "audio CD" because of the way the data is encoded onto the medium (audio cd's do not have as much redundancy on a disk, so a scratch will lose data, whereas, on a data disk you have redundant encoding on the media itself)
For all these reasons, SHN is good for just about everything. Too bad my car MP3 disk player doesn't support SHN's.
Actually, your wrong about #2. 8500+ is unsupported in the open source drivers. the 8500 will "work" but that depends on how you define "work". just check linuxgames.com (sp?)
If you want any ATI card in linux+3d opengl games, you are going to have to use something pre-radeon 8500. And that is just silly, dog slow, and IMO, just plain shit.
Maybe ATI should do themselves(and us) a favor, and contribute at least SOMETHING to the opensource driver, if they are not going to provide even a halfassed alternative to it.
"A recession is a period of general economic decline; specifically, a decline in GDP for two or more consecutive quarters."
IANAE (I am not an economist) but recession is not that specific of a term. Any sufficient decline for any sufficiently long period of time is a recession. This does not limit to just the GDP. Likewise, just because the GDP has been raised the last 2 quarters, that does not mean we are still not in a recession. increased GDP means nothing except that its better than it was 2 quarters ago, but not necessarilly anything significant.
You economists rely on bullshit numbers too much. When people can start putting food back on the table without having to be on welfare, then we are out of the recession.
Then again, you might be referring to the term 'recession' that you read in an economics 101 book, in which case, you may have lost touch with reality.
While im not sure about the IDE, the audio was designed by nVidia. It has remnance of what was going to be the vortex3 audio chipset, but it is definatelly NOT intel's design, and nothing even close to the i810 audio.
The ethernet devices (there are 2 on the chipset) is 3rd party. they are licensed from 3com.
While ATI and Matrox are usually touted off as superior 2D quality, that is just a baseless assumption based on the most popular implementations of video cards you have experience with.
there is nothing inherantly wrong with nVidia's 2D picture quality, or anything inherantly good about ATI's or Matrox's. The difference is that ATI and Matrox produce their own video boards, while nVidia only produces chips.
The difference here is in the digital to analog converters used on the board, which are not part of the GPU supplied by nVidia. nVidia sells just the GPU, and the card manufacturer is responsible for buying the other components from other people. Most companies that manufacture nVidia video cards have strong competition, so skimp out on some parts. It shows when you try to run an nVidia card made by a cheap manufacturer at 1600x resolution.
The same holds true for the "Powered by ATI" video card line, which is not produced by ATI, but 3rd party board manufacturers.
of all 3 GPU companies, there is essentially no difference in the 2D quality in either chipset. It's just that ATI and Matrox have the ability to dictate exactly what is used external to the GPU, and so can guarantee that their cards will have the quality of 2d that they want it to have.
If you buy quality nVidia boards from ASUS, or Visiontek (now defunct) you will be sure to have quality parts in them.
Actually, though I could be wrong because I have never installed nvidia drivers under linux, i think the KERNEL drivers ARE opensource (but not free software, i think)
The main part of their driver that does the work, the opengl library, is closed source, but it is a userland application.
I would never support a company that had binary only drivers for Linux. That is just plain stupid. However, a binary only opengl library, that performs better than any other opengl library available today, with source kernel modules, is good enough for me.
Although I would like to believe you on this, I will have to disagree...
While many video games such as Quake3 will run better under nVidia/Linux over win32/Linux, this usually has nothing to do with the raw video performance. Most of the time it has to do with the overall system performance, aside from video. If you can show some true numbers that prove that the actual VIDEO performance is better, then it would be another story..
Then again, I'm not really up to date on it all, so I could be wrong, but I do know that in the past, nVidida drivers have been sub-par to the win32 drivers.
Can you point me to somewhere to where you are talking about the characters? I have watched both series, but they have faded in my memory:( any resources or places i can see them again, or read of them?
Slashdot Mirror
IANAL, but i believe this is incorrect.
If you PURCHASED an album, encode it to mp3 (or download its mp3's off kazaa) and then your origional is stolen, you are not the liable party for copyright infringement, the thief is (that is, he stole a copy of the work you rightfully had, thus breaking the fair use clause, and infringing himself.
If however, you GIVE That CD to your friend, and claim it was stolen, you are nothing more than a pirate.
There are 3 reasons you are wrong...
.jpg image through photoshop filters? decode it to .psd (basically bitmap image), apply the filter, then re-encode to .jpg, and you will surely see that it won't be anywhere CLOSE to if you had applied the filter to the origional non-jpeg file. The reasoning for this is that the filters do a pixel by pixel filter application, which takes the current pixel, and sometimes surrounding pixels, and alters them depending on what surrounds them. Since you started with a jpg, the surrounding pixels will be somewhat obscured from the origional, and these slight obscurities from the origional could produce drastic changes in the final output.
1) your suggestion might be technically possible, but impractical. For instance, there is no practical reason to build a codec that has this capability if it will cost more to build than to just use lossless codecs.
2) You still don't have a way to archive the ORIGIONAL SOUND. Would you store your master copy on a record? surely not. The same should be true for lossless v lossy compression/storage.
3) After you decode an mp3, and edit it, then re-encode it, you are no longer re-encoding the origional mp3's output, so you cannot predict its re-encodeability, EVEN IF you did build a codec that could do what you propose.
An example of #3:
have you ever tried to run a
"This has been suggested before, _but would require all Vorbis decoders to decode to the exact same result_, which is not practical (Vorbis decodes to float samples)." [emphasis mine]
.ogg personal mp3 player doesn't have to decode the ogg's exactly for a completely unrelated FLAC codec to take advantage of this principle. The only requirement is that all FLAC codecs use the same OGG decoding algorithm.
.ogg output and the .wav output is nothing more than noise, which is not significantly compressable by any means currently known (IOW, the noise would take up as much space as the origional .wav file, because it can't be compressed very well)
.ogg file, and depending on what type of music is being encoded) then this principle would be an awesome breakthrough.
Not true.
I don't know if this has been tried before, but the limitation you propose does not exist. This would not require all OGG decoders to produce the same exact result. It would require just all FLAC decoders to produce the same ogg output for the ogg data in the flac file, which is possible.
You'r
I believe the problem that is actual has nothing to do with practicality, but that the residual wave form that is produced via the diff between the
If someone found the "trick" to compress this noise (because this noise will definately have a pattern to it, depending on which codec you used to encode the origional
In my opinion, the problem with popularity is that websites that use bittorrent don't promote it properly, and bittorrent is too much of a hassel.
What if bittorrent came with your web browser and was already part of its download manager built into the product. Or what if bittorrent could be installed with the click of a button much like flash, etc..
Rather than telling people "please leave your bittorrent window opened for as long as possible after downloading..." and making a big fuss out of leechers, etc.. (This kind of stuff scares people away) just force everyone to use bittorrent. Or cap the number of open slots for non-bittorrent users downloading the file.
Bittorrent already saves bandwidth even if people don't leave the window opened. If you ONLY offered files via bittorrent, then people would use bittorrent, and there would be enough people downloading the file that you wouldn't need people to leave the window opened.
Re-reading, the above looks more like a ramble. But with a few tweeks, usability features added, and the annoying parts taken out, bittorrent could be as seamless as just "clicking" on the link to download.
Insted, they make you sit there and install an application, configure an application, etc etc etc.. jump through hoops... just to download a file. Joe Schmoe doesn't want to do that, and neither do I..
(PS, I do use bittorrent when a website offers files for it)
I think you are correct, and your parent also correct. I think the difference is:
1) these hard drives are built much like laptop hard drives, whereas they are more shock resistant than desktop hard drives, even when reading and writing
2) these hard drives also could (whether or not they do) be spinning at a very very slower speed than any standard laptop or desktop hard drive (for mp3 players, below 1000 RPM would be all that is needed).
Also, I don't know if the manufacturers realize this or not, but using larger disks spinning slower for a camcorder would decrease your RPM requirements drastically (obviously, an mp3 player is going for size, so this wouldn't work)
All of the above of course assumes that the manufacturers are using proprietary hard drives that are specified for slower RPM's than normal.
I don't have any technical specifications to the iPod or this HDD camcorder, but my guess is that the hard drive isn't spinning even as fast as a laptop hard drive (4200RPM)
On an iPod, all it has to do is store and retrieve mp3 files, which you wouldn't need anything faster than a zip drive. My bet is that the heat the iPod generates is mostly due to the decoder chip, and power source/battery.
On a camcorder, the bandwidth required is much more than an iPod, but still very much less than any laptop hard drive would need.
Whether or not the manufacturer realises this and puts this principle to use is beyond the scope of my arguments. But considering they are proprietary hard drives in both the iPod and this digital camcorder, My guess is that they spin something around 100-1000 RPM for iPod and maybe more for the camcorder (and on the camcorder, it would be easy to vent this even without active fans).
I'm not an expert, and correct me if im wrong, but I believe that DV Camcorders, and Digital8 camcorders encode to standard mpeg2 and then put it on tape. Keyframes happen quite often, (any time there is a significant difference in the next frame, and regularly even if there isn't a difference) so this issue would not be a problem for tape recording or playback.
Yes, digital8 tapes aren't optimal media to store digital video on. After many viewings/rewinds/fast forwards, there is migration and you will get artifacts in your video. On the other hand, personal experience with digital8 is that I have not experienced any of these problems with casual use of these tapes.
Another great advantage to using tape is shock resistance.
Hard drives will crash if your camera is jolted during recording or playback. On a tape, you will not damage the recording head or the tape, and might just get 1 or 2 lost frames in your video (unless of course, you jolt the camcorder way way way too much)
In my opinion, that is why tapes are so damn good for camcorders, and probably why they will not go out of style for a long long time. Random seek on camcorders is not that huge of a priority when you take into consideration the huge advantage of cheaper and more shock resistant media that is known as tapes.
My sony digital camera digital8 has a battery that lasts 4 hours. It wasn't very expensive, and it is not that big. (as long as you aren't using the color LCD, and insted use the black and white viewfinder)
I recorded more than half the Trey Anastasio performance at Bonnaroo 2002 and ran out of tape (i had 2 of them allocated for that show) way way way before i ran out of battery life on a single charge.
I guess my main point is that battery life on camcorders is no longer the main constraint on consumer camcorder technology. (untill maybe when they come out with camcorders with 20+gb hard drives in them).
Actually...
In IE, on windows XP patched latest updates, default font size at 1024x768 32 bit colors on a 17" monitor, the font size isnt even close to being too small to use.
In linux using mozilla, with default fonts, 1024x768, 17" monitor, the links are about 6 pixels high.
Yea, thank god for mozilla. If you weren't using it in the first place, you wouldnt have that problem.
On the other hand, IE can also resize font sizes. click "View" -> "Text Size" -> and select what size you want.
I am not a microsoft troll, and I dont much like IE, but you sir just want to start crap about mozilla (on the other hand, maybe you are just annoyed about 1 letter links, but im afraid that has nothing at all to do with mozilla vs. IE. sorry)
NAT (not a troll)
Just a difference in opinion but, lets look at the facts of the matter...
1) Yes, these crimes did happen in 1991, and in 1999, and probably many other places that are within the scope of these laws.
2) These lawyers are looking out for people's lives and human rights(and maybe other things, but that is beside the point).
3) The Bush Administration has already assasinated 8 people in afganistan (yes, assasinated) one of which was a US citizen who had not been charged of any crime, or brought before any court. 3 of which were afganistan civilians who had no ties to any terrorist network, and 4 of which may have been "high ranking al-Queda officials" (just how many of these high ranking officials are there anyway? 99% of al-queda is high ranking? gime a break)
4) None of these people were charged for any crime, and the latter 5 (us citizen/al-queda officials) were murdered during peace time (not part of the war in afganistan) These crimes also may fall under the relevant laws you quote in the news article.
5) [speculation] Given George W. Bush's and George Bush Sr.'s record, there is a very strong propensity of war crimes to happen at the fault of the Administration. [/speculation]
For the above reasons, I see no wrongdoing by these 100 lawyers and law professors.
thanks for listening...
I believe the US Supreme Court once ruled that interstate commerce can be considered as any exchange of currency within the United States (I'm not sure which case, or what the circumstances of the case are). This is exactly how prohibition of alcohol happened, and how prohibition of most illegal drugs are also handled (marijuana).
Without this Supreme Court ruling, the war on the American public (ie, War on Drugs/Marijuana) would not exist. and laws like the one currently in question would not be "constitutional" (in quotes because the SC has repeadatly been literally insane with constitutional rulings in recent time.
On a personal note, I believe the only real thing protecting our people from mass insanity is the supreme court. Once they are overrun by presidential appointments by insane presidents, we will have nobody else to turn to (see: Eldred v Ashcroft, Bush v Gore, et al )
If im wrong, someone please correct me. I don't have all the details of the case.
... If you compare music scenes with software platforms ;-)
Nicely written.
;-) of this is that if you want, you can trade SHN's, but encode to mp3 or OGG for your own personal use. The main thing you want to consider is that you should NEVER distribute an MP3 for the purpose of a "trade" (which implies that you are getting origional source). Especially if you are trading with people that have no earthly idea of the underlying issues.
A nice corraLarry
The biggest problem I have come across is people downloading mp3's, and then converting them to Audio CD's and trading them. This is wrong on so many levels, yet stupid people do it all the time not even realizing what problems they are adding to the community. As long as nobody converts MP3's/OGG's to audio CD's or SHN or WAV, we are all going to be doing just fine.
On the other hand, MP3 distribution is very very usefull if done properly. As long as you are downloading an MP3 knowing you dont have the origional, your goal should be to have a fast download, and something to listen to, but not a master copy.
For instance, what if someone's only means to listen to music is via their car MP3 player, or their PC, and they don't plan on converting them to WAV or SHN or CD Audio, then by all means, download the mp3 if it makes you happier.
I'm not sure about your parent's post about the "license" but any time you recieve a work that is copyrighted, you are automatically bound by copyright law, without having to sign or agree to anything.
All a license does is give you EXTRA rights aside from that already granted to you via copyright law (fair use). Under copyright law, if you recieve (because you paid for it, or obtained it in other legal ways) a work without any type of license, that means that you are 100% restricted to not redistribute the work. The only copies you are allowed are fair use copies, etc.
If an EULA or license does not grant you extra rights, sometimes they do bad and _RESTRICT_ those rights guaranteed to you by copyright law. In these cases, those parts of the EULA are effectively unenforceable. No EULA can restrict fair use and be valid.
So in a sence, your right, you didn't sign or accept any agreement when you purchased the work. On the other hand, you are not legally allowed to do anything except listen to it consistant to the fair use clause in US copyright law, and not copy it under any other circumstances. So you are in fact bound, but not by a contract, but by US Criminal law, wether you accept any extra agreements/EULA's or not.
In effect, the "spirit" of your parent is correct, though it is technically incorrect.
cheers >
I'm sorry, but you have not given any good reasons about why this makes you mad, or less likely to go to a show.
Phish has always allowed tapers to tape the show for free (in some cases, you need a special tapers ticket, but usually just buy a regular one and bring your equipment to the show)
These recorded shows are legally distributeable for FREE. The only restriction is that you are not allowed to sell them.
Recently, Phish started selling live soundboard recordings of these same shows on CD. You can buy them at your local CD store, or off the phish website for about $20 US. All that is changing is that now, insted of waiting for these new volumes of live shows to be released, they are going to have every show available on their website, for a $13 US fee, and you bring your own media. Not only that, but now Phish is making $13 off each show they sell (minus cost), insted of $2 that their record label gives them.
If you don't want to buy the $13 SHN's, then keep downloading the legal bootleg releases insted. The quality is almost just as good, and its free, and freely distributeable. This will not put an end to bootleg trading, it will just give the people that want to support the band, and who want higher quality recordings, the opportunity to do so.
(BTW, almost none of the officially released shows are freely distributeable, only the SHN's taped by independant tapers)
These shows sold off livephish.com will NOT show up on etree. It is etree's policy to not serve any content that is not legally distributeable. The etree community polices itself very well, and anybody who offered an FTP account containing illegal content will be removed from the list in a heartbeat.
SHN is very usefull for archives. It is also very usefull for listening to. Imagine you want to store your master copy of all your music on a hard drive in a computer along with the rest of your stero system. Now imagine you want to replicate audio CD's for friends (this is legal for all the bands that allow taping at concerts, phish allows you to distribute SHN's of their shows if they were taped by independant tapers)
So you can listen to these SHN's on your stero, and if you want a MP3 CD for your car, you just run the shn's through a perl script, and now you have an MP3 cd of the same material. Now imagine a friend stops by with some CD-R's and wants to spin a few disks of the new shows you just downloaded off etree. just stick the blank in, and run it through a perl script, and boom, instant audio cd with no compression loss.
MP3's are good for the end result, but for the source file, you dont want mp3, you want lossLESS. and SHN will cut most wav's in half. Not only this, but data integrity of SHN's is much better than storing your master copy in an "audio CD" because of the way the data is encoded onto the medium (audio cd's do not have as much redundancy on a disk, so a scratch will lose data, whereas, on a data disk you have redundant encoding on the media itself)
For all these reasons, SHN is good for just about everything. Too bad my car MP3 disk player doesn't support SHN's.
Same here...
thats wierd!
Actually, your wrong about #2. 8500+ is unsupported in the open source drivers. the 8500 will "work" but that depends on how you define "work". just check linuxgames.com (sp?)
If you want any ATI card in linux+3d opengl games, you are going to have to use something pre-radeon 8500. And that is just silly, dog slow, and IMO, just plain shit.
Maybe ATI should do themselves(and us) a favor, and contribute at least SOMETHING to the opensource driver, if they are not going to provide even a halfassed alternative to it.
"A recession is a period of general economic decline; specifically, a decline in GDP for two or more consecutive quarters."
IANAE (I am not an economist) but recession is not that specific of a term. Any sufficient decline for any sufficiently long period of time is a recession. This does not limit to just the GDP. Likewise, just because the GDP has been raised the last 2 quarters, that does not mean we are still not in a recession. increased GDP means nothing except that its better than it was 2 quarters ago, but not necessarilly anything significant.
You economists rely on bullshit numbers too much. When people can start putting food back on the table without having to be on welfare, then we are out of the recession.
Then again, you might be referring to the term 'recession' that you read in an economics 101 book, in which case, you may have lost touch with reality.
peace out
[not a troll, but friendly discussion]
"The audio is Intel810, the IDE is AMD."
While im not sure about the IDE, the audio was designed by nVidia. It has remnance of what was going to be the vortex3 audio chipset, but it is definatelly NOT intel's design, and nothing even close to the i810 audio.
The ethernet devices (there are 2 on the chipset) is 3rd party. they are licensed from 3com.
The rest, I'm not sure...
Actually, your both wrong...
While ATI and Matrox are usually touted off as superior 2D quality, that is just a baseless assumption based on the most popular implementations of video cards you have experience with.
there is nothing inherantly wrong with nVidia's 2D picture quality, or anything inherantly good about ATI's or Matrox's. The difference is that ATI and Matrox produce their own video boards, while nVidia only produces chips.
The difference here is in the digital to analog converters used on the board, which are not part of the GPU supplied by nVidia. nVidia sells just the GPU, and the card manufacturer is responsible for buying the other components from other people. Most companies that manufacture nVidia video cards have strong competition, so skimp out on some parts. It shows when you try to run an nVidia card made by a cheap manufacturer at 1600x resolution.
The same holds true for the "Powered by ATI" video card line, which is not produced by ATI, but 3rd party board manufacturers.
of all 3 GPU companies, there is essentially no difference in the 2D quality in either chipset. It's just that ATI and Matrox have the ability to dictate exactly what is used external to the GPU, and so can guarantee that their cards will have the quality of 2d that they want it to have.
If you buy quality nVidia boards from ASUS, or Visiontek (now defunct) you will be sure to have quality parts in them.
Actually, though I could be wrong because I have never installed nvidia drivers under linux, i think the KERNEL drivers ARE opensource (but not free software, i think)
The main part of their driver that does the work, the opengl library, is closed source, but it is a userland application.
I would never support a company that had binary only drivers for Linux. That is just plain stupid. However, a binary only opengl library, that performs better than any other opengl library available today, with source kernel modules, is good enough for me.
Although I would like to believe you on this, I will have to disagree...
While many video games such as Quake3 will run better under nVidia/Linux over win32/Linux, this usually has nothing to do with the raw video performance. Most of the time it has to do with the overall system performance, aside from video. If you can show some true numbers that prove that the actual VIDEO performance is better, then it would be another story..
Then again, I'm not really up to date on it all, so I could be wrong, but I do know that in the past, nVidida drivers have been sub-par to the win32 drivers.
Can you point me to somewhere to where you are talking about the characters? I have watched both series, but they have faded in my memory :( any resources or places i can see them again, or read of them?
thanks