My ideal for MP3s would be CD-R storage.. It's cheap enough, and quite robust media. CD-RW would even allow for R/W (but not so cheap).. as for speed, MP3 is 1/12 the size of CD-DA, so you only need to read at a twelfth the speed, and anything you buffer (10 seconds shock protection?) will contain 12x the amount of sound.. (120 seconds shock protection!)
I'd really like to see a discman that plays CD-DA and MP3 from CD-R. Surely Philips could make this.. (Sony could too, but they have a record company as well.. Philips sold Polygram a while ago - and immediately started marketing a cd-da copyer..)
Hey, maybe it would even be possible to make some sort of booster kit for discmans.. Probably not enough room left in them to stick in some extra mp3 chips, though:(
I use htmlpp a nifty perl script which acts as a HTML 'pre-processor', just fill in the content, and when lay-out changes, run the command to change the layout on every single page... You need this.. really.. Beats find and replace every time.
Oh, and a regular text-editor of course.. like vim or emacs or heck, edlin, whatever makes you feel warm and fuzzy..
There is no easy way to make webpages that rock, except copy/paste. (Which incedentally is what htmlpp is good at:-)
Nobody can have complete freedom in a large society. For example, I give up the "right" to drive my car anywhere I want to. Instead, I am forced to follow specific rules like staying on the right side of the road, stopping at red lights, etc...
Driving a car is not a right, it's a privilige. Privacy OTOH is a basic human right. And the reason driving a car is so regulated, is that the risk is so great that when done improperly, you violate some-one else's human rights (such as the right to live, the right to integrity of the human body, etc.)
Also, what I personally find really funny is how the Slashdot "community" is vehemently opposed to patents and copyrights on music but when it comes to their personal stuff, they scream bloody murder.
If you copy something, the owner of the work still has it. If you take some-one's privacy away then, like material property, it's gone.
Of course one could argue that when you copy a work, you take away some-one's copyright, but copyright, as oposed to the right to privacy, is more or less an 'invented' right. It can hardly be called a birthright - copyright comes in to existance only after a work has been created, while the right to privacy exists as soon as the individual itself is born. It's a fine distinction, and one of personal preference, but this is the distinction I think most people who argue for privacy and against copyright make. (Also, all individuals, and no corporations have a right to privacy, while most artists have to transfer their copyrights to big faceless corporations. And corporations really shouldn't deal in human rights, for the same reasons corporations do not have the vote...)
Slashdot Mirror
I'd really like to see a discman that plays CD-DA and MP3 from CD-R. Surely Philips could make this.. (Sony could too, but they have a record company as well.. Philips sold Polygram a while ago - and immediately started marketing a cd-da copyer..)
Hey, maybe it would even be possible to make some sort of booster kit for discmans.. Probably not enough room left in them to stick in some extra mp3 chips, though :(
Oh, and a regular text-editor of course.. like vim or emacs or heck, edlin, whatever makes you feel warm and fuzzy..
There is no easy way to make webpages that rock, except copy/paste. (Which incedentally is what htmlpp is good at :-)
e-mail aliasses. one of the wonderful top-tunes you can use on linux.
Driving a car is not a right, it's a privilige. Privacy OTOH is a basic human right. And the reason driving a car is so regulated, is that the risk is so great that when done improperly, you violate some-one else's human rights (such as the right to live, the right to integrity of the human body, etc.)
Also, what I personally find really funny is how the Slashdot "community" is vehemently opposed to patents and copyrights on music but when it comes to their personal stuff, they scream bloody murder.
If you copy something, the owner of the work still has it. If you take some-one's privacy away then, like material property, it's gone.
Of course one could argue that when you copy a work, you take away some-one's copyright, but copyright, as oposed to the right to privacy, is more or less an 'invented' right. It can hardly be called a birthright - copyright comes in to existance only after a work has been created, while the right to privacy exists as soon as the individual itself is born. It's a fine distinction, and one of personal preference, but this is the distinction I think most people who argue for privacy and against copyright make.
(Also, all individuals, and no corporations have a right to privacy, while most artists have to transfer their copyrights to big faceless corporations. And corporations really shouldn't deal in human rights, for the same reasons corporations do not have the vote...)