Oppose away, but as long as they can spew their rf all over me I should be able to demodulate it and look at whatever parts of it I please.
That has always been a silly argument. As a practical matter, unless you're interested in the content, the RF they're spewing over you affects you in no way. It's reserved for that purpose alone, so you cannot use that part of the spectrum. Furthermore, how else do you propose they broadcast signals? You can't just declare that since the mechanism for their transmission is accessible to you that you have a right to access it. Of course, from a security standpoint, they should assume that people are going to do that.
Public television will vanish if everyone skips the ads on commercial tv? Sure.
Did I say "public" or did I say "free"? Because unless you're not paying taxes, they aren't the same thing.
No, no, no. I certainly don't think that. What I said was Americans aren't interested in lowering our oil consumption because if they were SUVs and trucks wouldn't be the top selling vehicles. The only thing that could break that habit is legislation. I was just stating making a declaritive statement. I never advocated for it though.
It isn't GWB holding up electric cars in some oil conspiracy, it's the population as a whole - who collectively don't seem all that interested in alternative fuel vehicles or higher fuel usage vehicles.
Bingo. Until I stop seeing soccer moms tooling around in Hummer H2s and Chevy Avalanches, I'm not buying into this shit that George Bush is "holding us back". Nothing short of legislation outlawing SUVs is going to reduce our oil consumption.
As others below have noted, the average amount of energy that sunlight imparts per square yard of earth is about 1 kilowatt. That's a lot of energy. For the gearheads out there that works out to be about 1.3 UK horsepower per square yard!
MP3 encoding works on Windows XP with an optional MP3 encode pack. If you don't want to buy one (howdy Thomson-FhG licensing!), work on getting LAME to work in this capacity.
I thought about this, and did a quick search but didn't turn anything up. Are there any projects to do MP3 or Vorbis encoding plug-ins for Windows Media Player? If not, I'm downloading the Windows Media Services SDK as we speak and I'll see how difficult it looks.
Say what you will about Microsoft, but I've been using the WMP9 RC for the last two weeks and I've been impressed. It's more bloated than WinAmp (what did you expect?), but it's got some pretty compelling features.
First, the cons:
It's bloated
It doesn't rip to MP3 or Vorbis
The visualizations suck
It tries to coerce you into ripping your music as "protected" WMA files. (Whew! Thank you for protecting my music Microsoft.)
Now, the pros:
Built in DSP enhancements that actually sound decent. No downloading trialware DSP enhancers.
Minimize to Quick Launch. When you minimize it, instead of getting just a button on the taskbar you get a mini control panel. Slick.
Song rating. You can rate each song (1 to 5 stars) as it plays and and eventually get 'Top 10' lists or whatever.
Built-in playlists. You can select "Songs I listen to at night", "Songs I haven't heard lately.", "4 and 5 star songs", etc.
Automatic ID3 tag updating
At this point, my main grudge against WMP9 is that it won't rip to MP3 or Vorbis. Of course, I use CDEx for that anyway, so it doesn't really matter. I do know that I've tried WinAmp 3 on two seperate occasions and as far as I'm concerned WMP9 blows it away. So yes, I would be interested in a Linux version.
Well, the real crime here is that United States tax law is so fucked up that you've got to buy a goddamn software program (or a professional's services) to even pay your dues. That is the problem.
I was only addressing the idiot claim that "these companies are providing you entertainment at no cost to you". The American public is lending the TV stations a valuable public asset - the radio spectrum - so the TV shows are NOT for free.
I stand by my original claim: they provide entertainment at no cost to you.
You dispute this - you believe that there is a cost. You say that the cost is "lending" them valuable chunks of spectrum.
You are wrong on a number of counts. Firstly, we auction off the spectrum, we don't lend it. That alone destroys your argument that we are giving up spectrum. We're selling it.
Second, the value of the radio waves in the first place is solely because of the broadcasters currently using it. You only need so much spectrum for WiFi and similar technologies. If you decide to remove capitalism from the equation by banning entities that want to commoditize the spectrum (as you apparently wish to do), nobody is going to want any of the spectrum, and its value disappears. It's a paradox - we're not giving up something valuable; our giving it up is what makes it valuable.
Unfortunately, your understanding of even basic economics has failed you.
I would contend that if someone configures a machine to provide services to the Internet than that person shouldn't be surprised if people start using it - invited or not.
I don't want to see legislation that turns a typo in your web browser into a federal crime.
The TV stations do not own the airwaves. They are given use of them by the people for the benefit of the people.
Right. But what most people at Slashdot fail to understand is that the people are happy.
Tucked away within these little enclaves of delusional superiority, the Internet "elite" (K5, Slashdot, etc.) refuse to grasp that American citizens are more happy with current TV programming than they've ever been. As Slashdotters we like to posture and pose, and fantasize that we're on the brink of some magnificient collapse of the media industries. Guess what - we're not. Americans are watching (and listening to) shit and we like it. Why do you think that, as a country, we watch more TV now then ever. All the money that TV execs throw at focus groups and ratings research pays off. They keep fine tuning exactly what the average American wants to see and unfortunately it's dreck like "Fear Factor" and "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?".
You can dream about the TV industry's demise all you want, but as long as they're spoon feeding that digital sludge down our fat, Cheeto-stained lips, we're going to be happy. And if we're happy, they're happy.
Comercials were the best idea, given the conditions that previously existed
I think they will still be used for some time to come. They'll just be hidden in product placement form. Like that Lexus that Tom Cruise drives in 'Minority Report', or the digital ads superimposed on billboards during televised sporting events.
To beat TiVo et al, the television industry will just make it more difficult to remove the ads from the content. In the end that will prove immensely easier than creating and enforcing new legislation.
But don't tell me that we can split the atom and put a man on the moon, but we can't find a way to fund television development sans commercials.
Fine, but don't tell me that we can unless you can tell me how.
The problem is that developing TV programming costs a lot of money. Somebody has to pay for it. Whether it's funded by commercials, subscriptions, donations, taxes, slave labor, or whatever, it's still going to cost somebody. And so far, commercials (in whatever form) are the best idea.
Has anyone ever considered the possibility that some of us would gladly pay for TV, given the choice, and not see ads?
I have, and I decided I couldn't afford it.
Consider HBO, your $5/month for HBO actually pays for the production of their programming. Imagine paying $5/month for EVERY channel. Yikes.
I don't want to pay the same rate I pay now and only receive 9 channels. And I certainly don't want to get the same number of channels I get now and pay $4000 a year for them.
The fact of the matter is that advertisers are footing the entire bill for the television industry. You can't excise them from the arrangement and expect prices to stay anywhere near what they are.
The whole point of cable was to get rid of commercials.
Nah. With cable you're paying for the distribution. If you were actually paying for the progamming to be produced the cost would much, much higher. It's like a newspaper subscription.
Consider HBO, that's a channel where you're actually paying for the production, and it breaks down to something like $5/month. Imagine paying $5 per month for EVERY channel that you receive on cable. You'd be paying $4000 a year for cable.
That's why TiVo has never implemented an automatic commerical skip feature. ReplayTV has it, but they are getting harrassed because of it. Very lame.
Very lame? I know the/. mantra is "I wan't it free!", but you've got to be realistic. These companies are providing you entertainment at no cost to you. They do this because they're paid by advertisers. Why shouldn't they be opposed to commercial skipping?
I don't think commercial skipping should be made illegal, but you have to understand that your actions have consequences. If everyone is skipping the ads, free TV is going to go away. Either you'll be forced to watch ads (like the unskipable previews on some DVDs) or you'll have to pay for your TV programming (e.g. HBO). There are no other solutions.
Personally, I'd like to see TiVo stay a cult item so I can "cheat" the advertisers with mine while the rest of you suckers foot the bill.
As a practical matter the snowflake does have a 3D volume. It does not exhibit true fractal geometry in that it doesn't fold upon itself infinitely. Nothing can (or at least certainly not a snowflake).
Posters below saying that melting it ruins it's infinite fractal geometry are just being silly. The snowflake ALWAYS has a 3D volume (and geometry), we just don't have a good way of measuring it's proportions so it seems fractal. It's not.
Slashdot Mirror
Oppose away, but as long as they can spew their rf all over me I should be able to demodulate it and look at whatever parts of it I please.
That has always been a silly argument. As a practical matter, unless you're interested in the content, the RF they're spewing over you affects you in no way. It's reserved for that purpose alone, so you cannot use that part of the spectrum. Furthermore, how else do you propose they broadcast signals? You can't just declare that since the mechanism for their transmission is accessible to you that you have a right to access it. Of course, from a security standpoint, they should assume that people are going to do that.
Public television will vanish if everyone skips the ads on commercial tv? Sure.
Did I say "public" or did I say "free"? Because unless you're not paying taxes, they aren't the same thing.
But we need to outlaw SUVs, you say.
No, no, no. I certainly don't think that. What I said was Americans aren't interested in lowering our oil consumption because if they were SUVs and trucks wouldn't be the top selling vehicles. The only thing that could break that habit is legislation. I was just stating making a declaritive statement. I never advocated for it though.
Hybrid SUVs are already being produced. Ford sells a hybrid Escape that you can buy today. It gets about 35 mpg I believe.
However, that's still wasteful considering that most people don't need an SUV and could get by with a Toyota Prius that gets upwards of 50 mpg.
All a matter of perspective I guess.
It isn't GWB holding up electric cars in some oil conspiracy, it's the population as a whole - who collectively don't seem all that interested in alternative fuel vehicles or higher fuel usage vehicles.
Bingo. Until I stop seeing soccer moms tooling around in Hummer H2s and Chevy Avalanches, I'm not buying into this shit that George Bush is "holding us back". Nothing short of legislation outlawing SUVs is going to reduce our oil consumption.
As others below have noted, the average amount of energy that sunlight imparts per square yard of earth is about 1 kilowatt. That's a lot of energy. For the gearheads out there that works out to be about 1.3 UK horsepower per square yard!
MP3 encoding works on Windows XP with an optional MP3 encode pack. If you don't want to buy one (howdy Thomson-FhG licensing!), work on getting LAME to work in this capacity.
I thought about this, and did a quick search but didn't turn anything up. Are there any projects to do MP3 or Vorbis encoding plug-ins for Windows Media Player? If not, I'm downloading the Windows Media Services SDK as we speak and I'll see how difficult it looks.
Hahahaha. Fucking hilarious.
-1 Flamebait, feh. Fuck you, you bunch of fucking zealots.
First, the cons:
Now, the pros:
- Built in DSP enhancements that actually sound decent. No downloading trialware DSP enhancers.
- Minimize to Quick Launch. When you minimize it, instead of getting just a button on the taskbar you get a mini control panel. Slick.
- Song rating. You can rate each song (1 to 5 stars) as it plays and and eventually get 'Top 10' lists or whatever.
- Built-in playlists. You can select "Songs I listen to at night", "Songs I haven't heard lately.", "4 and 5 star songs", etc.
- Automatic ID3 tag updating
At this point, my main grudge against WMP9 is that it won't rip to MP3 or Vorbis. Of course, I use CDEx for that anyway, so it doesn't really matter. I do know that I've tried WinAmp 3 on two seperate occasions and as far as I'm concerned WMP9 blows it away. So yes, I would be interested in a Linux version.Well, the real crime here is that United States tax law is so fucked up that you've got to buy a goddamn software program (or a professional's services) to even pay your dues. That is the problem.
(And no, IANATP.)
;)
I hope that last part doesn't stand for 'tax payer'.
I was only addressing the idiot claim that "these companies are providing you entertainment at no cost to you". The American public is lending the TV stations a valuable public asset - the radio spectrum - so the TV shows are NOT for free.
I stand by my original claim: they provide entertainment at no cost to you.
You dispute this - you believe that there is a cost. You say that the cost is "lending" them valuable chunks of spectrum.
You are wrong on a number of counts. Firstly, we auction off the spectrum, we don't lend it. That alone destroys your argument that we are giving up spectrum. We're selling it.
Second, the value of the radio waves in the first place is solely because of the broadcasters currently using it. You only need so much spectrum for WiFi and similar technologies. If you decide to remove capitalism from the equation by banning entities that want to commoditize the spectrum (as you apparently wish to do), nobody is going to want any of the spectrum, and its value disappears. It's a paradox - we're not giving up something valuable; our giving it up is what makes it valuable.
Unfortunately, your understanding of even basic economics has failed you.
Did they exploit the proxy or was it merely open?
I would contend that if someone configures a machine to provide services to the Internet than that person shouldn't be surprised if people start using it - invited or not.
I don't want to see legislation that turns a typo in your web browser into a federal crime.
The TV stations do not own the airwaves. They are given use of them by the people for the benefit of the people.
Right. But what most people at Slashdot fail to understand is that the people are happy.
Tucked away within these little enclaves of delusional superiority, the Internet "elite" (K5, Slashdot, etc.) refuse to grasp that American citizens are more happy with current TV programming than they've ever been. As Slashdotters we like to posture and pose, and fantasize that we're on the brink of some magnificient collapse of the media industries. Guess what - we're not. Americans are watching (and listening to) shit and we like it. Why do you think that, as a country, we watch more TV now then ever. All the money that TV execs throw at focus groups and ratings research pays off. They keep fine tuning exactly what the average American wants to see and unfortunately it's dreck like "Fear Factor" and "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?".
You can dream about the TV industry's demise all you want, but as long as they're spoon feeding that digital sludge down our fat, Cheeto-stained lips, we're going to be happy. And if we're happy, they're happy.
Comercials were the best idea, given the conditions that previously existed
I think they will still be used for some time to come. They'll just be hidden in product placement form. Like that Lexus that Tom Cruise drives in 'Minority Report', or the digital ads superimposed on billboards during televised sporting events.
To beat TiVo et al, the television industry will just make it more difficult to remove the ads from the content. In the end that will prove immensely easier than creating and enforcing new legislation.
Good points. I was wondering when someone was going to refute my HBO extrapolation. ;)
But don't tell me that we can split the atom and put a man on the moon, but we can't find a way to fund television development sans commercials.
Fine, but don't tell me that we can unless you can tell me how.
The problem is that developing TV programming costs a lot of money. Somebody has to pay for it. Whether it's funded by commercials, subscriptions, donations, taxes, slave labor, or whatever, it's still going to cost somebody. And so far, commercials (in whatever form) are the best idea.
Don't be a fucking dumbass.
If I don't buy Dr. Pepper then I guess they paid for the commercial, didn't they?
Has anyone ever considered the possibility that some of us would gladly pay for TV, given the choice, and not see ads?
I have, and I decided I couldn't afford it.
Consider HBO, your $5/month for HBO actually pays for the production of their programming. Imagine paying $5/month for EVERY channel. Yikes.
I don't want to pay the same rate I pay now and only receive 9 channels. And I certainly don't want to get the same number of channels I get now and pay $4000 a year for them.
The fact of the matter is that advertisers are footing the entire bill for the television industry. You can't excise them from the arrangement and expect prices to stay anywhere near what they are.
You're paying for the distribution. Do you think 25 cents pays for your newspaper production too? Guess what - advertising pays, and it pays big.
The whole point of cable was to get rid of commercials.
Nah. With cable you're paying for the distribution. If you were actually paying for the progamming to be produced the cost would much, much higher. It's like a newspaper subscription.
Consider HBO, that's a channel where you're actually paying for the production, and it breaks down to something like $5/month. Imagine paying $5 per month for EVERY channel that you receive on cable. You'd be paying $4000 a year for cable.
I think I'll endure the ads.
That's why TiVo has never implemented an automatic commerical skip feature. ReplayTV has it, but they are getting harrassed because of it. Very lame.
/. mantra is "I wan't it free!", but you've got to be realistic. These companies are providing you entertainment at no cost to you. They do this because they're paid by advertisers. Why shouldn't they be opposed to commercial skipping?
Very lame? I know the
I don't think commercial skipping should be made illegal, but you have to understand that your actions have consequences. If everyone is skipping the ads, free TV is going to go away. Either you'll be forced to watch ads (like the unskipable previews on some DVDs) or you'll have to pay for your TV programming (e.g. HBO). There are no other solutions.
Personally, I'd like to see TiVo stay a cult item so I can "cheat" the advertisers with mine while the rest of you suckers foot the bill.
you should probably add something about the story on slashdot being posted multiple times.
Yeah, and it will probably be posted multiple times.
You are correct.
As a practical matter the snowflake does have a 3D volume. It does not exhibit true fractal geometry in that it doesn't fold upon itself infinitely. Nothing can (or at least certainly not a snowflake).
Posters below saying that melting it ruins it's infinite fractal geometry are just being silly. The snowflake ALWAYS has a 3D volume (and geometry), we just don't have a good way of measuring it's proportions so it seems fractal. It's not.
Occam's razor, folks.
The ability for my wife to walk into Best Buy and purchase "Hoyle Card Games". Or "Reader Rabbit Preschool".
Pfft - if your wife still reads at a preschool level she's definitely not ready for Linux.