I'm not sure its possible to instill into a young mind that terrorism is bad. Sure, you can show that bombing civilians is bad, but how can you can you explain to a kid whose brother and sister were killed at a checkpoint that that was just a mistake, or that his brother was a justified civilian casualty, but saving the country was better?
Basically we have justifications for what we do. Though it always helps to try and look at it from the other persons perspective. Forget trying to teach terrorism is bad. Another person who sees the violence as an act of war, will be able to justify it. So long as civilian casualties are acceptable. Look at Iraq or Afghanistan, was that good or bad? Look at the good side, bye bye dictator. The bad side, real civilian deaths. A lot. Now if we find this justifiable. Terrorists feel their war is just as justifiable. I believe their mindset is exactly the same as you might find in revolutionaries. They feel they're in a civil war, outnumbered outgunned and plotting insurrection.
I don't think you can really fight this type of warfare with guns or policing. Nor can you just say, thats wrong kid (i'm purposefully mangling what you said, forgive me). However I totally agree with you on one thing, education.
I think theres one thing really wrong in the world and it probably expands to everywhere. We think we're better. Not just us, everyone. We think we're better because of where we come from, what we do, anything. We're so patriotic, but I think sometimes that becomes a form of racism, like my country is so much better than yours. If conditions are better, great, but it doesn't mean that my country is any more civilized than Tibet. If people truly didn't believe they were better than anyone else, we probably wouldn't fight.
However, its a pipedream. Its inherent in everyone, we all think we're special to a certain extent because we're individuals. However wars are never normally fought between two people who truly relate to one another. Maybe if we understood that we're all pretty much as insignificant as each other, then things would be better. Maybe children can be educated so they embrace differences and understand they are no better anyone else, no matter the country/religion/colour.
Democracy; various flavors, but the intention is that what the majority of people want, they get. This means that if the country votes for a government-controlled socialist utopia, it's democratic, and when another country invades and forces a market-based economy upon them, it's not (or vice versa).
Marketplace; people have money and goods. Money and goods are exchanged at the highest perceived benefit to both parties. Those with more money have more buying power. Those with goods/rights can do what they like with them. Those with no money or goods/rights have no power.
I think most governments are Marketplaces rather than Democracies then.
Maybe its because universities are being seen less as teaching/learning estabilishments and more places for potential profit.
I don't think increasing the facilities and funding for universities in this way is wrong, however I think it needs to be looked at carefully. It feels like a long winding road to potential disaster.
Also, though if the University does profit from it, then you *should* (imho though) be rewarded for it additionally. However, that would probably depend on the University and hopefully most would waive the right to profit at your expense of time and effort.
The only worrying thing I saw in a previous post was it sounded like the professor was trying to use both his work in class and yet protect it (either for the university or for publication of private papers). If this happens, then it is counter-productive for the students to use it. Far better to use a third party's information which could be removed from class. Which sounds like laziness or greed, however you look at it.
It is probably wise to bear in mind, that unless the manufacturers can keep the prices close to mined diamond prices, there is no incentive to buy. If I believe a cultured diamond I will buy will produced at a lower price in a few months, I will feel disappointed to put it lightly. However, regardless of cost. I'd prefer a manufactured diamond to a mined diamond. The history surrounding most areas involved in diamond trade and companies involvement in it does not endear me to them.
Personally however I'd like one of these diamonds, however I've never really liked Yellow, regardless of its fancy nature. I prefer blue or black.
"If they make up course notes for a course that they're teaching, I think that they own them, and that students don't have an absolute right to possess them."
Basically, they're paid to teach. Those notes, probably written on paper paid by the school, during working hours will be paid for. If I write notes (even at home) on some programming I do at work and give them to clients in order that they understand. Sure, its not an issue if the clients feel they own the notes (which I don't feel they do). However, the company who pays me owns them. However, if I write a completely unrelated application or one I spend my own time learning about, sure I own it.
The distinction arises when you are using the time spent you are paid for by your employer to pursue your own revenue.
If you compare the situation to programmers, like you mention, it is no different whatsoever. If you work in a position and the position gives you an insight into the methods and construction of a program, then develop yourself a identical clone of this using a similar application, I do not believe you should own the rights to the application.
If a professor is writing notes for students in order to aid his classroom, so he can do something else or make the day a little easier. Turning this later into a book, is a conflict of interests.
However, I do think if this happens, there should be some sort of reward and recognition.
If you think really why gcaseye6677 says, "They don't want anyone making lecture notes available outside the classroom." from the early post, you'll probably realise that it sounds like the professor doesn't want people copying the work and wants to protect it. Certainly not from the students? He/She is showing it to them, asking them to learn. Why? To protect the universities property or their own? Well to identify it is the University's property is to show they no longer own it and for it being their own property, why show them in class?
Professors are not only paid to teach, but to prepare. Sure, I have no problem with them publishing papers or books in their field, but it is important to draw the distinction, between classes and private work. Most Universities have a policy for this, but as the previous poster mentions I don't think the victim should be the student. Use notes that can be taken out of class, not ones that are going to be published.
Maybe its not the professor just making this mistake, if a University makes money from an tenured professor. Likely as not it may be their policy that restricts the usage of notes (i doubt this though), however this only helps the University funding not the students (which is meant to be the primary aim of the instituition).
Ironically, I installed some USB network card (when I say card I really mean some weird plastic ball with an RJ45 and a USB connector) onto a test machine I'd been given to use.
The machine actually didn't detect the networking device within Windows. Yet, it worked fine within FreeBSD, without any configuration at all from install.
It's a fscking opinion piece in a fscking opinion news paper, what do you expect? There isn't a law or some constitutional ammendment that says all journalism must be unbiased.
I don't recall saying it should be unbiased. The post was merely meant to illustrate the article skewed their own statistics to suit their own article, in much the same way the writer of the article in The New Republic says the report was.
PS. Does "does not seem unduly unbiased" mean "does seem biased"? Work on those pointless negatives...
I was tired at the time, it was 5am. I don't really think that I need to work out my grammar before I post though. Theres always someone around to correct it for me...
Judging by the article. The USAF aren't after a program to search the entire internet. I'm sure they know thats impossible. The sheer amount of data makes it unlikely. What is specifically mentioned is its need to run unobtrusively in the background.
Detecting steganographic content is probably difficult IMHO, but I would imagine it is easier analysing images to see if they contain differences from the norm, than looking for information with brute force. Most images for example are clean, but if you're seeing a colour variation in a pattern over an image that should contain one colour, this should be easier.
However even with this relatively simple method, the processing power used to analyse every image opened or detached from a host pc (this would probably be a trojan), would take a fair amount of resource time. The delays on the pc alone would probably alert the user.
Although if the need is for a Trojan, they should have probably been more circumspect about announcing their need for it.
I remember reading the articles about him when he'd just been caught. From what I read previously he pointed out what he had been able to do to the NY Times. He also did not disclose how he did this and did not alter/destroy or copy information.
Although the article does mention his name for using LexusNexis for accruing a bill of $300,000 I think this is probably exaggerated, from what I'm aware of LexusNexis (I'm only familiar with the Law and Tax services) that the access is subscription based, rather than search based. However, this is different to previous articles where he is described as a white hat hacker, giving help to organisations with security holes and not taking advantage.
If he brings to attention the holes in a companies security system, I think he should be punished, but I think the decision of whether he brought the problems to their attention, or they caught him should be an important factor in the sentencing.
The article is about the possibility for using RFID in casinos. Really, it give any reason for this than noting the possible uses. I saw the article originally on Ananova, then New Scientist, considered submitting it, but then decided against it. The reason for it, oooh it has the word RFID in it. The reason against, well there seems to be no clear facts about any casino implementing it or about to. Sure they could, but I could have RFID's inserted into my eyes.
Casinos already keep a close eye on people who win at tables, thats what the security cameras and staff are there for.
Basically, the points made out in The New Republic does address the problems with a computer simulation, however although the article is specific about the simulation by Chris Thomas it is ominously less specific in its related "official" figures obtained by groups such as Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Figures such as timescales are omitted in these figures.
Additionally the reporting within the article, does not seem unduly unbiased. Maybe its just me, but any reporter who calls a report "cockamamie galimatias", should have evidence for why it is "cockamamie galimatias". As a computer simulation it is agreed, that the information may be inaccurate. However, it may be accurate.
The study is entirely a computer simulation, and as anyone familiar with this art knows, computer models can be trained to produce any desired result.
This doesn't really suggest that the information is inaccurate, it suggests that he falsified the information or rules of the simulation to give a different outlook. Mistakes are one thing, that is something else altogether.
1st Problem, Computer Simulation and no relations found between a Greenhouse Effect and Species Extinction. Well I think it is a given, the article accepts "most aspects of global warming theory", I imagine that means the guy actually accepts that the earth warms up. Some animals are not as adaptable as others when it comes to temperature change. The article at this point kind of infers that since none of the evidence is proved, that the possibility does not exist. Well, the report was a projection. Not a highlight of the links.
2nd Problem Over a length of time projects a 15 percent to 37 percent extinction, the main problem with the New Republic article is that it uses the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) as a figure for dismissing the figures out of hand, yet the figures obtained form the are not over a 50 year period, additionally I could find no records of any attempt to project these figures. As such, I can see that the figures were of the redlist, showing a yearly risk percentage, of which not all were evaluated and even the category mammals showed a 6% risk for last year. 3rd Problem namely, that past episodes of global warming have not produced the mass-extinction that the Thomas computer models project. As mentioned in the article, this has happened over the past century, a significant change, but possibly not quite the change needed to curtail the lives of some. It is likely however that further changes will exacerbate the problem. Additionally, it is significantly hard to determine whether a species is extinct, unless we are aware of its existance. That however is pure speculation as is much of this article. It also mentions that the temperature change speculated in 2100 is 3-6 degrees (while complaining that the projections are not exact enough, it seems the article writer forgot his previous statement about projections). This allowing for division by two, works out to be either 1.5 or 3 degrees adding on the previous change of 1 degree, well thats over the figures he uses to compare with European temperatures rose naturally by one or two degrees at the end of the "Little Ice Age" in Europe. At that time however, IUCN was not really available to provide figures about mass extinctions. People were more concerned with their own survival.
There are further points but I'm too tired and this has turned out longer than I expected.
I do accept that computer simulations can be dodgy, however you do really need compare like with like figures. A comparison of 50 years against 1 is not a good comparison.
The article does state "The IUCN's 12,259 estimate is plenty worrying in itself, and habitat loss is plenty worrying in itself.".
However the IUCN's projection is based on existing figures, these could rise or lower due to external factors, they are simply based on previous records. Additionally they are due to a threat by other organisms, maybe the
The capacity for the original minidisc was less than a CD-R.
A minidisc stores 160MB for 74 min. in audio mode (based upon 74 min discs). The amount of compression in realtime allows the MD to store 80mins of music. Now, think about 1GB, thats a hell of a lot more than 160MB. I'd also say my opinion differs with yours when I see 300MB more than a cdr is significant (with compression), Also, the size of these disks. I could fit two in my pocket without any discomfort.
Sure hard drives are bigger, they probably will be for a long time. However, the media in hard drive is non changeable, despite its capacity. This leads to listening to the same songs (even if you listen to them all randomly) unless you connect it to the computer and change them every so often. Additionally, hard drives are not known for their robustness.
If I meet a friend in the street or he recommends a song, he might lend me the MD, I can listen to it there and then, while I go home, not have to go home, rip it, maybe find out its copy protected, download it, then listen to it.
Yeah the DRM is worrying, the original MD did seem to take off (judging by the many devices I've seen in public. Although it wasn't as successful as portable cd players were. Further restrictions may hinder the successful take up of this technology. However, since most MD users recorded their minidiscs from CD's rather than buy MD versions, it is probably a moot issue.
However as long as the MD supports recording, maybe even high speed recording, then I'd be happy spending my money on another Sony Product (should I need a personal stereo type device again).
I'm not trying to convince you of MD technology being better than those of HD mp3 players, it is probably suited for a different usage pattern than that of HD players (besides, you already own a HD player). In the world, where bigger often is associated with better, MD cannot compete. I am trying to point out the advantages of having one.
Personally I did own a MD player for about 4 years, but gave it away when I didn't need it anymore. I found it a good thing to have when travelling and especially when friends with good music taste owned one as well. To me, despite it being a "personal" player, the music became a communual sharing activity.
Re:Best examples of heresy I can think of
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 1
2 Troll? Shouldn't that be heretic?
This is one of those articles I just know won't appear in MetaModerate. For the record, I'd just like to say I think its unfair. Oh well, its worth the Karma
I mean, come on: you can still get discs for DVD-RAM drives, and they didn't even sell that many!
Not to contradict your point, but DVD-RAM discs are now used in some Toshiba Video Recorders. These are advertised with the Record and Play (at the same time) features.
This is probably the reason for this techonology being used in these (TV) video recorders, rather than the DVD-R used in other video recorders. So bear in mind, there may be a reason for these other technologies being used.
Addtionally if used as a Mass Storage Device, devices have a much longer shelf life. Onstream Drives stopped being manufactured a few years ago I think, yet the drives are still in demand as are the tapes.
The RIAA are going after people sharing songs. Surely they'd have to download the entire song to prove that it was a real copy? Well by that point I hope they have an original version of their song, otherwise haven't they broken the law?
As for other people downloading the songs, how do they know they don't own the cd?
With digital radio out, I don't see the service as any different, you can probably record music tracks off of the radio at the same quality. So sure p2p offers the same kind of service for music, albeit possibly copying faster than real time playback.
The Star Wars Kid was just goofing off at school. Now he finds his private performance downloaded by Internet users across the world. The Star Wars Kid is a 15-year-old from Quebec known only as Ghyslain -- his parents are keeping his last name secret to protect his identity. Back in November 2002, Ghyslain was goofing off at a school video studio and recorded himself fighting a mock battle with a broomstick lightsaber. Over two minutes, the video shows the lone, overweight teenager twirling his mock lightsaber ever faster while making his own accompanying sound effects.
The Globe and Mail: "MONTREAL: The parents of Ghyslain Raza, the Quebec teenager who became a celebrity this spring after classmates posted on the Internet a video of him mimicking a Star Wars character..."
Slashdot: "Skippy321 writes "Justified or not, Ghyslain Raza--better known as the Star Wars Kid..."
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure its possible to instill into a young mind that terrorism is bad. Sure, you can show that bombing civilians is bad, but how can you can you explain to a kid whose brother and sister were killed at a checkpoint that that was just a mistake, or that his brother was a justified civilian casualty, but saving the country was better?
Basically we have justifications for what we do. Though it always helps to try and look at it from the other persons perspective. Forget trying to teach terrorism is bad. Another person who sees the violence as an act of war, will be able to justify it. So long as civilian casualties are acceptable. Look at Iraq or Afghanistan, was that good or bad? Look at the good side, bye bye dictator. The bad side, real civilian deaths. A lot. Now if we find this justifiable. Terrorists feel their war is just as justifiable. I believe their mindset is exactly the same as you might find in revolutionaries. They feel they're in a civil war, outnumbered outgunned and plotting insurrection.
I don't think you can really fight this type of warfare with guns or policing. Nor can you just say, thats wrong kid (i'm purposefully mangling what you said, forgive me). However I totally agree with you on one thing, education.
I think theres one thing really wrong in the world and it probably expands to everywhere. We think we're better. Not just us, everyone. We think we're better because of where we come from, what we do, anything. We're so patriotic, but I think sometimes that becomes a form of racism, like my country is so much better than yours. If conditions are better, great, but it doesn't mean that my country is any more civilized than Tibet. If people truly didn't believe they were better than anyone else, we probably wouldn't fight.
However, its a pipedream. Its inherent in everyone, we all think we're special to a certain extent because we're individuals. However wars are never normally fought between two people who truly relate to one another. Maybe if we understood that we're all pretty much as insignificant as each other, then things would be better. Maybe children can be educated so they embrace differences and understand they are no better anyone else, no matter the country/religion/colour.
Democracy; various flavors, but the intention is that what the majority of people want, they get. This means that if the country votes for a government-controlled socialist utopia, it's democratic, and when another country invades and forces a market-based economy upon them, it's not (or vice versa).
Marketplace; people have money and goods. Money and goods are exchanged at the highest perceived benefit to both parties. Those with more money have more buying power. Those with goods/rights can do what they like with them. Those with no money or goods/rights have no power.
I think most governments are Marketplaces rather than Democracies then.
Maybe its because universities are being seen less as teaching/learning estabilishments and more places for potential profit.
I don't think increasing the facilities and funding for universities in this way is wrong, however I think it needs to be looked at carefully. It feels like a long winding road to potential disaster.
Also, though if the University does profit from it, then you *should* (imho though) be rewarded for it additionally. However, that would probably depend on the University and hopefully most would waive the right to profit at your expense of time and effort.
The only worrying thing I saw in a previous post was it sounded like the professor was trying to use both his work in class and yet protect it (either for the university or for publication of private papers). If this happens, then it is counter-productive for the students to use it. Far better to use a third party's information which could be removed from class. Which sounds like laziness or greed, however you look at it.
Gemesis have a gallery showing the usage of their stones in jewellery (also it seems some are from the Accendo Collection,
Accendo Collection a reseller of cultured diamonds also make jewellery and also a loose stone inventory and pricelist.
Or alternatively (if you have the cash) there are other authorised retailers
It is probably wise to bear in mind, that unless the manufacturers can keep the prices close to mined diamond prices, there is no incentive to buy. If I believe a cultured diamond I will buy will produced at a lower price in a few months, I will feel disappointed to put it lightly. However, regardless of cost. I'd prefer a manufactured diamond to a mined diamond. The history surrounding most areas involved in diamond trade and companies involvement in it does not endear me to them.
Personally however I'd like one of these diamonds, however I've never really liked Yellow, regardless of its fancy nature. I prefer blue or black.
Its actually called Tabula Rasa, which means clean slate in Latin.
"If they make up course notes for a course that they're teaching, I think that they own them, and that students don't have an absolute right to possess them."
Basically, they're paid to teach. Those notes, probably written on paper paid by the school, during working hours will be paid for. If I write notes (even at home) on some programming I do at work and give them to clients in order that they understand. Sure, its not an issue if the clients feel they own the notes (which I don't feel they do). However, the company who pays me owns them.
However, if I write a completely unrelated application or one I spend my own time learning about, sure I own it.
The distinction arises when you are using the time spent you are paid for by your employer to pursue your own revenue.
If you compare the situation to programmers, like you mention, it is no different whatsoever. If you work in a position and the position gives you an insight into the methods and construction of a program, then develop yourself a identical clone of this using a similar application, I do not believe you should own the rights to the application.
If a professor is writing notes for students in order to aid his classroom, so he can do something else or make the day a little easier. Turning this later into a book, is a conflict of interests.
However, I do think if this happens, there should be some sort of reward and recognition.
If you think really why gcaseye6677 says, "They don't want anyone making lecture notes available outside the classroom." from the early post, you'll probably realise that it sounds like the professor doesn't want people copying the work and wants to protect it. Certainly not from the students? He/She is showing it to them, asking them to learn. Why? To protect the universities property or their own? Well to identify it is the University's property is to show they no longer own it and for it being their own property, why show them in class?
Professors are not only paid to teach, but to prepare. Sure, I have no problem with them publishing papers or books in their field, but it is important to draw the distinction, between classes and private work. Most Universities have a policy for this, but as the previous poster mentions I don't think the victim should be the student. Use notes that can be taken out of class, not ones that are going to be published.
Maybe its not the professor just making this mistake, if a University makes money from an tenured professor. Likely as not it may be their policy that restricts the usage of notes (i doubt this though), however this only helps the University funding not the students (which is meant to be the primary aim of the instituition).
Good luck with your Professorship.
from: root@redhat
to: groups@l33tscript3rs.org
subject: hack da gibson
Hackable Server, come hack me plz. IP: 127.0.0.1
He bought it. I just wonder how much or what it cost him and how much it will cost us.
The machine actually didn't detect the networking device within Windows. Yet, it worked fine within FreeBSD, without any configuration at all from install.
It's a fscking opinion piece in a fscking opinion news paper, what do you expect? There isn't a law or some constitutional ammendment that says all journalism must be unbiased.
I don't recall saying it should be unbiased. The post was merely meant to illustrate the article skewed their own statistics to suit their own article, in much the same way the writer of the article in The New Republic says the report was.
PS. Does "does not seem unduly unbiased" mean "does seem biased"? Work on those pointless negatives...
I was tired at the time, it was 5am. I don't really think that I need to work out my grammar before I post though. Theres always someone around to correct it for me...
Detecting steganographic content is probably difficult IMHO, but I would imagine it is easier analysing images to see if they contain differences from the norm, than looking for information with brute force. Most images for example are clean, but if you're seeing a colour variation in a pattern over an image that should contain one colour, this should be easier.
However even with this relatively simple method, the processing power used to analyse every image opened or detached from a host pc (this would probably be a trojan), would take a fair amount of resource time. The delays on the pc alone would probably alert the user.
Although if the need is for a Trojan, they should have probably been more circumspect about announcing their need for it.
I remember reading the articles about him when he'd just been caught. From what I read previously he pointed out what he had been able to do to the NY Times. He also did not disclose how he did this and did not alter/destroy or copy information.
Although the article does mention his name for using LexusNexis for accruing a bill of $300,000 I think this is probably exaggerated, from what I'm aware of LexusNexis (I'm only familiar with the Law and Tax services) that the access is subscription based, rather than search based. However, this is different to previous articles where he is described as a white hat hacker, giving help to organisations with security holes and not taking advantage.
If he brings to attention the holes in a companies security system, I think he should be punished, but I think the decision of whether he brought the problems to their attention, or they caught him should be an important factor in the sentencing.
The article is about the possibility for using RFID in casinos. Really, it give any reason for this than noting the possible uses. I saw the article originally on Ananova, then New Scientist, considered submitting it, but then decided against it. The reason for it, oooh it has the word RFID in it. The reason against, well there seems to be no clear facts about any casino implementing it or about to. Sure they could, but I could have RFID's inserted into my eyes.
Casinos already keep a close eye on people who win at tables, thats what the security cameras and staff are there for.
Additionally the reporting within the article, does not seem unduly unbiased. Maybe its just me, but any reporter who calls a report "cockamamie galimatias", should have evidence for why it is "cockamamie galimatias". As a computer simulation it is agreed, that the information may be inaccurate. However, it may be accurate.
The study is entirely a computer simulation, and as anyone familiar with this art knows, computer models can be trained to produce any desired result.
This doesn't really suggest that the information is inaccurate, it suggests that he falsified the information or rules of the simulation to give a different outlook. Mistakes are one thing, that is something else altogether.
1st Problem, Computer Simulation and no relations found between a Greenhouse Effect and Species Extinction. Well I think it is a given, the article accepts "most aspects of global warming theory", I imagine that means the guy actually accepts that the earth warms up. Some animals are not as adaptable as others when it comes to temperature change. The article at this point kind of infers that since none of the evidence is proved, that the possibility does not exist. Well, the report was a projection. Not a highlight of the links.
2nd Problem Over a length of time projects a 15 percent to 37 percent extinction, the main problem with the New Republic article is that it uses the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) as a figure for dismissing the figures out of hand, yet the figures obtained form the are not over a 50 year period, additionally I could find no records of any attempt to project these figures. As such, I can see that the figures were of the redlist, showing a yearly risk percentage, of which not all were evaluated and even the category mammals showed a 6% risk for last year.
3rd Problem namely, that past episodes of global warming have not produced the mass-extinction that the Thomas computer models project. As mentioned in the article, this has happened over the past century, a significant change, but possibly not quite the change needed to curtail the lives of some. It is likely however that further changes will exacerbate the problem. Additionally, it is significantly hard to determine whether a species is extinct, unless we are aware of its existance. That however is pure speculation as is much of this article. It also mentions that the temperature change speculated in 2100 is 3-6 degrees (while complaining that the projections are not exact enough, it seems the article writer forgot his previous statement about projections). This allowing for division by two, works out to be either 1.5 or 3 degrees adding on the previous change of 1 degree, well thats over the figures he uses to compare with European temperatures rose naturally by one or two degrees at the end of the "Little Ice Age" in Europe. At that time however, IUCN was not really available to provide figures about mass extinctions. People were more concerned with their own survival.
There are further points but I'm too tired and this has turned out longer than I expected.
I do accept that computer simulations can be dodgy, however you do really need compare like with like figures. A comparison of 50 years against 1 is not a good comparison.
The article does state "The IUCN's 12,259 estimate is plenty worrying in itself, and habitat loss is plenty worrying in itself.".
However the IUCN's projection is based on existing figures, these could rise or lower due to external factors, they are simply based on previous records. Additionally they are due to a threat by other organisms, maybe the
The capacity for the original minidisc was less than a CD-R.
A minidisc stores 160MB for 74 min. in audio mode (based upon 74 min discs).
The amount of compression in realtime allows the MD to store 80mins of music. Now, think about 1GB, thats a hell of a lot more than 160MB. I'd also say my opinion differs with yours when I see 300MB more than a cdr is significant (with compression), Also, the size of these disks. I could fit two in my pocket without any discomfort.
Sure hard drives are bigger, they probably will be for a long time. However, the media in hard drive is non changeable, despite its capacity. This leads to listening to the same songs (even if you listen to them all randomly) unless you connect it to the computer and change them every so often. Additionally, hard drives are not known for their robustness.
If I meet a friend in the street or he recommends a song, he might lend me the MD, I can listen to it there and then, while I go home, not have to go home, rip it, maybe find out its copy protected, download it, then listen to it.
Yeah the DRM is worrying, the original MD did seem to take off (judging by the many devices I've seen in public. Although it wasn't as successful as portable cd players were. Further restrictions may hinder the successful take up of this technology. However, since most MD users recorded their minidiscs from CD's rather than buy MD versions, it is probably a moot issue.
However as long as the MD supports recording, maybe even high speed recording, then I'd be happy spending my money on another Sony Product (should I need a personal stereo type device again).
I'm not trying to convince you of MD technology being better than those of HD mp3 players, it is probably suited for a different usage pattern than that of HD players (besides, you already own a HD player). In the world, where bigger often is associated with better, MD cannot compete. I am trying to point out the advantages of having one.
Personally I did own a MD player for about 4 years, but gave it away when I didn't need it anymore. I found it a good thing to have when travelling and especially when friends with good music taste owned one as well. To me, despite it being a "personal" player, the music became a communual sharing activity.
2 Troll? Shouldn't that be heretic?
This is one of those articles I just know won't appear in MetaModerate. For the record, I'd just like to say I think its unfair. Oh well, its worth the Karma
I mean, come on: you can still get discs for DVD-RAM drives, and they didn't even sell that many!
Not to contradict your point, but DVD-RAM discs are now used in some Toshiba Video Recorders. These are advertised with the Record and Play (at the same time) features.
This is probably the reason for this techonology being used in these (TV) video recorders, rather than the DVD-R used in other video recorders. So bear in mind, there may be a reason for these other technologies being used.
Addtionally if used as a Mass Storage Device, devices have a much longer shelf life. Onstream Drives stopped being manufactured a few years ago I think, yet the drives are still in demand as are the tapes.
You know, the pre-emptive strike thing is probably a good idea. Perhaps since as their creators they would also be seen as a threat.
They might even think the humans have some sort of weapons of mass destruction.
Case modders have the attention spans of 3-year-olds who hit every button in the elevator.
I still do that.
Does that mean he managed to convince someone he was a computer?
Maybe I'm missing something but...
The RIAA are going after people sharing songs. Surely they'd have to download the entire song to prove that it was a real copy? Well by that point I hope they have an original version of their song, otherwise haven't they broken the law?
As for other people downloading the songs, how do they know they don't own the cd?
With digital radio out, I don't see the service as any different, you can probably record music tracks off of the radio at the same quality. So sure p2p offers the same kind of service for music, albeit possibly copying faster than real time playback.
"ehkz writes "Here is the ultimate game collection that any hard core gamer would envy." Check out the other collections too. "
So, Debbie does * are games too?
I don't think my joystick could handle it.
Viral Marketing, though it seems like Gigli and The Hulk inspire some kind of '28 days' scenario, hell they're even quicker!
The Star Wars Kid was just goofing off at school. Now he finds his private performance downloaded by Internet users across the world.
The Star Wars Kid is a 15-year-old from Quebec known only as Ghyslain -- his parents are keeping his last name secret to protect his identity. Back in November 2002, Ghyslain was goofing off at a school video studio and recorded himself fighting a mock battle with a broomstick lightsaber. Over two minutes, the video shows the lone, overweight teenager twirling his mock lightsaber ever faster while making his own accompanying sound effects.
The Globe and Mail: "MONTREAL: The parents of Ghyslain Raza, the Quebec teenager who became a celebrity this spring after classmates posted on the Internet a video of him mimicking a Star Wars character..."
Slashdot: "Skippy321 writes "Justified or not, Ghyslain Raza--better known as the Star Wars Kid..."
"..an audio message to be volleyed nonstop to the telephone numbers listed in the... [email] spam messages.' "
Lets hope they weren't premium rate numbers. If so, I doubt they'd be bothered about their lines being perpetually busy.
"hey, lets get some new lines in and spam those russian nerds again"