All internet acronymns aside, this really made me laugh out loud. Sorry for being short. This is just an issue that irritates me.
I've been in arguments with people over this (I swear, I'm a fun guy) where people bring out all sorts of reasons 1 should by prime, ignoring the mathematical definition of primality.
Anyway, yeah, it was totally irrelevant. Carry on.
What really needs to happen is that someone with an extensive music collection, and the desire to fight this, needs to leave various P2P applications open 24/7 with access to their vast, legal music collection, so that someone will notice.
Sorry, but this is illegal, unless they have permission to distribute this music. The RIAA isn't going after people for downloading. It's going after people for uploading, since it's much easier to prove they did it illegally.
how do you know they won't start doing popups etc?
No one knows this, but it's pretty pointless to speculate. How do you know slashdot won't start doing popups? If they start doing it, or if there is some credible reason to believe they will start, then is the appropriate time for such handwringing.
Otherwise, no one could be trusted, since they *could* do something bad in the future.
Wow, I am a tremendous tool. Your post was not complicated, but it took me this long to get it. Maybe I need more vitamins or something. I'll be on my way now.
Well, it would appear, from popular opinion that I interpreted your post wrong. Sorry for the righteous indignation. I have read and re-read your post, and my conclusion is that I am irredeemably dense, because I still do not get it. Evidently it's not too complicated though, becuase everyone else seems to get it. My response was based on this segment:
It is likely that the device would have had analog audio output, so you could put the music on a tape or something.
The hole I mistakenly believed you were referring to was this audio output. Actually, I'm still not sure which digital hole is being referred to, though you needn't feel obligated to explain it to me, since no one else is confused.
but why does being able to hum a song make the song better? It makes it more catchy. It makes it more appropriate for certain situations, like theme songs.
But why would you want bouncy theme music during a tense scary moment in a game?
"What concerns me is when they ignore the abilities unique to the electronic medium. It makes no more sense for a game audio programmer to mimic a string quartet as it does for a flutist to make his instrument sound like a kazoo."
What concerns me is when recording artists ignore the abilities unique to the compact disc format. It makes no more sense for a recording artist to use acoustic instruments than it does for a flutist to make his instrument sound like a kazoo.
Please. As a musician, this is ridiculous.
Why do you think there are so many synthesizers that aim to emulate the sounds of acoustic instruments as closely as possible? They make a nice sound. The violin has had centuries to be perfected. Some people make music out of square and sine waves. Some people use acoustic instruments. Some people sample. The thing that really matters is what sound it makes. If a situation demands a sound that is made by an acoustic instrument, then why in the fuck should you limit yourself to only sounds that "take advantage of the abilities unique to the electronic medium."
A lot of people seem to have trademarks, copyrights, and patents confused. You seem to be among them. I'm no expert, but I will attempt to explain away your confusion.
Copyright is for creative works. Trademark is for recognizable "marks" (symbols or brand names or slogans) Patent is for devices and inventions.
I agree that it *shouldn't be done*. But that's different from *illegal*.
You shouldn't cheat on their spouses. But that doesn't mean it should be illegal.
Anyway, I don't oppose such a DVD law. I was simply replying about that specific point about explicit illegality. If I am apprehended for committing some illegal act, I certainly hope there is a law on the books that I broke, not just someone's version of "common sense."
There are *many* people that believe that, unless something is expicitly illegal then it is legal.
Yeah. Many people. Like me. The purpose of laws is to set out which are prohibited activities. If what you say was true why would we even need laws?
According to your post, if something is explicitly illegal, then it is definitely illegal. Otherwise, it still might be illegal. How, in your system, do you think we can determine if a given action is legal? (short of attempting it, and waiting to see if we get arrested)
I agree about the employment of morons, but non-morons are also vulnerable to social engineering. If you don't believe me, I suggest you read 'The Art of Deception' by Kevin Mitnick. All types of people are susceptible to some con, but some are more vulnerable than others.
Imagine a world where telehpones become so ubiquitous that the idea of carrying a personal cell phone will almost be laughable, a world where any pay phone could be your telephone!
So, it's really the affluence of the neighborhood that the store is in, not the race of the people in it. You're saying that poor people are more likely to engage in 'problem customer' practices. Ok, that sounds somewhat plausible. But that isn't directly related to certain ethnic groups. Of course it is true that non-white people in America tend to have less money, but I would think a poor white person would be more of a problem customer than a rich black person, so as I said, it's the affluence of the neighborhood that is actually the difference, and if certain ethnic groups are more likely to be problem customers, then it is only because they tend to have less money.
I have not explicitly disagreed with anything you said, but I had to clarify that, because you made it sound like some ethnic groups inhenerntly tend to be problem customers, as if it were based on genetics or something.
Slashdot Mirror
All internet acronymns aside, this really made me laugh out loud. Sorry for being short. This is just an issue that irritates me.
I've been in arguments with people over this (I swear, I'm a fun guy) where people bring out all sorts of reasons 1 should by prime, ignoring the mathematical definition of primality.
Anyway, yeah, it was totally irrelevant. Carry on.
There are many primes near zero (1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 11 etc.)
h tm l
Excuse me.
One is not prime.
There is no room for argument.
It's in the definition.
http://mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/faq.prime.num.
Have a nice day.
One comment has completely answered the question!
I think this is a new record for ask slashdot.
But a local hard drive is considered a trusted location.
IOW, it's not a foreskin conclusion ...
[snip] (ouch)
Foreskin conclusion? You mean like new parents weighing the merits of circumcision? Ahahaha. Good stuff my droogy.
What really needs to happen is that someone with an extensive music collection, and the desire to fight this, needs to leave various P2P applications open 24/7 with access to their vast, legal music collection, so that someone will notice.
Sorry, but this is illegal, unless they have permission to distribute this music. The RIAA isn't going after people for downloading. It's going after people for uploading, since it's much easier to prove they did it illegally.
how do you know they won't start doing popups etc?
No one knows this, but it's pretty pointless to speculate. How do you know slashdot won't start doing popups? If they start doing it, or if there is some credible reason to believe they will start, then is the appropriate time for such handwringing.
Otherwise, no one could be trusted, since they *could* do something bad in the future.
UPDATE:
Wow, I am a tremendous tool. Your post was not complicated, but it took me this long to get it. Maybe I need more vitamins or something. I'll be on my way now.
Well, it would appear, from popular opinion that I interpreted your post wrong. Sorry for the righteous indignation. I have read and re-read your post, and my conclusion is that I am irredeemably dense, because I still do not get it. Evidently it's not too complicated though, becuase everyone else seems to get it. My response was based on this segment:
It is likely that the device would have had analog audio output, so you could put the music on a tape or something.
The hole I mistakenly believed you were referring to was this audio output. Actually, I'm still not sure which digital hole is being referred to, though you needn't feel obligated to explain it to me, since no one else is confused.
*sigh*
2
http://www.eetimes.com/issue/fp/OEG20020920S006
It's called the analog hole because sound data must be converted to analog at some point before it can be heard. I am not wrong about this.
It's the digital hole that labels want to close
/nitpicking pedant
I think you're referring to the analog hole.
Wow, this is the most accurate description of the situation I've seen yet.
props.
Ok, good job. You're almost there. Now take it the rest of the way...
... ....
There's nothing
unique
about VIDEO GAME MUSIC either!
This definitely happens all the time. It's standard procedure for labels. Do some research.
Small point,
but why does being able to hum a song make the song better? It makes it more catchy. It makes it more appropriate for certain situations, like theme songs.
But why would you want bouncy theme music during a tense scary moment in a game?
"What concerns me is when they ignore the abilities unique to the electronic medium. It makes no more sense for a game audio programmer to mimic a string quartet as it does for a flutist to make his instrument sound like a kazoo."
What concerns me is when recording artists ignore the abilities unique to the compact disc format. It makes no more sense for a recording artist to use acoustic instruments than it does for a flutist to make his instrument sound like a kazoo.
Please. As a musician, this is ridiculous.
Why do you think there are so many synthesizers that aim to emulate the sounds of acoustic instruments as closely as possible? They make a nice sound. The violin has had centuries to be perfected. Some people make music out of square and sine waves. Some people use acoustic instruments. Some people sample. The thing that really matters is what sound it makes. If a situation demands a sound that is made by an acoustic instrument, then why in the fuck should you limit yourself to only sounds that "take advantage of the abilities unique to the electronic medium."
A lot of people seem to have trademarks, copyrights, and patents confused. You seem to be among them. I'm no expert, but I will attempt to explain away your confusion.
Copyright is for creative works.
Trademark is for recognizable "marks" (symbols or brand names or slogans)
Patent is for devices and inventions.
The one you are looking for is trademark.
I agree that it *shouldn't be done*. But that's different from *illegal*.
You shouldn't cheat on their spouses. But that doesn't mean it should be illegal.
Anyway, I don't oppose such a DVD law. I was simply replying about that specific point about explicit illegality. If I am apprehended for committing some illegal act, I certainly hope there is a law on the books that I broke, not just someone's version of "common sense."
There are *many* people that believe that, unless something is expicitly illegal then it is legal.
Yeah. Many people. Like me. The purpose of laws is to set out which are prohibited activities. If what you say was true why would we even need laws?
According to your post, if something is explicitly illegal, then it is definitely illegal. Otherwise, it still might be illegal. How, in your system, do you think we can determine if a given action is legal? (short of attempting it, and waiting to see if we get arrested)
I agree about the employment of morons, but non-morons are also vulnerable to social engineering. If you don't believe me, I suggest you read 'The Art of Deception' by Kevin Mitnick. All types of people are susceptible to some con, but some are more vulnerable than others.
This is still not safe from a skilled social engineer.
What about windows update? Is there a way to use an alternate browser with this?
Congratulations. you get the joke. However, it is stupdendously unfunny to explain the punchline in such a literal way.
Imagine a world where telehpones become so ubiquitous that the idea of carrying a personal cell phone will almost be laughable, a world where any pay phone could be your telephone!
So, it's really the affluence of the neighborhood that the store is in, not the race of the people in it. You're saying that poor people are more likely to engage in 'problem customer' practices. Ok, that sounds somewhat plausible. But that isn't directly related to certain ethnic groups. Of course it is true that non-white people in America tend to have less money, but I would think a poor white person would be more of a problem customer than a rich black person, so as I said, it's the affluence of the neighborhood that is actually the difference, and if certain ethnic groups are more likely to be problem customers, then it is only because they tend to have less money.
I have not explicitly disagreed with anything you said, but I had to clarify that, because you made it sound like some ethnic groups inhenerntly tend to be problem customers, as if it were based on genetics or something.