You obviously don't "put up" with it because you don't even know the name of the product. And in this case, it's an unreleased product with a bug in it.
The modern digital remasters of anything printed before 2000-ish sound better than the original vinyl.
Disagree strongly. I'm very, very leery of those. I bought one of the Led Zep remasters and was NOT impressed. And when I read the reviews of the remastered version of Nas "Illmatic" (basically, remastered means compression and loudness) I went with an original pressing. I've got records I found in the bargain bin that light up the room with their dynamic range. No reason to mess around with albums just for the sake of selling everyone a new copy.
I'm pretty much all vinyl these days. Not because I'm going to claim it sounds better (although I do have some records that sound pretty great), but because it's fun for me to mess around with records.
I had gotten to a point where I had all but quit listening to music. I don't drive, so no music in the car. I don't walk around with headphones on because I don't like the sensation of being cut off from the sounds of what's around me, and it feels kinda unsafe. And while I might have downloaded stuff and listened to it on my computer, that always felt like some kind of background noise kind of thing. I might download a new album and listen to it two or three times and forget about it... or in some cases I'd never make it through the whole thing. That way of relating to music just made music seem disposable, like whatever is playing on the TV at a bar.
When you're playing records, on the other hand, that's pretty much what you're doing. It's an activity that you're engaged in. Every 20 minutes or so, you have to get up and flip the record if you want to keep listening. And then you're engaging with this physical thing -- it's just a piece of plastic, but maybe it's colored or it has a cool label or something -- and then there's the sleeve, and the art's big enough to really pay attention to, and so on. I didn't find I really got all of that from CDs (before I quit buying them). The result is that I just feel more connected with the music I've bought on records. I've listened to the albums more intently, I've paid more attention to them, I think about them in different ways.
It's a drag that they're so expensive these days, for sure. But for me it's worth it. It helps me enjoy music more.
It doesn't surprise me that the Slashdot audience has forgotten who the Business Software Alliance is, but I'm a little shocked that TorrentFreak seems to have.
Besides, all that 911 needs to know is that there's a medical emergency. They can tell the location from GPS even if they can't tell it from the noise level.
Don't count on it. Also, have you ever tried to find your friends at a concert once it's already started? Do you think people who have never seen you before are going to have an easier time of it?
If you or someone next to you has a stroke, how long will it take someone to reach someone at security? Shows can be quite densely packed, don't assume you can do that in a minimal amount of time. And for a stroke, every second counts.
OK, so if the show is so densely packed that you can't even reach security, what's a phone call going to do? Seriously, do you think paramedics are going to find "the person in the audience who called 911" if you haven't even identified yourself to security?
Either all of that, or he's wrong and a legal standard will be set where it is the owner of the equipment who is liable, whether it is operating in autonomous mode or not. If that's the case, nothing much will change.
I'm still half of the mind that autonomous cars are already in a Segway type situation, where you have all these wonks predicting that they're poised to transform all of society etc. but the logic just doesn't hold up:
A.) Americans like driving. B.) Car manufacturers market various car models with features that cater to the fact that Americans like driving, because it's profitable.
...and the biggie...
C.) Does anyone really believe autonomous cars will be sold to consumers without the ability for a human driver to take over in emergency situations? But if the autonomous mode can be disabled, then 1.) You will still need a drivers license to own an autonomous car, so no increase in convenience and no benefit to the disabled; 2.) The implication is that as the "driver," you must be alert to the possibility of emergency situations at all times, even in autonomous mode. This means you will have to pay attention as if you were actually operating the vehicle, which negates a lot of the value of a self-driving car. What's more, various cognitive processes will probably cause people to think they're in an emergency when they're not, causing people to turn off autonomous mode way more often than necessary, making the road much more unpredictable and (ironically) unsafe.
So will autonomous cars be a thing? Almost certainly. In fact, it seems they already exist. Will private ownership of autonomous cars by US consumers ever be a thing? Don't bet on it.
"Fine," you say. "Autonomous cars will be like fleets of robot taxis that you hire." But if most of the drivers on the road are still driving their own cars, then that negates a lot of the safety and environmental claims. Autonomous cars won't be able to optimize coordinated driving for fuel efficiency, for example, and all the marketing and all the newspaper headlines will be around how well they cope with unpredictable human driver behavior.
And if it goes the other way and you start seeing autonomous cars bumper-to-bumper like taxis in NYC, how long will it be before someone asks whether these robot taxi companies are paying their share of the taxes used to pave the roads, install traffic lights, etc.? And then there's still the issue of who's liable if a blind guy gets in an accident in a robot taxi. Or if blind guys aren't allowed to hire robot taxis, who goes to court over the Americans With Disabilities Act?
Don't worry, though. Once Google evolves into a full-blown defense contractor, it will still be able to sell autonomous vehicles to the Pentagon.
I sense this attack was mostly about embarrassing the company. From the Etherium website:
Ethereum is a decentralized platform that runs smart contracts: applications that run exactly as programmed without any possibility of downtime, censorship, fraud or third party interference.
The new model isn't just a revised interface, it is also a new monetization model, and presumably the decision to throw out all the original free content, by shutting the platform, is motivated by greedy commercialism.
You fucking stooge! Slashdot should be ashamed of itself for taking part in this false flag operation. Clearly the decision to monetize content is motivated by Satanic vampirism! Death to these unholy monsters and anyone who supports them!
"Hi everybody and thank you for tuning in once again. It's your pal Dave here, and today I'm going to talk about the Gobshite 3000 mobile phone. I've had this phone for about three months now. As you can see I got it in the silver model. Overall I think it's a great phone. It's got great features. I especially like the screen, I think it's really bright and the resolution is great for watching YouTube videos. I think it's a lot better than my last phone, the Blather XM. I really recommend it. But if you're like me and you already have a Gobshite 3000, there's probably going to come a time when you want to upgrade the firmware."
Yeah, asshole. That time was when I clicked the link marked, "How to upgrade the firmware on the Gobshite 3000."
To be honest, the "I think any free-tiered service is not fair." quote gives the game away here; it's not stolen content Reznor is concerned about, it's free content.
I'm in Australia where we have had chip cards for years.
Once they became commonplace, the banks then 'upgraded' to contactless cards.
This seems to be how it's going in the US as well. Or actually, it's even stranger than that. Just recently, Bank of America let me know that I could now use its ATM machines... with my NFC-enabled phone. This doesn't make a lot of sense to me because I still need to enter my card's PIN but I also need to unlock my phone, so I have to enter two separate PINs, making it half as convenient as just using the card. I can only assume the next step will be cards that can be used on the sensor, so you get the benefit of not having to put them into the machine (and possibly even not having to take them out of your wallet).
Slashdot Mirror
now that Slashdot is a kook blog
You say that as if something has changed.
You forgot CD burners, which were so evil that Canada agreed to charge tax on every blank CD-R, regardless of whether they were used to store music.
You obviously don't "put up" with it because you don't even know the name of the product. And in this case, it's an unreleased product with a bug in it.
Serious question: How's that work for you when you regularly use six different computers?
The modern digital remasters of anything printed before 2000-ish sound better than the original vinyl.
Disagree strongly. I'm very, very leery of those. I bought one of the Led Zep remasters and was NOT impressed. And when I read the reviews of the remastered version of Nas "Illmatic" (basically, remastered means compression and loudness) I went with an original pressing. I've got records I found in the bargain bin that light up the room with their dynamic range. No reason to mess around with albums just for the sake of selling everyone a new copy.
I'm pretty much all vinyl these days. Not because I'm going to claim it sounds better (although I do have some records that sound pretty great), but because it's fun for me to mess around with records.
I had gotten to a point where I had all but quit listening to music. I don't drive, so no music in the car. I don't walk around with headphones on because I don't like the sensation of being cut off from the sounds of what's around me, and it feels kinda unsafe. And while I might have downloaded stuff and listened to it on my computer, that always felt like some kind of background noise kind of thing. I might download a new album and listen to it two or three times and forget about it ... or in some cases I'd never make it through the whole thing. That way of relating to music just made music seem disposable, like whatever is playing on the TV at a bar.
When you're playing records, on the other hand, that's pretty much what you're doing. It's an activity that you're engaged in. Every 20 minutes or so, you have to get up and flip the record if you want to keep listening. And then you're engaging with this physical thing -- it's just a piece of plastic, but maybe it's colored or it has a cool label or something -- and then there's the sleeve, and the art's big enough to really pay attention to, and so on. I didn't find I really got all of that from CDs (before I quit buying them). The result is that I just feel more connected with the music I've bought on records. I've listened to the albums more intently, I've paid more attention to them, I think about them in different ways.
It's a drag that they're so expensive these days, for sure. But for me it's worth it. It helps me enjoy music more.
It doesn't surprise me that the Slashdot audience has forgotten who the Business Software Alliance is, but I'm a little shocked that TorrentFreak seems to have.
Besides, all that 911 needs to know is that there's a medical emergency. They can tell the location from GPS even if they can't tell it from the noise level.
Don't count on it. Also, have you ever tried to find your friends at a concert once it's already started? Do you think people who have never seen you before are going to have an easier time of it?
You've never been to a Pantera concert.
In all likelihood, neither have you.
If you or someone next to you has a stroke, how long will it take someone to reach someone at security? Shows can be quite densely packed, don't assume you can do that in a minimal amount of time. And for a stroke, every second counts.
OK, so if the show is so densely packed that you can't even reach security, what's a phone call going to do? Seriously, do you think paramedics are going to find "the person in the audience who called 911" if you haven't even identified yourself to security?
Wait until you go to a show and somebody's doing all this with an iPad.
Don't get me wrong. I'm an American (among other things) and I've never had a driver's license. But let's face it, my outlier case is irrelevant.
Either all of that, or he's wrong and a legal standard will be set where it is the owner of the equipment who is liable, whether it is operating in autonomous mode or not. If that's the case, nothing much will change.
I'm still half of the mind that autonomous cars are already in a Segway type situation, where you have all these wonks predicting that they're poised to transform all of society etc. but the logic just doesn't hold up:
A.) Americans like driving.
B.) Car manufacturers market various car models with features that cater to the fact that Americans like driving, because it's profitable.
...and the biggie...
C.) Does anyone really believe autonomous cars will be sold to consumers without the ability for a human driver to take over in emergency situations? But if the autonomous mode can be disabled, then 1.) You will still need a drivers license to own an autonomous car, so no increase in convenience and no benefit to the disabled; 2.) The implication is that as the "driver," you must be alert to the possibility of emergency situations at all times, even in autonomous mode. This means you will have to pay attention as if you were actually operating the vehicle, which negates a lot of the value of a self-driving car. What's more, various cognitive processes will probably cause people to think they're in an emergency when they're not, causing people to turn off autonomous mode way more often than necessary, making the road much more unpredictable and (ironically) unsafe.
So will autonomous cars be a thing? Almost certainly. In fact, it seems they already exist. Will private ownership of autonomous cars by US consumers ever be a thing? Don't bet on it.
"Fine," you say. "Autonomous cars will be like fleets of robot taxis that you hire." But if most of the drivers on the road are still driving their own cars, then that negates a lot of the safety and environmental claims. Autonomous cars won't be able to optimize coordinated driving for fuel efficiency, for example, and all the marketing and all the newspaper headlines will be around how well they cope with unpredictable human driver behavior.
And if it goes the other way and you start seeing autonomous cars bumper-to-bumper like taxis in NYC, how long will it be before someone asks whether these robot taxi companies are paying their share of the taxes used to pave the roads, install traffic lights, etc.? And then there's still the issue of who's liable if a blind guy gets in an accident in a robot taxi. Or if blind guys aren't allowed to hire robot taxis, who goes to court over the Americans With Disabilities Act?
Don't worry, though. Once Google evolves into a full-blown defense contractor, it will still be able to sell autonomous vehicles to the Pentagon.
"Facts" and the Washington Times are two unrelated concepts. The Washington Times is owned and operated by the Unification Church, aka the "Moonies."
What's the saying? "When strong crypto is outlawed in the US, only non-US companies will have strong crypto"?
The irony is that 7-Eleven is a Japanese company.
So you call yourself a "United Statesian"? Piss off.
I sense this attack was mostly about embarrassing the company. From the Etherium website:
Ethereum is a decentralized platform that runs smart contracts: applications that run exactly as programmed without any possibility of downtime, censorship, fraud or third party interference.
(emphasis mine)
Whoosh was from The Flash...
First of all, American copyright law does not mean zip in Sweden.
Irrelevant. Like most countries in the world, Sweden is a signatory of the Berne Convention. In fact, it was drafted in Stockholm.
The new model isn't just a revised interface, it is also a new monetization model, and presumably the decision to throw out all the original free content, by shutting the platform, is motivated by greedy commercialism.
You fucking stooge! Slashdot should be ashamed of itself for taking part in this false flag operation. Clearly the decision to monetize content is motivated by Satanic vampirism! Death to these unholy monsters and anyone who supports them!
Here's what instantly flashed into my head:
"Hi everybody and thank you for tuning in once again. It's your pal Dave here, and today I'm going to talk about the Gobshite 3000 mobile phone. I've had this phone for about three months now. As you can see I got it in the silver model. Overall I think it's a great phone. It's got great features. I especially like the screen, I think it's really bright and the resolution is great for watching YouTube videos. I think it's a lot better than my last phone, the Blather XM. I really recommend it. But if you're like me and you already have a Gobshite 3000, there's probably going to come a time when you want to upgrade the firmware."
Yeah, asshole. That time was when I clicked the link marked, "How to upgrade the firmware on the Gobshite 3000."
To be honest, the "I think any free-tiered service is not fair." quote gives the game away here; it's not stolen content Reznor is concerned about, it's free content.
Get out of here, dude. It's just coincidence.
I'm in Australia where we have had chip cards for years.
Once they became commonplace, the banks then 'upgraded' to contactless cards.
This seems to be how it's going in the US as well. Or actually, it's even stranger than that. Just recently, Bank of America let me know that I could now use its ATM machines ... with my NFC-enabled phone. This doesn't make a lot of sense to me because I still need to enter my card's PIN but I also need to unlock my phone, so I have to enter two separate PINs, making it half as convenient as just using the card. I can only assume the next step will be cards that can be used on the sensor, so you get the benefit of not having to put them into the machine (and possibly even not having to take them out of your wallet).
He was funding a very valid lawsuit, which the court agreed was valid.
Minor correction: he was funding a very valid lawsuit, which a jury of ordinary citizens who heard the case agreed was valid.