It's Easy, I'm assuming you're using Firefox, so fire up Nano and open the file "/etc/firefox/firefoxrc" (as root) Add this line: FIREFOX_DSP="aoss" (remove FIREFOX_DSP=) Install the alsa-oss package. Restart FF, and you are playing sound! Um, I'm not sure what planet you are living on, but that's not "easy". It's tedious and frustrating.
"I personally know a few dozen hunters with larger arsenals [i]each[/i] than most police precincts."
So what if he had 20 shotguns (for example)? How would those 20 shotguns make him one bit more lethal than a guy with one shotgun? Does he have 40 arms or something, so he could use them all at once? Is a guy with two pistols twice as lethal as the guy with just one pistol? Is the guy with 20 shotguns 20 times more lethal than the guy with just one? Nope.
Not so. My SonyEricsson K790a has a 3.2 mega-pixel camera.
Here's a newsflash: It could havw 10 million pixels, and it would still suck. Optics on cameraphones are crap, that is a fact. Add to that the crappy sensors, crappy picture-related electronics, crappy flash, and you have a makings of a crappy camera.
"Why would people in Europe/Asia want to buy a new phone that doesn't work on 3G"
Because they have no need for 3G
"has a crap camera"
Because they have no need for camera. And ALL cameras in phones suck. Yes, some have more pixels than others, but they still suck.
"doesnt have a camera on the screen side of the phone"
Because they have no need for it. I had a cameraphone which had a camera pointing at me. How many times did I use it? Zero. How many times did I use the better camera on the other side of the phone? Maybe 1-2 times. And even then I used it for just shit and giggles, as opposed to really NEEDING the camera.
We are currently choosing a new phones to be used office-wide. And the lack of camera is a plus.
"When it comes to the European market, they have already done that through their lack of 3G support and text messaging client."
um, it does have SMS-client. As to 3G.... Who cares? I use my phone for lots if things, including websurfing and email. And my service includes 3G. And my phone supports 3G. And I switched it off withen 12 hours of getting the phone. Not because it costs money (my employer pays my bills), but because it sucks battery-life.
Right now, 3G is just a tickbox-feature. Operators and customers "want it", when in real life they have no use for it.
their coverage is less than 50% it seems. Is that considered "good coverage" in USA? I would consider anything below 90% to be poor. Good coverage would be 95+%
"They are used here in the states as well. Unfortunately, these can be easily defeated by having a child or friend blow into the tube so the car starts."
Isn't the point of the alcolock-scheme that it prevents accidental drunk-driving? As in, the driver has had one beer too many, and the alcolock tells him that he has too much alcohol in his bloodstream. He can't then tell to the police "well, I didn't know that I was drunk". If someone REALLY wants to drive drunk, and he knows he's drunk, he will find a way.
How exactly is it "unexpected"? Everybody knows that the light wont be green forever. And if he has to "hit the brakes" so that he doesn't go through the intersection, then it might actually make more sense to just go through the intersection. And if he needs to brake that hard, maybe he was driving too fast to begin with?
that has nothing to do with this situation. we're not discussing the behavior of the at-fault driver. we're talking about the guy doing nothing wrong.
He HAS done something wrong. He obviously has zero clue how to drive sensibly. Doing panic-braking because of yellow lights IS wrong. Driving so fast that you need to do panic-braking due to yellow lights IS wrong.
With working brain: The guy drives safely and sensibly. Without working brain: The guy steps on the brakes the moment he sees traffic-camera. As a bonus, the guy driving behind the moron could actually try to keep safe driving-distance between the cars so he wouldnt rear-end the car in front of him.
Insead trying to pass the puck elsewhere, why not blame the real reason for the accident: the moron behind the wheel. "No, it was the camera that caused the accident!". No, it wasn't. It was the idiot who has zero clue how to drive properly.
If some idiot crashes in to a streetlight, do you blame the streetlight or the driver? After all, had there been no streetlight, nothing would have happened.
Well, I don't know what US Constitution says, since I'm not American:). That said, I'm not talking about corporations and rights given to corporations by law. I'm talking about the people who create that corporation. I'm NOT talking about whether corporations are "people" or not (IMO, they are not), I'm talking about the right of people to come together and have peaceful assemblies. And corporation is an "assembly of people".
The camera didn't do a thing, it just stood there. The cause of the accident is the moron behind the wheel who decided that stepping on the brakes is the right course of action when you see a traffic-camera. If the driver knows how to drive, nothing would happen. If he's a moron, the there's bound to be problems.
you seem to think that the key of preventing such accidents is to remove the cameras. I maintain that the key to preventing such accidents is to educate the roadusers on how to behave in traffic. Removing the cameras to avoid these kinds of accidents would merely be fixing the symptom (people stepping on brakes), instead of fixing the cause (moronic drivers).
*sigh*... First of all, that heat is in the wrong place. It's near the ceiling, and going up. The heat generated by radiators or heated floors is right where it's needed: Down on the floor-level where the people spend their time (or do you spend your time floating in the air?). And if you have heated floors, the generated heat is directly transferred to you, through your feet. End-result is very comfortable and energy-saving since you could keep the actual room-temperature few degrees lower, since your feet would be warm.
My house suffers from cold interior corners in wintertime. Having a radiator right next to that corner does quite a bit in working around that problem. A lightbulb hanging from the ceiling wouldn't be nearly as effective, even if it heated the room just as well as the radiator did. Reason being that the radiator is right where it's needed: near the occupants of the room, and near the source of coldness. The lightbulb would be far away from either of those.
Then we have the case of efficiency. Heating is designed to give you the most effective means of heating the interior, whereas lightbulbs and lights in general are designed to give you most effective illumination possible. Now, which of those two is most effective means to _heat up the interior_? Come on, think about it for a second.
When I look at the general behaviour overhere (The Netherlands) to cameras, a) without a doubt. (they just hit the brakes to prevent a ticket, without taking the rest of the traffic into account) Um, no. That's not "camera causing an accident". That's "idiot behind the wheel causing an accident".
It's dumb to use lightbulbs for heating since that's not what they are designed to do. Heat is merely a byproduct that they generate. Having a source of heat hanging half a meter above me isn't really good at making me feel more comfortable. Heated floors or radiators are a lot better at that particular task.
Yes, you COULD use lightbulbs for heating. But they are not designed for that task, and any heating that you get from them is sub-optimal, since they are designed for illumination, not heating. A system specificly designed to generate heat in the house is a lot better at actually creating comfortable temperature.
This really isn't rocket-science. Like I said, using lightbulbs for heating is like using radiators for illumination. Maybe you could do it, but does it make any sense?
I would say that there's something wrong with you heaters or your windows. In addition, it might very well be that the outside-temperature is lower now than it was before you switched bulbs, so the temperature in your home is lower due to that.
I don't know how it is in USA, but in Finland daytime-electricity (peak-usage) is usually more expensive than off-peak electricity. So when you need the heat, you would be using the most expensive electricity to get it. However, if you had indirect electric heating, things would be a lot nicer. Many people here have water-boilers that are heated off-peak electrically, so the electricity doesn't cost as much. The hot water is then circulated under the floorboards during the day, heating up the floor. End-result is that you have heat that is generated off-peak, and the resulting heat is put where it's most efficient: on the floor. You can really feel the heat on the floor, and you can actually keep the room-temperature 1-2 degrees celcius lower than you could do otherwise.
You feel a lot more comfortable if you have warm feet, even if the actual room-temperature is slightly lower than normal:).
This is one of those./ memes that make me gag: "Corporations are made up of people, so they can't be evil" or some derivative thereof. Um, I never said anything like that. I said that corporations are in essense an assembly of people. And peacable assemblies of people are legal. Hell, that's ne of our core-freedoms!
It's quite obvious that you _totally_ missed the point of my comment. Then you spent maybe 15 minutes writing a reply to something that you completely misunderstood. I'm sorry to tell you this, but you just wasted that 15 minutes of your life, and you will never get it back.
What are they then? Groups of people in a hierarchy, together for a specific purpose (to earn profit)? So, isn't that an "peacable assembly of people"?
Uh, I live in Finland, and if anyone told here that they are using a hot-running lightbulbs so they would save some money on heating, they would be officially titled as the village idiot. Instead of using lightbulbs as your source of heat, I recommend that you use them for their primary purpose (ligthing), and heat your home through regural means. The heating in your home is designed for heating, so use it. It would be same if I ran my radiators red-hot so I could use the red glow as a nice source of ambient light. Hey, at least I would be saving some money on lighting, right?
I have two lamps connected to a single lightswitch. One of the lamps uses a regural lightbulb, while the other has a energy-saving CFL (I'm planning to move to CFL's whereever possible). And while there is a difference between the two, it's neglible. When I flip the lightswitch, they both turn on instanteniusly, but the CFL is dim for mayne half a second, after which it reaches the regural brightness.
What was not mentioned in the summary is that while CFL's conume less electricity, they also last way longer than regural bulbs. So for me the choice between regural bulbs and CFL's was a no-brainer. Yes, CFL's cost more, but they last longer AND they consume less electricity.
But they can't get any money from allofmp3. If they do change the law in Russia (which seems to be the case), the allofmp3 will shut down. But they can't get any money from them. Reason being that you can't retroactively decide that some past behavior was illegal and should be paid for. If it wasn't illegal back then, then there's not much they could do about it.
Make your player truly affordable for a full time college student working a full time job[/quote]
iPod Shuffle costs 79 bucks. You could also get second-hand player if that's too expensive for you. But if you can't spare 80 bucks, then I think that you are doing something wrong. Have you considered budgeting your income and expenses?
[quote]give me the ability to easily take all the songs I buy to any device, any media I wanna take them to, and we'll talk.[/quote]
I think you need to talk to Apple and the record-labels about that one.
[quote]In the meantime, I'll buy CDs from my local indie record store, and do with them as I see fit. Go right ahead. No-one is forcing you to do anything.
But I can tell you this - when I can get a real CD on Amazon for $10-12, and it costs me exactly that for a noticeably lower-quality digital-only version of the same album, then I see no reason to buy from the ITMS. I have bought a handful of songs from iTunes. And I did that with the full knowledge that I could buy them from local supermarket as well. So why didn't I?
1. If I wanted to buy the CD, I would have to get up, walk to my car, drive to the supermarket and buy the CD. As opposed to buying and downloading it right away. itunes is good for impulse-purchases.
2. There were only 2-3 tracks I was interested in in the album I bought the tracks from. So I either spend 2-3 bucks online to getht ehtracks I wanted, or 10-20 bucks (some of the albums were brand new, and prices of new albums is arouns 20e around here) offline, so I could get the tracks I wanted, plus several generic CD-fillers.
Slashdot Mirror
Add this line: FIREFOX_DSP="aoss" (remove FIREFOX_DSP=)
Install the alsa-oss package.
Restart FF, and you are playing sound! Um, I'm not sure what planet you are living on, but that's not "easy". It's tedious and frustrating.
"I personally know a few dozen hunters with larger arsenals [i]each[/i] than most police precincts."
So what if he had 20 shotguns (for example)? How would those 20 shotguns make him one bit more lethal than a guy with one shotgun? Does he have 40 arms or something, so he could use them all at once? Is a guy with two pistols twice as lethal as the guy with just one pistol? Is the guy with 20 shotguns 20 times more lethal than the guy with just one? Nope.
Here's a newsflash: It could havw 10 million pixels, and it would still suck. Optics on cameraphones are crap, that is a fact. Add to that the crappy sensors, crappy picture-related electronics, crappy flash, and you have a makings of a crappy camera.
I'm a "businesss professional". As are my co-workers. And while some of us do use the 3G-feature, none of us really find it essential.
"Why would people in Europe/Asia want to buy a new phone that doesn't work on 3G"
Because they have no need for 3G
"has a crap camera"
Because they have no need for camera. And ALL cameras in phones suck. Yes, some have more pixels than others, but they still suck.
"doesnt have a camera on the screen side of the phone"
Because they have no need for it. I had a cameraphone which had a camera pointing at me. How many times did I use it? Zero. How many times did I use the better camera on the other side of the phone? Maybe 1-2 times. And even then I used it for just shit and giggles, as opposed to really NEEDING the camera.
We are currently choosing a new phones to be used office-wide. And the lack of camera is a plus.
"When it comes to the European market, they have already done that through their lack of 3G support and text messaging client."
um, it does have SMS-client. As to 3G.... Who cares? I use my phone for lots if things, including websurfing and email. And my service includes 3G. And my phone supports 3G. And I switched it off withen 12 hours of getting the phone. Not because it costs money (my employer pays my bills), but because it sucks battery-life.
Right now, 3G is just a tickbox-feature. Operators and customers "want it", when in real life they have no use for it.
their coverage is less than 50% it seems. Is that considered "good coverage" in USA? I would consider anything below 90% to be poor. Good coverage would be 95+%
"They are used here in the states as well. Unfortunately, these can be easily defeated by having a child or friend blow into the tube so the car starts."
Isn't the point of the alcolock-scheme that it prevents accidental drunk-driving? As in, the driver has had one beer too many, and the alcolock tells him that he has too much alcohol in his bloodstream. He can't then tell to the police "well, I didn't know that I was drunk". If someone REALLY wants to drive drunk, and he knows he's drunk, he will find a way.
How exactly is it "unexpected"? Everybody knows that the light wont be green forever. And if he has to "hit the brakes" so that he doesn't go through the intersection, then it might actually make more sense to just go through the intersection. And if he needs to brake that hard, maybe he was driving too fast to begin with?
He HAS done something wrong. He obviously has zero clue how to drive sensibly. Doing panic-braking because of yellow lights IS wrong. Driving so fast that you need to do panic-braking due to yellow lights IS wrong.
With working brain: The guy drives safely and sensibly. Without working brain: The guy steps on the brakes the moment he sees traffic-camera. As a bonus, the guy driving behind the moron could actually try to keep safe driving-distance between the cars so he wouldnt rear-end the car in front of him.
Insead trying to pass the puck elsewhere, why not blame the real reason for the accident: the moron behind the wheel. "No, it was the camera that caused the accident!". No, it wasn't. It was the idiot who has zero clue how to drive properly.
If some idiot crashes in to a streetlight, do you blame the streetlight or the driver? After all, had there been no streetlight, nothing would have happened.
Well, I don't know what US Constitution says, since I'm not American :). That said, I'm not talking about corporations and rights given to corporations by law. I'm talking about the people who create that corporation. I'm NOT talking about whether corporations are "people" or not (IMO, they are not), I'm talking about the right of people to come together and have peaceful assemblies. And corporation is an "assembly of people".
The camera didn't do a thing, it just stood there. The cause of the accident is the moron behind the wheel who decided that stepping on the brakes is the right course of action when you see a traffic-camera. If the driver knows how to drive, nothing would happen. If he's a moron, the there's bound to be problems.
you seem to think that the key of preventing such accidents is to remove the cameras. I maintain that the key to preventing such accidents is to educate the roadusers on how to behave in traffic. Removing the cameras to avoid these kinds of accidents would merely be fixing the symptom (people stepping on brakes), instead of fixing the cause (moronic drivers).
*sigh*... First of all, that heat is in the wrong place. It's near the ceiling, and going up. The heat generated by radiators or heated floors is right where it's needed: Down on the floor-level where the people spend their time (or do you spend your time floating in the air?). And if you have heated floors, the generated heat is directly transferred to you, through your feet. End-result is very comfortable and energy-saving since you could keep the actual room-temperature few degrees lower, since your feet would be warm.
My house suffers from cold interior corners in wintertime. Having a radiator right next to that corner does quite a bit in working around that problem. A lightbulb hanging from the ceiling wouldn't be nearly as effective, even if it heated the room just as well as the radiator did. Reason being that the radiator is right where it's needed: near the occupants of the room, and near the source of coldness. The lightbulb would be far away from either of those.
Then we have the case of efficiency. Heating is designed to give you the most effective means of heating the interior, whereas lightbulbs and lights in general are designed to give you most effective illumination possible. Now, which of those two is most effective means to _heat up the interior_? Come on, think about it for a second.
It's dumb to use lightbulbs for heating since that's not what they are designed to do. Heat is merely a byproduct that they generate. Having a source of heat hanging half a meter above me isn't really good at making me feel more comfortable. Heated floors or radiators are a lot better at that particular task.
Yes, you COULD use lightbulbs for heating. But they are not designed for that task, and any heating that you get from them is sub-optimal, since they are designed for illumination, not heating. A system specificly designed to generate heat in the house is a lot better at actually creating comfortable temperature.
This really isn't rocket-science. Like I said, using lightbulbs for heating is like using radiators for illumination. Maybe you could do it, but does it make any sense?
I would say that there's something wrong with you heaters or your windows. In addition, it might very well be that the outside-temperature is lower now than it was before you switched bulbs, so the temperature in your home is lower due to that.
I don't know how it is in USA, but in Finland daytime-electricity (peak-usage) is usually more expensive than off-peak electricity. So when you need the heat, you would be using the most expensive electricity to get it. However, if you had indirect electric heating, things would be a lot nicer. Many people here have water-boilers that are heated off-peak electrically, so the electricity doesn't cost as much. The hot water is then circulated under the floorboards during the day, heating up the floor. End-result is that you have heat that is generated off-peak, and the resulting heat is put where it's most efficient: on the floor. You can really feel the heat on the floor, and you can actually keep the room-temperature 1-2 degrees celcius lower than you could do otherwise.
:).
You feel a lot more comfortable if you have warm feet, even if the actual room-temperature is slightly lower than normal
This is one of those
It's quite obvious that you _totally_ missed the point of my comment. Then you spent maybe 15 minutes writing a reply to something that you completely misunderstood. I'm sorry to tell you this, but you just wasted that 15 minutes of your life, and you will never get it back.
"Because corporations aren't people"
What are they then? Groups of people in a hierarchy, together for a specific purpose (to earn profit)? So, isn't that an "peacable assembly of people"?
Uh, I live in Finland, and if anyone told here that they are using a hot-running lightbulbs so they would save some money on heating, they would be officially titled as the village idiot. Instead of using lightbulbs as your source of heat, I recommend that you use them for their primary purpose (ligthing), and heat your home through regural means. The heating in your home is designed for heating, so use it. It would be same if I ran my radiators red-hot so I could use the red glow as a nice source of ambient light. Hey, at least I would be saving some money on lighting, right?
I have two lamps connected to a single lightswitch. One of the lamps uses a regural lightbulb, while the other has a energy-saving CFL (I'm planning to move to CFL's whereever possible). And while there is a difference between the two, it's neglible. When I flip the lightswitch, they both turn on instanteniusly, but the CFL is dim for mayne half a second, after which it reaches the regural brightness.
What was not mentioned in the summary is that while CFL's conume less electricity, they also last way longer than regural bulbs. So for me the choice between regural bulbs and CFL's was a no-brainer. Yes, CFL's cost more, but they last longer AND they consume less electricity.
But they can't get any money from allofmp3. If they do change the law in Russia (which seems to be the case), the allofmp3 will shut down. But they can't get any money from them. Reason being that you can't retroactively decide that some past behavior was illegal and should be paid for. If it wasn't illegal back then, then there's not much they could do about it.
iPod Shuffle costs 79 bucks. You could also get second-hand player if that's too expensive for you. But if you can't spare 80 bucks, then I think that you are doing something wrong. Have you considered budgeting your income and expenses?
[quote]give me the ability to easily take all the songs I buy to any device, any media I wanna take them to, and we'll talk.[/quote]
I think you need to talk to Apple and the record-labels about that one.
[quote]In the meantime, I'll buy CDs from my local indie record store, and do with them as I see fit. Go right ahead. No-one is forcing you to do anything.
1. If I wanted to buy the CD, I would have to get up, walk to my car, drive to the supermarket and buy the CD. As opposed to buying and downloading it right away. itunes is good for impulse-purchases.
2. There were only 2-3 tracks I was interested in in the album I bought the tracks from. So I either spend 2-3 bucks online to getht ehtracks I wanted, or 10-20 bucks (some of the albums were brand new, and prices of new albums is arouns 20e around here) offline, so I could get the tracks I wanted, plus several generic CD-fillers.
"Death Yoga"? Is that something like Tai Chi of Doom?