I thought this was a good interview. Because this was actually closer to a live interview, Lars' answers definitely contrasted against, say, John Carmack's crisp, consise and focused answers. But I think it's a good thing, because it makes this interview more real and, more importantly, it makes us realize that Lars is just another person.
He's not a suit, another Seattle corporation, not a Storm Trooper, but just a guy who happens to be very affected by rapidly emerging technology. He's a person like us, honest about his mistakes but who can't help but be concerned about his situation. I, for one, am glad that he's filing this lawsuit, not because I think he's taking the right actions, but because eventually all of us will be part of technology we're apprehensive of.
And he makes some good points, such as, "I support Napster's right to exist, OK? But I want them to support my right to not be part of it." I can imagine scenarios in which I can see some people saying the same thing about Freenet. What happens if that "special" movie you made with you girlfriend gets uploaded on the internet? I'm sure that's the plot of of more than one Hollywood film, but the fact is I'm sure you can think of things you don't want publicly traded.
I like Lars, and know trading MP3 to albums you do not own (aside from bootleg recordings) is illegal. However, MP3 is here to stay, along with the rampant trading, and the music industry and probably some laws are going to have to deal and adapt to it.
But Lars is also right about another thing, the music industry isn't going to be alone. DeCSS is just the tip of the iceberg with Hollywood.
So watch carefully as Metallic tries to defend itself from its unwanted inclusion in new technology, because it's probably going to be a larger and larger issue sooner or later. And I think this is going to be an interesting ride.
This is like, the 8th article mentioning Gnutella specifically since March.
Can anyone please tell me what's so great about this program? From what I understand it's a just another Napster client, and one who's source isn't very open... So what's the big deal?
"So why do people feel the need to push their CPUs beyond their design parameters, risking data loss and burn out for a few MHz they'll never notice anyway."
What design parameters are you talking about? You're under the wrong impression if you believe a PIII 600 is a different chip than a PIII 850. They are, in fact the same chip, it's just that the 850 has probably passed more of Intel's QA. The argument for overclocking is that they're willing to bet Intel's standards are too strict (Intel does have to guarantee they chip will run at least at the advertised speed), and with proper cooling or whatever voodoo waving they do they can get their chip to run faster. And it is, in fact, a bet; overclockers void their warranty doing so.
While you may think this sort of thing is for kids, another argument has more merit - they money they save from buying a higher-rated chip can be used to buy a newer chip a year two down the line when it's time to upgrade (supposing their overclocked chip life's shorter). Naturally, I suppose they'll overclock those chips as well.
This is like, the seventh article mentioning Gnutella specifically in the last two months.
Can somebody please explain to me why this product is so different and so much more important than all the other napster clients available, especially considering its the source code isn't very accessible?
While it's nice to say stuff like "information wants / deserves to be free", when this stuff starts affecting you personally, you may rethink these claims.
What happens when your personal, private information becomes easily accessible? Your medical records, financial statements, legal documents, prior history, your secret stash of your toejam fetish, your diary or whatever is put for everyone to see without anyone being accountable. It doesn't matter if this information was obtained or distributed illegally. Or, even if its true for that matter. Hurray for free information?
Will you cheer when your company secrets or sensitive e-mails are publicly available, causing you to lose countless dollars in revenue even if gained through corporate espionage, disgruntled employees or even just bribed employees? And hey, once it's out there, there's no getting it back, and no one is accountable?
Or even more heinous - let's say some bastards rape your nine-year daughter, and publish their sick home video online, adding insult to injury. I need to tolerate this for free speech? Clarke's answer of "if you don't like it, don't use it" is hardly sufficient as it can still easily affect me.
And what of these political uses? How am I supposed to know which is propaganda? Which is misinformation from the enemy? What's from conspiracy theorists or from dissenting groups? From sources I can't trust, distributed through a channel I can't trust? Can I even trust this voting system? Freenet says I should make my own decision on what to believe, but I don't really see a lot of untrustworthy information helping me make more informed decisions.
This is like, the sixth article mentioning Gnutella specifically in the last two months.
Can somebody please explain to me why this product is so different than all the many napster clients available, especially considering its the source code isn't very accessible?
So, Aqua is pretty. The transparency and the real-time rendering are awesome. But what I'm wondering is what nobody seems to mention... at what cost? How much processor power do these GUI tricks require? Are they required? I know this is for their newer systems, but is there any hope for present Mac users who don't have screaming machines?
I think this is a misconception many people have. Although it is normally true (example: Lotus Notes, it's not necessarily true.
I think there's two types of "intuitiveness." One's the classic example, the pretty GUIs Apple makes. When you want to do something, you think what action would accompany that result. Like dragging a file into a trashcan to delete it. (But dragging a disk into the trash to eject it?) But the other type is even better - an interface that's sorta strange at first, but when you use you realize how intuitive it is.
Let's take one of your examples, vi. (Disclaimer - I personally use vim and use the Dvorak keyboard layout, so it's a little different). Yes, for a newbie this editor is pretty hard to use. But after becoming accustomed to it, it becomes very clear why the creator made it that way, it's very intuitive. All the commands are available without moving your hands from the typing position; no fumbling around with the mouse or over to the arrow-buttons.
What about regular expressions? Those don't look so "easy to use" when you first see them. But I'd like to see a "find" dialog box in a GUI that can do that.
So you see my point. Don't come to the conclusion that interfaces are "evil" or even "difficult" because they're a little daunting at first. They're also intuitive, just on a different level.
MDs rock, but I doubt they'll be that big
on
MP3/MD Combo Player
·
· Score: 2
Don't get me wrong, I love my MD. It's far better than a wimpy Rio and there's some advantages that nothing can compare with:
Even if you had discman that didn't skip, it'd still be pretty large. An MD player and a few MDs is nothing in your pocket.
You CANNOT beat the versatility of recording on a MD. Add, Delete, Combine, Seperate, Move... even the fact that the tracks have name is nice change from CDs where you have to listen to listen to a second or two.
I record easily from CD or MP3, all digitally; the only source of loss is from the ATRAC compression of the MD recorder. And although it only compresses to 1/5 of the size (opposed to 1/12 or whatever with MP3s) even my audiophile friends can't tell the difference (ATRAC has come a long way). The only problem is that MDs have some silly protection that only allow one generation of digital copying (SCMS). I've never had that problem with my MP3s, though.
MDs are cheap! I get 10 packs for $25. I'm sure if I was really stingy I could find 'em cheaper on the net too.
Finally, MDs just look cool! Holding a MD makes me feel like I'm Tom Cruise guarding the NOC files or something high-tech and futuristic. Okay, okay, I'm a geek.
But, especially with that 4.3 GB MP3 player coming out soon, I kinda doubt MD players will go past being a novelty toy. It's only a matter of time before MP3 players shrink to comparable size and incomparable storage. I hope I'm wrong, but I have a feeling I'm not. But until then, I most definitely am enjoying my MD player (A Sharp 722, BTW).
Re:Religion: REALITY CHECKPOINT - do not pass!
on
Spoonful of Quickies
·
· Score: 1
I think it's rather ironic how people are tolerant to most everything - except intolerance. Sure, believe anything you want, your viewpoint's as good as anyone else's... as long as it doesn't offend me. Now that doesn't make much sense now does it? Quite frankly, I think freedom of religion means accepting everyone's beliefs, even if that means that being "condemned" in the process.
Worse, I think that society quickly puts down faith-holders (usually Christian) as people who are simply ignorant, people who took the "easy answer." Is it impossible that these people are intelligent also - that they believe what they do after careful research and deliberation? This does not seem to be a popular opinion. Again, for a society that tries really hard to be non-judgmental, being hostile to those who _are_ judgmental is still wrong.
"I happen to take great pleasure in any group that takes itself just a little too seriously"
In my opinion, I think that's the only way to go. I mean, what's the use of believing in a religion if you're not going to take it seriously? How useless is that? Most religions are central to your entire life and affect the way you perceive things, so really this review didn't surprise me at all (though I did find it funny:). Seriously though, if anything, I don't think it should be a crime to take your religion seriously; though it seems shunned by society as something you need to keep to yourself, saying you ascribe to a religion and then not acting on it is a farce.
The CAP is a tool for Christian parents. SO, if I'm a Christian parent and I want to know what's in the movies that are showing today, I'll use the CAP. I know it's debatable whether censoring movies from your children is effective, but that is the CAP's purpose. I think people who don't like it should realize this and leave it at that.
"it is my opinion that finding God is a personal experience, and not one you can find simply reading scripture"
Assuming that the Bible is in fact the Word of God, finding God through the Bible doesn't really seem to me like inappropriate conclusion.
But, in the words of Dennis Miller, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought this was a good interview. Because this was actually closer to a live interview, Lars' answers definitely contrasted against, say, John Carmack's crisp, consise and focused answers. But I think it's a good thing, because it makes this interview more real and, more importantly, it makes us realize that Lars is just another person.
He's not a suit, another Seattle corporation, not a Storm Trooper, but just a guy who happens to be very affected by rapidly emerging technology. He's a person like us, honest about his mistakes but who can't help but be concerned about his situation. I, for one, am glad that he's filing this lawsuit, not because I think he's taking the right actions, but because eventually all of us will be part of technology we're apprehensive of.
And he makes some good points, such as, "I support Napster's right to exist, OK? But I want them to support my right to not be part of it." I can imagine scenarios in which I can see some people saying the same thing about Freenet. What happens if that "special" movie you made with you girlfriend gets uploaded on the internet? I'm sure that's the plot of of more than one Hollywood film, but the fact is I'm sure you can think of things you don't want publicly traded.
I like Lars, and know trading MP3 to albums you do not own (aside from bootleg recordings) is illegal. However, MP3 is here to stay, along with the rampant trading, and the music industry and probably some laws are going to have to deal and adapt to it.
But Lars is also right about another thing, the music industry isn't going to be alone. DeCSS is just the tip of the iceberg with Hollywood.
So watch carefully as Metallic tries to defend itself from its unwanted inclusion in new technology, because it's probably going to be a larger and larger issue sooner or later. And I think this is going to be an interesting ride.
This article was posted almost a year ago. Archived story.
This is like, the 8th article mentioning Gnutella specifically since March.
Can anyone please tell me what's so great about this program? From what I understand it's a just another Napster client, and one who's source isn't very open... So what's the big deal?
"So why do people feel the need to push their CPUs beyond their design parameters, risking data loss and burn out for a few MHz they'll never notice anyway."
What design parameters are you talking about? You're under the wrong impression if you believe a PIII 600 is a different chip than a PIII 850. They are, in fact the same chip, it's just that the 850 has probably passed more of Intel's QA. The argument for overclocking is that they're willing to bet Intel's standards are too strict (Intel does have to guarantee they chip will run at least at the advertised speed), and with proper cooling or whatever voodoo waving they do they can get their chip to run faster. And it is, in fact, a bet; overclockers void their warranty doing so.
While you may think this sort of thing is for kids, another argument has more merit - they money they save from buying a higher-rated chip can be used to buy a newer chip a year two down the line when it's time to upgrade (supposing their overclocked chip life's shorter). Naturally, I suppose they'll overclock those chips as well.
This is like, the seventh article mentioning Gnutella specifically in the last two months.
Can somebody please explain to me why this product is so different and so much more important than all the other napster clients available, especially considering its the source code isn't very accessible?
While it's nice to say stuff like "information wants / deserves to be free", when this stuff starts affecting you personally, you may rethink these claims.
What happens when your personal, private information becomes easily accessible? Your medical records, financial statements, legal documents, prior history, your secret stash of your toejam fetish, your diary or whatever is put for everyone to see without anyone being accountable. It doesn't matter if this information was obtained or distributed illegally. Or, even if its true for that matter. Hurray for free information?
Will you cheer when your company secrets or sensitive e-mails are publicly available, causing you to lose countless dollars in revenue even if gained through corporate espionage, disgruntled employees or even just bribed employees? And hey, once it's out there, there's no getting it back, and no one is accountable?
Or even more heinous - let's say some bastards rape your nine-year daughter, and publish their sick home video online, adding insult to injury. I need to tolerate this for free speech? Clarke's answer of "if you don't like it, don't use it" is hardly sufficient as it can still easily affect me.
And what of these political uses? How am I supposed to know which is propaganda? Which is misinformation from the enemy? What's from conspiracy theorists or from dissenting groups? From sources I can't trust, distributed through a channel I can't trust? Can I even trust this voting system? Freenet says I should make my own decision on what to believe, but I don't really see a lot of untrustworthy information helping me make more informed decisions.
This is like, the sixth article mentioning Gnutella specifically in the last two months.
Can somebody please explain to me why this product is so different than all the many napster clients available, especially considering its the source code isn't very accessible?
How come all Hewlett Packard products end with "jet"?
Deskjet, Laserjet, Scanjet, Officejet, Paintjet, Designjet.... any more?
And what of Logitech's "man" fetish?
Mouseman, Wingman, Soundman... anyone remember the original cyberman? I think I still have that lying around...
So, Aqua is pretty. The transparency and the real-time rendering are awesome. But what I'm wondering is what nobody seems to mention... at what cost? How much processor power do these GUI tricks require? Are they required? I know this is for their newer systems, but is there any hope for present Mac users who don't have screaming machines?
I think this is a misconception many people have. Although it is normally true (example: Lotus Notes, it's not necessarily true.
I think there's two types of "intuitiveness." One's the classic example, the pretty GUIs Apple makes. When you want to do something, you think what action would accompany that result. Like dragging a file into a trashcan to delete it. (But dragging a disk into the trash to eject it?) But the other type is even better - an interface that's sorta strange at first, but when you use you realize how intuitive it is.
Let's take one of your examples, vi. (Disclaimer - I personally use vim and use the Dvorak keyboard layout, so it's a little different). Yes, for a newbie this editor is pretty hard to use. But after becoming accustomed to it, it becomes very clear why the creator made it that way, it's very intuitive. All the commands are available without moving your hands from the typing position; no fumbling around with the mouse or over to the arrow-buttons.
What about regular expressions? Those don't look so "easy to use" when you first see them. But I'd like to see a "find" dialog box in a GUI that can do that.
So you see my point. Don't come to the conclusion that interfaces are "evil" or even "difficult" because they're a little daunting at first. They're also intuitive, just on a different level.
Don't get me wrong, I love my MD. It's far better than a wimpy Rio and there's some advantages that nothing can compare with:
Even if you had discman that didn't skip, it'd still be pretty large. An MD player and a few MDs is nothing in your pocket.
You CANNOT beat the versatility of recording on a MD. Add, Delete, Combine, Seperate, Move... even the fact that the tracks have name is nice change from CDs where you have to listen to listen to a second or two.
I record easily from CD or MP3, all digitally; the only source of loss is from the ATRAC compression of the MD recorder. And although it only compresses to 1/5 of the size (opposed to 1/12 or whatever with MP3s) even my audiophile friends can't tell the difference (ATRAC has come a long way). The only problem is that MDs have some silly protection that only allow one generation of digital copying (SCMS). I've never had that problem with my MP3s, though.
MDs are cheap! I get 10 packs for $25. I'm sure if I was really stingy I could find 'em cheaper on the net too.
Finally, MDs just look cool! Holding a MD makes me feel like I'm Tom Cruise guarding the NOC files or something high-tech and futuristic. Okay, okay, I'm a geek.
But, especially with that 4.3 GB MP3 player coming out soon, I kinda doubt MD players will go past being a novelty toy. It's only a matter of time before MP3 players shrink to comparable size and incomparable storage. I hope I'm wrong, but I have a feeling I'm not. But until then, I most definitely am enjoying my MD player (A Sharp 722, BTW).
I think it's rather ironic how people are tolerant to most everything - except intolerance. Sure, believe anything you want, your viewpoint's as good as anyone else's... as long as it doesn't offend me. Now that doesn't make much sense now does it? Quite frankly, I think freedom of religion means accepting everyone's beliefs, even if that means that being "condemned" in the process.
:). Seriously though, if anything, I don't think it should be a crime to take your religion seriously; though it seems shunned by society as something you need to keep to yourself, saying you ascribe to a religion and then not acting on it is a farce.
Worse, I think that society quickly puts down faith-holders (usually Christian) as people who are simply ignorant, people who took the "easy answer." Is it impossible that these people are intelligent also - that they believe what they do after careful research and deliberation? This does not seem to be a popular opinion. Again, for a society that tries really hard to be non-judgmental, being hostile to those who _are_ judgmental is still wrong.
"I happen to take great pleasure in any group that takes itself just a little too seriously"
In my opinion, I think that's the only way to go. I mean, what's the use of believing in a religion if you're not going to take it seriously? How useless is that? Most religions are central to your entire life and affect the way you perceive things, so really this review didn't surprise me at all (though I did find it funny
The CAP is a tool for Christian parents. SO, if I'm a Christian parent and I want to know what's in the movies that are showing today, I'll use the CAP. I know it's debatable whether censoring movies from your children is effective, but that is the CAP's purpose. I think people who don't like it should realize this and leave it at that.
"it is my opinion that finding God is a personal experience, and not one you can find simply reading scripture"
Assuming that the Bible is in fact the Word of God, finding God through the Bible doesn't really seem to me like inappropriate conclusion.
But, in the words of Dennis Miller, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.