Unfortunately I've not had the chance to hear "Brittany", but if they are, as you suggest, better than Autechre, Capitol K, Ratatat, and everything on Merck Records, then I have got to go download a couple of their tracks to try them out!
Or did you mean "Britney"? As in "Britney Spears"?
As for iTMS, I wasn't talking about it, and neither was the individual to whom I was replying.
That person was however talking about popular music, and it could be argued that the artists I mentioned are not particularly popular. I would have expected someone to point that out as a rational rebuttal to my argument.
Regardless, most of the "good" popular music from 20 years ago is also not free and therefore the subject is moot. And the good music that I like nowadays is not free, and I'm not going to give it up (and stop supporting the artists in any way whatsoever) just to grind a political axe against the RIAA. Most of these artists are indies anyway, on indy lables, so I'm not supporting the RIAA anyway, except perhaps for some labels that might be subsidiaries of larger RIAA labels. I think Astralwerks would fit that bill, but then I haven't bought anything of theirs since the last Chemical Brothers album came out.
Let me guess, you're an old fart stuck in your curmudgeonly ways, and you like it, too, dammit! Am I right?
Arsewipe.
There's still good music being made. All over the map. I'll mention a few things I like - Autechre, Capitol K, Ratatat, anything on the Merck Records label... but that doesn't matter. In any genre there's still good stuff. And a lot of it isn't free. Telling people to stop liking what they like and listen to free music for some political reason is just stupid and will solve no problems except your own egotistical desire to be right.
And then when your laptop leaves the network, it has no tunes. Yes, you're misunderstanding. This is about iTunes being able to not only view other people's libraries, but take songs from those libraries and put them in my own playlists without actually copying the music over. When the network changes or disappears and the music isn't available, the tracks should just be grayed out and gracefully ignored.
I would do this if I could afford a 3rd machine and the power to run it all the time... but even if I could afford a 3rd machine to use as more than just a music server, I wouldn't run it all the time just so the 2 laptops in the house could access music from it. Waste of energy, if you ask me. This should be fixable in software, without having to run an extra server and use up all the power.
Besides, if I go on the road, the music doesn't come with me (unless I've copied it to my iPod).
No, it would be better to have network-savvy playlists, so if my girl and I are sitting down and we both happen to have our laptops on, I can listen to music from her computer without permanently adding it to mine, adding some of her music to my own playlists... And then when she turns her computer off iTunes would just gracefully ignore those songs, and perhaps indicate with a little icon that the song is no longer available. The next time her book is active, the songs I'd selected would again be available.
I thought it was pretty cool at first to be able to shift-click (on Windows here at work) the arrows and have it search my collection - but it doesn't seem to make much sense. For example, say I shift-click the arrow next to an artist, Lackluster. It shows me all the music I have by Lackluster, but what I usually want is all the music by Lackluster *AND* the stuff he's remixed. I suppose if you don't have any remixes or don't care about them, this wouldn't matter, but in any case, no matter what, it just seems to make more sense to just use iTunes' little search field up at the top. I know what I'm looking for, I just type it in, and up it comes. iTunes' search makes even browsing unnecessary for me most of the time.
I think those little arrows were some marketer's idea to get people to buy more music on iTMS, and then they thought they'd better make them do something else so it wasn't so blatant, so they threw in the option/shift-click thing to zero in on stuff in the local collection. I guess if you just really don't want to use the keyboard, the little arrows would help, but for me, they just clutter up the screen. Thank goodness they made it an optional feature!
I might be interested in using them to find my music/artists in the iTMS, except that the iTMS really doesn't have pretty much anything I'd be interested in (or don't already have). I know that's more a reflection on me than the iTMS, but that's how it is.
This is the same "Join Tracks" feature that iTunes has had for the past couple versions. It imports multiple tracks from a CD as one track. This results in one long track, in one file. This is not what is traditionally considered "gapless playback", which is taking multiple tracks/files and playing them all back without a gap in between the tracks.
"Join tracks" is an unacceptible solution, IMHO. I still use iTunes, though. I just live with the small gaps.
I agree completely - and I don't think it works only for techno gadgets, either. I'd say it works for politics and other beliefs, too. Which means that the general/. libertarian bent is probably idiotic... Thank god for that:)
(this coming from a libertarian socialist viridian green)
Ha ha ha! Why hasn't this post been modded FUNNY? Come on mods, get a sense of humor, no way the parent post could have been serious! Maybe it would have succeeded in getting some +Funny mod points if he'd thrown in that the sun also orbits the Earth...
*Nothing* that uses coercion to dictate the price of something [...] is "positive sum".
First, unions don't "dictate" prices (or wages & benefits). They negotiate with employers. Negotiations are very different from dictating.
Second, employers also use coercion to influence the wages & benefits their employees will accept. Unions are a balancing force in this game - for example, they make it very difficult for employers to use one of the oldest and most effective tricks in the book, playing employees against each other...
Yeah, if you know how to use the APT tool, and the specific software you want has been packaged up for your distribution and put on a repository that you have listed in your apt config file, and you know roughly the name of the package, it's really easy to get a package.
Those assumptions not having been met, it's much easier to download the software as you find it and just run it.
Apt makes things easier for linux admins. For those of us who aren't linux admins, the DMG solution is much more elegant.
Of course, DMG files abound because Mac OS X is a very popular OS. If there was at least one similarly popular distribution of linux, most software would have prepackaged versions for that distribution. Kinda like how most linux projects are available as source, binary tar.gz, and then a.deb and a couple.rpm's for Mandrake, SuSE and Red Hat/Fedora... So as time goes on, and a couple of distributions keep emerging as definitely good desktop options, more and more software will become readily available for them and linux software installation will be as easy.
People just need to get used to the idea that your OS is a specific distribution, and not generically "Linux". You can't just download software not meant for your specific OS and expect running it to be easy. It's easier between different linux-based OSes than between Linux and Windows, or Linux and Mac OS X, but it has to be seen as the same problem. One shouldn't expect software not available for, say, Mandrake 9.0, to be easy to use on Mandrake 9.0, any more than one should expect software not available for Windows 2000 to be easy to run on Windows 2000.
But money *does* grown on trees, in so much as the foundation of all wealth and survival on earth comes from the food/energy we harvest from our environment. Which disproves the idea that it would change anything if money grew on trees, because even if it literally did grow, well, the trees would not be unlimited. Crops would do badly, someone would own the land they grow on, etc... ultimately the wealth would still be concentrated in the hands of the few who enforced access to the trees.
I find the idea that "the terrorists" want Kerry to win rediculous? Why does the author of the article you link to think this is obvious? Why would anyone make that assumption? Contrary to right-wing assumptions, President Bush does not have any terrorists on the run. In fact, thanks to the Bush administration, terrorist organizations have become more brazen, have been given great opportunities for growth, and the international community has become more polarized, and weaker because of it.
Machiavelli was not writing for a world filled with Democracies. If we want the world to be predominately democratic, we need to alter our behaviors. Granted, what he wrote is still relevant, taken to interpersonal power dynamics, but in context of the discussion, is it really necessary or desirable that our entire nation is despised by the rest of the world? That when American citizens travel abroad they are hated by people who haven't even met them?
As for the Rochefoucauld quote, fear of being despised is one thing. Actively encouraging others to despise you is quite another.
Considering the article talks about how the definition of profane is speech or conduct "irreverent to something held sacred"... this comment makes total sense. Not only is it a shit (excretion) for fucking (sex), it is also a *holy* shit, and therefore a secred peice of sex-related excrement. To put your winky smily at the end, you are obviouisly treating this sacred poop of copulation with irreverence, and therefore you are being wholly profane. I condemn thee!
Why would it be a problem to tie a website to a particular region? Despite the peculiar '80s notion of "Cyberspace", everything on the internet is tied to a physical locality. Organizations with websites are incorporated or registered with their local government.
Amazon may serve the world, but they're a US government. They have a UK division, so there's a UK website. When I go there I know I'm dealing with a foreign (to me) business, and will be shopping/paying accordingly.
Besides, most international businesses have localized versions of their sites anyway - you have to "select your location" when you go to the site. For example, UPS.com, Epson.com... there are many others. They shouldn't have to do this, they should just have UPS.com.de for German customers, Epson.com.us for US customers, etc.
Even if the world is ever free of nations and we just have one big world government, there will still be local governments to manage local details. Like how the US has states, which have counties and cities, and the EU has member nations with their own local divisions. It's more useful to have such a large area as a planet divided up into small subdivisons for commercial purposes, especially for commercial activities that require real-world interactions (manufacturing, shipping, etc.)
Maybe your favorite porn site doesn't need a physical location tied to it because it's all digital, but would it really be such a big deal? Would it be so hard to have to type in mypr0n.com.cx instead of mypr0n.com?
In 2000, its rival Honda Motor Co. Ltd. unveiled ASIMO, the world's first two-legged walking robot, and Sony Corp. revealed its QRIO, the world's first jogging robot, in December.
Earlier this week QRIO appeared for a photo opportunity conducting the Tokyo Phiharmonic Orchestra as it performed part of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony.
And now we have a trumpet playing robot...
Oh, I see, I get it - here's the secret evil Japanese plan to take over the world - they're going to create a robotic marching band!
Slashdot Mirror
And other people (admittedly few) go out of their way to shop at the only food coop in Manhattan.
Well, I don't want to work with you, so that pretty much throws a wrench in that plan right there...
Unfortunately I've not had the chance to hear "Brittany", but if they are, as you suggest, better than Autechre, Capitol K, Ratatat, and everything on Merck Records, then I have got to go download a couple of their tracks to try them out!
Or did you mean "Britney"? As in "Britney Spears"?
As for iTMS, I wasn't talking about it, and neither was the individual to whom I was replying.
That person was however talking about popular music, and it could be argued that the artists I mentioned are not particularly popular. I would have expected someone to point that out as a rational rebuttal to my argument.
Regardless, most of the "good" popular music from 20 years ago is also not free and therefore the subject is moot. And the good music that I like nowadays is not free, and I'm not going to give it up (and stop supporting the artists in any way whatsoever) just to grind a political axe against the RIAA. Most of these artists are indies anyway, on indy lables, so I'm not supporting the RIAA anyway, except perhaps for some labels that might be subsidiaries of larger RIAA labels. I think Astralwerks would fit that bill, but then I haven't bought anything of theirs since the last Chemical Brothers album came out.
Let me guess, you're an old fart stuck in your curmudgeonly ways, and you like it, too, dammit! Am I right?
Arsewipe.
There's still good music being made. All over the map. I'll mention a few things I like - Autechre, Capitol K, Ratatat, anything on the Merck Records label... but that doesn't matter. In any genre there's still good stuff. And a lot of it isn't free. Telling people to stop liking what they like and listen to free music for some political reason is just stupid and will solve no problems except your own egotistical desire to be right.
And then when your laptop leaves the network, it has no tunes. Yes, you're misunderstanding. This is about iTunes being able to not only view other people's libraries, but take songs from those libraries and put them in my own playlists without actually copying the music over. When the network changes or disappears and the music isn't available, the tracks should just be grayed out and gracefully ignored.
Still not at all what I was talking about. Sorry you misunderstood. Forget it, maybe Apple will understand and implement the feature.
I can't speak for the other person, but...
I would do this if I could afford a 3rd machine and the power to run it all the time... but even if I could afford a 3rd machine to use as more than just a music server, I wouldn't run it all the time just so the 2 laptops in the house could access music from it. Waste of energy, if you ask me. This should be fixable in software, without having to run an extra server and use up all the power.
Besides, if I go on the road, the music doesn't come with me (unless I've copied it to my iPod).
No, it would be better to have network-savvy playlists, so if my girl and I are sitting down and we both happen to have our laptops on, I can listen to music from her computer without permanently adding it to mine, adding some of her music to my own playlists... And then when she turns her computer off iTunes would just gracefully ignore those songs, and perhaps indicate with a little icon that the song is no longer available. The next time her book is active, the songs I'd selected would again be available.
I thought it was pretty cool at first to be able to shift-click (on Windows here at work) the arrows and have it search my collection - but it doesn't seem to make much sense. For example, say I shift-click the arrow next to an artist, Lackluster. It shows me all the music I have by Lackluster, but what I usually want is all the music by Lackluster *AND* the stuff he's remixed. I suppose if you don't have any remixes or don't care about them, this wouldn't matter, but in any case, no matter what, it just seems to make more sense to just use iTunes' little search field up at the top. I know what I'm looking for, I just type it in, and up it comes. iTunes' search makes even browsing unnecessary for me most of the time.
I think those little arrows were some marketer's idea to get people to buy more music on iTMS, and then they thought they'd better make them do something else so it wasn't so blatant, so they threw in the option/shift-click thing to zero in on stuff in the local collection. I guess if you just really don't want to use the keyboard, the little arrows would help, but for me, they just clutter up the screen. Thank goodness they made it an optional feature!
I might be interested in using them to find my music/artists in the iTMS, except that the iTMS really doesn't have pretty much anything I'd be interested in (or don't already have). I know that's more a reflection on me than the iTMS, but that's how it is.
This is the same "Join Tracks" feature that iTunes has had for the past couple versions. It imports multiple tracks from a CD as one track. This results in one long track, in one file. This is not what is traditionally considered "gapless playback", which is taking multiple tracks/files and playing them all back without a gap in between the tracks.
"Join tracks" is an unacceptible solution, IMHO. I still use iTunes, though. I just live with the small gaps.
I agree completely - and I don't think it works only for techno gadgets, either. I'd say it works for politics and other beliefs, too. Which means that the general /. libertarian bent is probably idiotic... Thank god for that :)
(this coming from a libertarian socialist viridian green)
Ha ha ha! Why hasn't this post been modded FUNNY? Come on mods, get a sense of humor, no way the parent post could have been serious! Maybe it would have succeeded in getting some +Funny mod points if he'd thrown in that the sun also orbits the Earth...
*Nothing* that uses coercion to dictate the price of something [...] is "positive sum".
First, unions don't "dictate" prices (or wages & benefits). They negotiate with employers. Negotiations are very different from dictating.
Second, employers also use coercion to influence the wages & benefits their employees will accept. Unions are a balancing force in this game - for example, they make it very difficult for employers to use one of the oldest and most effective tricks in the book, playing employees against each other...
Going to space is still too damned expensive. But it's cheaper than it was once upon a time. No harm in pushing onward, ever onward...
Yeah, if you know how to use the APT tool, and the specific software you want has been packaged up for your distribution and put on a repository that you have listed in your apt config file, and you know roughly the name of the package, it's really easy to get a package.
.deb and a couple .rpm's for Mandrake, SuSE and Red Hat/Fedora... So as time goes on, and a couple of distributions keep emerging as definitely good desktop options, more and more software will become readily available for them and linux software installation will be as easy.
Those assumptions not having been met, it's much easier to download the software as you find it and just run it.
Apt makes things easier for linux admins. For those of us who aren't linux admins, the DMG solution is much more elegant.
Of course, DMG files abound because Mac OS X is a very popular OS. If there was at least one similarly popular distribution of linux, most software would have prepackaged versions for that distribution. Kinda like how most linux projects are available as source, binary tar.gz, and then a
People just need to get used to the idea that your OS is a specific distribution, and not generically "Linux". You can't just download software not meant for your specific OS and expect running it to be easy. It's easier between different linux-based OSes than between Linux and Windows, or Linux and Mac OS X, but it has to be seen as the same problem. One shouldn't expect software not available for, say, Mandrake 9.0, to be easy to use on Mandrake 9.0, any more than one should expect software not available for Windows 2000 to be easy to run on Windows 2000.
But money *does* grown on trees, in so much as the foundation of all wealth and survival on earth comes from the food/energy we harvest from our environment. Which disproves the idea that it would change anything if money grew on trees, because even if it literally did grow, well, the trees would not be unlimited. Crops would do badly, someone would own the land they grow on, etc... ultimately the wealth would still be concentrated in the hands of the few who enforced access to the trees.
Forgive my off-topic rambling...
...Microsoft rules. They really are the most innovative and resilient software companies in the world.
So you acknowledge that they should be broken up into multiple companies? Groovy!
Vorbis Fan: hands to ears - La la la la la la, I can't hear you, La la la la la la...
I find the idea that "the terrorists" want Kerry to win rediculous? Why does the author of the article you link to think this is obvious? Why would anyone make that assumption? Contrary to right-wing assumptions, President Bush does not have any terrorists on the run. In fact, thanks to the Bush administration, terrorist organizations have become more brazen, have been given great opportunities for growth, and the international community has become more polarized, and weaker because of it.
Machiavelli was not writing for a world filled with Democracies. If we want the world to be predominately democratic, we need to alter our behaviors. Granted, what he wrote is still relevant, taken to interpersonal power dynamics, but in context of the discussion, is it really necessary or desirable that our entire nation is despised by the rest of the world? That when American citizens travel abroad they are hated by people who haven't even met them?
As for the Rochefoucauld quote, fear of being despised is one thing. Actively encouraging others to despise you is quite another.
What, no G5? They should be ashamed of themselves.
(laugh...)
Considering the article talks about how the definition of profane is speech or conduct "irreverent to something held sacred" ... this comment makes total sense. Not only is it a shit (excretion) for fucking (sex), it is also a *holy* shit, and therefore a secred peice of sex-related excrement. To put your winky smily at the end, you are obviouisly treating this sacred poop of copulation with irreverence, and therefore you are being wholly profane. I condemn thee!
Amazon may serve the world, but they're a US government.
obviously I mean they're a US corporation... (although what's the difference these days... *sigh*)
Why would it be a problem to tie a website to a particular region? Despite the peculiar '80s notion of "Cyberspace", everything on the internet is tied to a physical locality. Organizations with websites are incorporated or registered with their local government.
... there are many others. They shouldn't have to do this, they should just have UPS.com.de for German customers, Epson.com.us for US customers, etc.
Amazon may serve the world, but they're a US government. They have a UK division, so there's a UK website. When I go there I know I'm dealing with a foreign (to me) business, and will be shopping/paying accordingly.
Besides, most international businesses have localized versions of their sites anyway - you have to "select your location" when you go to the site. For example, UPS.com, Epson.com
Even if the world is ever free of nations and we just have one big world government, there will still be local governments to manage local details. Like how the US has states, which have counties and cities, and the EU has member nations with their own local divisions. It's more useful to have such a large area as a planet divided up into small subdivisons for commercial purposes, especially for commercial activities that require real-world interactions (manufacturing, shipping, etc.)
Maybe your favorite porn site doesn't need a physical location tied to it because it's all digital, but would it really be such a big deal? Would it be so hard to have to type in mypr0n.com.cx instead of mypr0n.com?
And now we have a trumpet playing robot...
Oh, I see, I get it - here's the secret evil Japanese plan to take over the world - they're going to create a robotic marching band!
I wouldn't want regulation, but I'd say some media monopoly-busting is in order.