Even if I decide to buy a legacy audio CD, it is often copy-protected and won't load in my PC
Just record the CD from a player through your sound card and then compress to mp3.
In most cases the listener will not be aware that the track wasn't ripped digitally from a CD. Its not like there are artifacts in the recorded sound like there were in the viynl days.
In fact with a good turntable most people can't tell the difference between a ripped cd and a recorded lp.
But in your case, yeah just record the cd and compress.
Would not the coin bounce and therefore the tail side down effect come into play.. I read recently where a ref said that he would only let the coin fall to the ground on artificial turf because on real grass the coin was often just lost or held upright or at least not flat in the grass. But presumably on artificial turf the coin would tend to bounce more and therefore fall with the heavier side down.
As well, is the coin used in tosses heavier on the tail side in all countries.
In any case the report seems to be arguing that the coin toss is not random if the full range of forces is likely to be applied to the toss. Is it correct practically that if it is assumed that sufficient force is applied to spin the coin at least once then the result is unbiased.
Unless this is an attempt by a right wing organization to discredit Kerry, why waste your time? Especially when you are lying?
Who the heck else would have done it. Seriously, who else did you have in mind.
1) Who would be stupid enough to obtain a copyrighted image in a forgery attempt?
There are two equally plausible answers to that question.
1. The Rights attitude is 'If you tell a lie often enough with enough conviction, people will believe it'. In the end the masses find it difficult to believe that their leaders would blatently lie to them.
2. Have you ever read www.townhall.com forums. And it's one of the saner ones. Some of those people with a copy of photoshop would knock these things out every day if they could.
Good thing as well the FCC isn't looking to move into the aeroplane regulating business. There'd be no 'thrust' coming out of any power plant, no blatant references to nipple erectors in maintenance manuals or XXX fuel for jets. And prayers would be compulsory before takeoff and prior to landing (though that wouldn't mean much of a change for a lot of passengers)
as easily reference the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades (which Arabs still remember), or supposedly Christian missionaries who compelled indigenous people to convert or die.
If I was a 16th century spanish jew, a 12th century palestinian or an Inca I would cite them. I am however a 21st century western white christian and its not the spanish inquisition, the crusaders or the conquistadores I have to worry about. Its a few extremist islamists.
People listen to Islamic fundementalist who want to wipe out Infidels when they can point to the large body of evidence that suggests Jews and Christians are trying to wipe out or at least humiliate and subjugate Arabs and when the local governments are happy to encourage that belief because it takes peoples minds off the shitty existance they have imposed on them to support the elites lifestyles and idology.
Just as the Catholic church seems to have been destroyed from within by pedophiles
Badly damaged I agree but destroyed from within is probably incorrect. I think there will be catholics around for a while yet.
Internet Explorer, Outlook, MSN Messenger, MS Anti-virus, MS Media Player, and MSN
All of them except anti-virus (maybe) were released to compete with products that were given away or available for free or extremely cheap elsewhere. Why should MS have to charge for them. They never suggested that they were a profit making product in the first place.
If they have to charge for them then so should AIM, Mozilla, Winamp, Trillian, Jabber,
AFAIK you pay for Outlook. Outlook Express is free. And I suspect you will get a copy of Windows with none of the above on it. At best you will get icons to select which apps you want to install as defaults.
I agree that the incorporation of that functionality into the os is not in itself a bad thing. But that doesn't mean that a version can't be shipped that doesn't have the outer layers that use the hooks or that the hooks can't be designed for use by any codec.
I suspect rivals would be happier if they had a real opportunity to compete with MS on the player/codec side where they didn't have to convince users to get rid of WMP first whether it be getting rid of the whole thing or just the interface. It's like someone else said though, every time you change something on XP you seem to get Outlook Express, Messenger, and WMP back in the menus and desktop and reclaiming the default app position.
With $30billion? in cash in the bank XBox is probably being supported by the profits from Windows 3 or NT. And any losses are being borne by shareholders by the reduction in cash reserves.
You pay $95 for a copy of XP because most people wouldn't pay any more, not because of any losses MS makes on other parts of its operations.
Luckily for MS, $95 is enough to make huge profits overall and continue on its way to world domination without interference from meddleing national governments. Muuhahahaha!! etc.
-Convert to Islam. There appears to be a small but vocal strain of Islam that doesn't accept the continued existance of non islam people. They may be satisfied in the short term with ridding their traditional lands of non islam which is what your points would achieve but not forever.
Not that I have any better ideas but I'm not sure I've seen any yet that I thought had a chance of solving the problem.
Maybe he's thinking of something like the INS detentions referred to in pages likes these from a google on ins+secret+detentions. Maybe not under the Patriot Act but hey what the heck, a secret detention is a secret detention.
Of course he can never win because if it's secret he can't list them and if he can list them it's not secret.
Yeah. Australia. In my state there are two 911 call centres to cover a geographic region of about 1/6th of the continental USA. They get all of the 911 calls and relay them by the magic of computer and radio to each services required. I don't think they even talk, just press send.
But the local cops don't get bitchy if you ring to report non urgent stuff. Thew 911 operators do. Last year 65% of calls to the 911 service were not calls for emergencies. They were either pranks, mistakes or non urgent. So there is incentive to cut down on these calls and it is a huge waste of time for the operators.
Great slogan/idea comrade. But the masses may not understand your suggestion that it is better to die than to carry the cost of the 911 service on their phone bill.
Unfortunately also you imply that freedom and life are to some degree incompatible. But many people find that they can have significant amounts of both without worrying that they don't have all of either. It's called balance. In fact if you try too hard to get one you will end up with not much of either.
A company does something to make it's customers happy, and you want government gangsters to split them up because they put someone else out of business?
No, because there is no longer any competitive pressure on the monopolist. What does it matter how a company becomes a monopoly; whether it becomes one because it's the best or because it lied and cheated its way to the top. No moral judgement should be made in determining that a monopoly exists.
But if my memory serves me well, monopolies are considered economically inefficient. Why then cannot a government interfere to assuage the worst impacts of a monopoly in the interests of the public.
I have never met a capitalist who wanted to be in competition with anyone. The idea is to achieve a monopoly. The resultant competition is good for consumers. If someone achieves their aim of no competition why do they assume the same rules will continue to apply.
And that guy who invented that polio vaccine, worst of the lot.
I presume you have never used an anti-virus product. I have and I'm happy to pay to clean up the mess that other clueless idiots create with virii and worms etc.
And now with one only analysis done on a virus and no competition to get the fix out how long do you think you will be safe.
Do you have any idea how thing work. 911 is the 'emergency' number. If you ring it to make an appointment with Officer Jones next Monday they will get really shitty with you.
On the other hand if you ring the local station to report a crime in progress they will give you the 911 number to ring and they will also be really shitty with you.
If consumers want it, they can pay for it- if not, they shouldn't have to
That is the dumbest use I have heard of the 'If I don't want it, I shouldn't have to pay for it' libertarian mantra. It's not for the benefit of you, you git. It's so the emergency services can respond more efficiently. If I see you have an accident am I supposed to ask you if you pay for 911 service before I contact the paramedics or fire and rescue.
How come its ok for IT to lead to massive job losses among police and support staff as they find cheaper and more efficient ways to use records but its a big No No when IT companies do the same to program production by having work down overseas.
Or is it like OK for them, they're only clerical. They can get a McJob or retrain or something.
They use dexamphetamines. As a long term user (under prescription) I got to say that you would have to use a lot in a very short time to have any effect on your cognitive functions that might cause you to bomb your allies. All they would do is keep you mildly alert for a few hours. I can see that a couple for the last 4 hours of an 8 hour mission would be useful.
You wouldn't want them to keep you awake for 48 hours so you could do 4 8 hour sorties cause it wouldn't be the dex making you bomb your buddies, it'd be the lack of sleep.
IMHO, the test isn't its functionality. The test is whether it achieves widespread adoption among its intended audience
Different definitions; same results. I agree.
A severe limitation is pairing Internet service with cable or phone service I wasn't supporting forced bundling of services through a single pipe, only the rollout of the pipe. We were in disagreement I thought about who 'should' pay for and whether the cost should be accepted as a background cost.
I agree if you don't want a particular service you should not be forced to pay extra for it. Of course in many cases the marginal cost of the additional service is minor and taking it away doesn't necessarily make a huge difference to the price you will pay.
. Likewise, more and more people are abandoning landlines in favor of mobile phones. Where does that leave DSL?
Interesting point. I assume wireless broadband and wireless voice will converge as more and more of the voice traffic becomes VOIP (as I keep hearing it to be inside the Telcos networks) and we can then have this discussion about bundling phone and internet in a mobile package. Especially if mobile phones become more PC like.
It's funny that you'd compare the telephone to an unproven technology
It's not unproven. It works. I agree that at present it's long term position is uncertain. But the telephone was in the same position early on.
It was seen as a useful tool to run a line from upstairs to downstairs so as to be able to summon the servants more easily. It was not seen by many as a mass communications tool; I mean the expense was enormous initially. Little about telephones turned out the way the inventor or early users would have thought.
The same with broadband.
I'm a bit of a believer in the 'if you build it they will come and if they don't the grass will grow back soon enough' school of advancement. This is not the same as the 'killer app is coming someday' school.
As for not wanting to pay for it well its probably an unavoidable cost of living in the modern world. If we fight vigorously against every unwanted impost we get mighty tired mighty fast. But I hope you not going to tell me that suddenly we are all slaves and have to give up our guns and accept barcodes and 24hr surveillence.
The GPL is not about freedom, it's about control. Its purpose is to prevent people from doing certain things with the code by controlling what they are and aren't allowed to do
The GPL's only 'restriction' is that end users of anything you distribute that is derived from the GPL'd product be in no worse position than you were ie. they have access to the source code so they can do the same thing you did. It limits the control you can have over the result. It makes you make the product free. In one sense that's restrictive I suppose but you are free not to use it.
You only think it's free because that's what you've been told.
You may think it's not free because of what you discern. But you are not inclined to allow us the same freedom to discern that there is a freedom there that we might be prepared to accept. Rather we have been 'told' it is free and presumably blindly accepted that when it plainly isn't.
But I'm glad that isn't *my* definition of freedom
I'm sure if you told us exactly what your definition is someone could work out in short order what particular school of economics, philosophy, or politics 'told' you what to think.
That's what your grandma said about the telephone. Who needs a phone when everyone you will ever want to talk to lives between here and the corner store.
Slashdot Mirror
Just record the CD from a player through your sound card and then compress to mp3.
In most cases the listener will not be aware that the track wasn't ripped digitally from a CD. Its not like there are artifacts in the recorded sound like there were in the viynl days.
In fact with a good turntable most people can't tell the difference between a ripped cd and a recorded lp.
But in your case, yeah just record the cd and compress.
As well, is the coin used in tosses heavier on the tail side in all countries.
In any case the report seems to be arguing that the coin toss is not random if the full range of forces is likely to be applied to the toss. Is it correct practically that if it is assumed that sufficient force is applied to spin the coin at least once then the result is unbiased.
If I was John Kerry and that was your defense I would be soooo looking forward to the court case.
Who the heck else would have done it. Seriously, who else did you have in mind.
1) Who would be stupid enough to obtain a copyrighted image in a forgery attempt?
There are two equally plausible answers to that question.
1. The Rights attitude is 'If you tell a lie often enough with enough conviction, people will believe it'. In the end the masses find it difficult to believe that their leaders would blatently lie to them.
2. Have you ever read www.townhall.com forums. And it's one of the saner ones. Some of those people with a copy of photoshop would knock these things out every day if they could.
Good thing as well the FCC isn't looking to move into the aeroplane regulating business. There'd be no 'thrust' coming out of any power plant, no blatant references to nipple erectors in maintenance manuals or XXX fuel for jets. And prayers would be compulsory before takeoff and prior to landing (though that wouldn't mean much of a change for a lot of passengers)
If I was a 16th century spanish jew, a 12th century palestinian or an Inca I would cite them. I am however a 21st century western white christian and its not the spanish inquisition, the crusaders or the conquistadores I have to worry about. Its a few extremist islamists.
People listen to Islamic fundementalist who want to wipe out Infidels when they can point to the large body of evidence that suggests Jews and Christians are trying to wipe out or at least humiliate and subjugate Arabs and when the local governments are happy to encourage that belief because it takes peoples minds off the shitty existance they have imposed on them to support the elites lifestyles and idology.
Just as the Catholic church seems to have been destroyed from within by pedophiles
Badly damaged I agree but destroyed from within is probably incorrect. I think there will be catholics around for a while yet.
All of them except anti-virus (maybe) were released to compete with products that were given away or available for free or extremely cheap elsewhere. Why should MS have to charge for them. They never suggested that they were a profit making product in the first place.
If they have to charge for them then so should AIM, Mozilla, Winamp, Trillian, Jabber,
AFAIK you pay for Outlook. Outlook Express is free. And I suspect you will get a copy of Windows with none of the above on it. At best you will get icons to select which apps you want to install as defaults.
I suspect rivals would be happier if they had a real opportunity to compete with MS on the player/codec side where they didn't have to convince users to get rid of WMP first whether it be getting rid of the whole thing or just the interface. It's like someone else said though, every time you change something on XP you seem to get Outlook Express, Messenger, and WMP back in the menus and desktop and reclaiming the default app position.
You pay $95 for a copy of XP because most people wouldn't pay any more, not because of any losses MS makes on other parts of its operations.
Luckily for MS, $95 is enough to make huge profits overall and continue on its way to world domination without interference from meddleing national governments. Muuhahahaha!! etc.
-Convert to Islam. There appears to be a small but vocal strain of Islam that doesn't accept the continued existance of non islam people. They may be satisfied in the short term with ridding their traditional lands of non islam which is what your points would achieve but not forever.
Not that I have any better ideas but I'm not sure I've seen any yet that I thought had a chance of solving the problem.
Of course he can never win because if it's secret he can't list them and if he can list them it's not secret.
But the local cops don't get bitchy if you ring to report non urgent stuff. Thew 911 operators do. Last year 65% of calls to the 911 service were not calls for emergencies. They were either pranks, mistakes or non urgent. So there is incentive to cut down on these calls and it is a huge waste of time for the operators.
Great slogan/idea comrade. But the masses may not understand your suggestion that it is better to die than to carry the cost of the 911 service on their phone bill.
Unfortunately also you imply that freedom and life are to some degree incompatible. But many people find that they can have significant amounts of both without worrying that they don't have all of either. It's called balance. In fact if you try too hard to get one you will end up with not much of either.
No, because there is no longer any competitive pressure on the monopolist. What does it matter how a company becomes a monopoly; whether it becomes one because it's the best or because it lied and cheated its way to the top. No moral judgement should be made in determining that a monopoly exists.
But if my memory serves me well, monopolies are considered economically inefficient. Why then cannot a government interfere to assuage the worst impacts of a monopoly in the interests of the public.
I have never met a capitalist who wanted to be in competition with anyone. The idea is to achieve a monopoly. The resultant competition is good for consumers. If someone achieves their aim of no competition why do they assume the same rules will continue to apply.
And that guy who invented that polio vaccine, worst of the lot.
I presume you have never used an anti-virus product. I have and I'm happy to pay to clean up the mess that other clueless idiots create with virii and worms etc.
And now with one only analysis done on a virus and no competition to get the fix out how long do you think you will be safe.
On the other hand if you ring the local station to report a crime in progress they will give you the 911 number to ring and they will also be really shitty with you.
If consumers want it, they can pay for it- if not, they shouldn't have to
That is the dumbest use I have heard of the 'If I don't want it, I shouldn't have to pay for it' libertarian mantra. It's not for the benefit of you, you git. It's so the emergency services can respond more efficiently. If I see you have an accident am I supposed to ask you if you pay for 911 service before I contact the paramedics or fire and rescue.
Or is it like OK for them, they're only clerical. They can get a McJob or retrain or something.
You wouldn't want them to keep you awake for 48 hours so you could do 4 8 hour sorties cause it wouldn't be the dex making you bomb your buddies, it'd be the lack of sleep.
There was this big bald black guy in a leopard skin loincloth hangin' round for a while but I think he was a friend of my wife.
Does this mean I can't buy Mandrake root at the herbal health shop anymore.
Different definitions; same results. I agree.
A severe limitation is pairing Internet service with cable or phone service I wasn't supporting forced bundling of services through a single pipe, only the rollout of the pipe. We were in disagreement I thought about who 'should' pay for and whether the cost should be accepted as a background cost.
I agree if you don't want a particular service you should not be forced to pay extra for it. Of course in many cases the marginal cost of the additional service is minor and taking it away doesn't necessarily make a huge difference to the price you will pay.
. Likewise, more and more people are abandoning landlines in favor of mobile phones. Where does that leave DSL?
Interesting point. I assume wireless broadband and wireless voice will converge as more and more of the voice traffic becomes VOIP (as I keep hearing it to be inside the Telcos networks) and we can then have this discussion about bundling phone and internet in a mobile package. Especially if mobile phones become more PC like.
Thank you.
It's not unproven. It works. I agree that at present it's long term position is uncertain. But the telephone was in the same position early on.
It was seen as a useful tool to run a line from upstairs to downstairs so as to be able to summon the servants more easily. It was not seen by many as a mass communications tool; I mean the expense was enormous initially. Little about telephones turned out the way the inventor or early users would have thought.
The same with broadband.
I'm a bit of a believer in the 'if you build it they will come and if they don't the grass will grow back soon enough' school of advancement. This is not the same as the 'killer app is coming someday' school.
As for not wanting to pay for it well its probably an unavoidable cost of living in the modern world. If we fight vigorously against every unwanted impost we get mighty tired mighty fast. But I hope you not going to tell me that suddenly we are all slaves and have to give up our guns and accept barcodes and 24hr surveillence.
The GPL's only 'restriction' is that end users of anything you distribute that is derived from the GPL'd product be in no worse position than you were ie. they have access to the source code so they can do the same thing you did. It limits the control you can have over the result. It makes you make the product free. In one sense that's restrictive I suppose but you are free not to use it.
You only think it's free because that's what you've been told.
You may think it's not free because of what you discern. But you are not inclined to allow us the same freedom to discern that there is a freedom there that we might be prepared to accept. Rather we have been 'told' it is free and presumably blindly accepted that when it plainly isn't.
But I'm glad that isn't *my* definition of freedom
I'm sure if you told us exactly what your definition is someone could work out in short order what particular school of economics, philosophy, or politics 'told' you what to think.
Yeah, you tend not to move much in that condition.
Smoke if you like.
That's what your grandma said about the telephone. Who needs a phone when everyone you will ever want to talk to lives between here and the corner store.