I hate having to step in and defend someone who is an idiot, but I'll do it anyway:
1. 3MB per MP3? Hardly. I have 40GB of MP3s and they average closer to 7MB each. That cuts your estimate by more than half.
2. Nobody said $1/mp3, either. They may be ripped from CDs bought over a life time, and they may be ripped at a higher quality than mine (I'd place the average quality of my MP3s between 128 and 192, so 320 would definitely make a difference).
3. Nobody said each MP3 is music. There's always the possibility of some other sort of audio recording.
I can fire up Synaptic in Ubuntu Linux and find nearly everything I want for free. That's pretty powerful.
When Windows Crashes it is normally when Linux crashes, when there is a hardware failure, or a bad driver. To be honest I have seen Linux Crashed more then I have seen XP or Vista Crash... And I have used XP and Vista more the Linux...
The latter part of this is anecdotal evidence. I've used Linux nearly exclusively for two years now, and I've had more Windows crashes than Linux; the only time Linux has crashed on me in two years was once because of an nVidia driver. I've spent maybe 40 hours in Windows and still had spyware somehow get on the computer.
Linux is not simple it is a complex OS
Perhaps it used to be, but it's getting a lot less complex. Most of the complexity of Linux comes in the install.
inexpensive:
Your argument here is kind of flaky. Most people aren't going to need too much training to click on a different looking icon for e-mail or word processing, and anyone doing too much more complicated than that with a computer is hopefully computer savvy enough to figure out the difference between a / and a \.;) Also, the hardware support in Linux is rapidly improving, and let's be honest, Vista came out the gates with some pretty bad hardware issues.
open: I would agree but... Not when you have a problem.
I have never come across this apparent problem many have with Linux users offering them help. The biggest problem I've had is with some stupidities at the software developer level (yes, I'm still pissed off about Gnome Screensaver and the attitude of the developer there. You don't TAKE AWAY options and then say "well if you want them back, code it!" Bite me, I'll just install the screensaver that actually works.)
It's also easier to get Windows support since there tend to be FAR MORE people having to deal with Windows and its problems. The Linux user base is much smaller; there is a higher probability of having a problem no one has had before.
Society as a whole does not benefit in any way from the RIAA labels. Society could run along just fine without them. This is for the benefit of private corporations, not the benefit of society as a whole. The money will go to relatively few already-rich people, after being taken from very many people of varying income levels. These corporations are not, in fact, running in any sort of deficit of funds. They're currently profitable. This is simply an attempt to gain more profit on the backs of internet users.
Music artists aren't the only people who have their copyrights infringed on through internet piracy. There are authors, movie studios, game developers, software developers. Would you propose they be allowed to assess fees as well?
Basically, what this tax does is subsidize the music pirates at the cost of everyone else, and funnel money into some wealthy corporations. So the few gain on the backs of the many.
I don't pirate music. In fact, I pay for music downloads.
Who else gets subsidized later? The MPAA? Movies cost more than music to make. Are they getting a $10 fee? What about authors? A very good PDF is about the same size as an MP3, and OCR is getting pretty good. They get $5 too? I'm sure video games are pirated. That's another $5. Who am I missing? Software companies... hey, Free Software, too! Let's double US Broadband prices in case users infringe on someone's copyrights!
The difference is, land is the only thing they're not making more of. Property tax is partly an incentive for people to *use* property and not sit on it.
IP is much the same as other properties -- such as your computer, your books, your chair. Most places in the US don't tax these (I was shocked to find out some places actually tax you on the value of your property -- so in addition to income and sales tax, you have a "keep it" tax.)
One college I went to would be lucky to have 75% uptime for their e-mail. I swear, I think the e-mail server was ran by some sort of monkey with access to amphetamines and a wide variety of screwdrivers. Literally any time it wasn't being babysat -- any long weekend -- it was down from a few hours after everyone left until the second day back. So if we had two days off, it would go down sometime Friday night and not be back up until Thursday. Most times, it wasn't entirely "down." It was just playing multiple personalities -- sometimes it would hold on to but not send messages, sometimes it would just crap out if you tried to send, and sometimes it would pretend it worked and the messages would go nowhere. Othertimes, the damn thing wouldn't even respond at all. This wasn't a student excuse, either, because the faculty had their own problems with it.
Personally, I'm not sure the tech people weren't fucking with us all for giggles.
The last time I lost internet, I also lost cable television and landline phone service. Because a tug boat snagged an underwater cable near my house (not some huge expensive one like the ones under the ocean, I just live on what is basically a large inland island of sorts; we're cut off by water on three sides and there's nothing worth connecting to on the fourth side). The last time I lost power? A few days ago, and I don't even know why. It was brief -- two or three seconds. Just long enough that I had to reset the microwave clock.
The last time I lost power/tv/internet for any length of time was during a rather nasty storm. You might've heard of it -- Hurricane Katrina. Other than one incident with my shitty cable tv company (the reason I have DSL now...), I've had really great uptime. My cellphone has iffy service at my house, but it's 100% anywhere else I go. AT&T even installed some sort of antenna in a nearby underwater tunnel. I've never had an e-mail not reach someone outside of college e-mail servers.
I'm inclined to believe it's more of a regional issue than any global "omg services suck" situation. For example, my shitty cable company is apparently not shitty the next district over from me.
Actually, those idiots who respond to the "I am...... give me your bank details" already pay quite the Idiot Tax.
Also, it'd be a lot less hassle and there'd be a lot less complaining if we just seized the assets of spammers and spam companies. The stuff they sell has to come from somewhere -- find out where and put the squeeze on them.
I mostly agree with you, and your replies to MacDork, however:
Both the spammer and anyone who buys crap from them needs to be punished.
Not so much agreement here. For a few reasons, but mainly: Anyone buying from spammers is probably not all that aware of the problems. Educated, maybe, but not punished. They're not committing any sort of crime (stupid is legal, at least in the US) unless the product is illegal for them to own.
Also, being stupid enough to finance spammers is probably a punishment in and of itself. I mean, they need viagra and penis enlargement pills: life sucks for the customers of spammers. ("I can't get it up... and even if I could, you couldn't see it!")
I never said anything about free speech zones. I said there is no right to be heard. Reading comprehension: Try it!
Are you saying that I am constitutionally required to listen to anyone who wants to exercise their free speech?
Excuse me, but just what kind of a fucking nut are you?
How about a test to see which one of us is right? I'm going to "foe" you so it puts your posts at -1 and ignore all your future posts. Let's see if you can get any sort of injunction requiring me to read your drivel. It'll be fun, trust me!
See, it's great if I'm right and you don't have a right to be heard: You can post all you want -- unless slashdot bans you from their property, which is sort of the point of those of us saying spam isn't free speech -- and I don't have to put up with you! If only I could "foe" spam easily and not have to worry about e-mail I want getting caught in the crossfire.
No, you want to classify spam as free speech, and you argue (immaturely, replete with insults, because you can't argue without stooping), with anyone who says it isn't free speech.
There is no right to be heard. None. I don't want spam, and I consider it an invasion of my space. Because it's coming into MY e-mail without my permission. And attempting to tell them so will just result in a mountain more spam because now they know it's a live person.
You have no right to force me to deal with your free speech.
Spamming with your FUD eh Khaed? Perhaps you should go to jail?
Wow, are you that stupid? This is a discussion, and I'm not advertising "v1agr4." What crawled up your ass that me complaining about spam invoked such an angry response?
That's not what I was saying, and you know it. Spammers fake being from other domains using the forged headers, which is quite a different thing from lying.
A huge percentage huh? Gotta real number?
Sure do, Skipper: 90%, up from 80% in 2005. I'd say either number qualifies as "huge."
As for what the ISP or user wants, are you a mind reader? Speak for yourself. I'm perfectly capable of deciding what I do and do not want myself.
ISPs have went after spammers on many occasions, pursuing every legal option, and in some cases pushing for more. Do I need to cite all that? Also, the post I responded to is titled "nobody likes spam." Are you asking for a cite from parent, too? Seriously, do you need a scientific poll on what users feel about spam? Because we both know that it would be pretty lopsided against spam. Are you honestly arguing that ISPs and users like spam?
I didn't want to read your bullshit drivel, and it certainly took me far longer to respond to it than simply ignore it.
Well, when I send it to your personal or work e-mail, instead of posting it on a public discussion site, then you can complain.
just because you're acting like an annoying fucking prick.
Except spammers frequently forge headers, use zombie computers, and their unwanted e-mail makes up a huge percent of e-mail now -- and someone ELSE is paying for it. They're profiting on someone else, for something that neither the ISP nor the ISP users want.
Also, you have a right to free speech, but not harassment... and the amount of time spam wastes could be considered harassment. I don't WANT to receive your e-mail and you're still sending it to me? That's harassment, not speech. And it costs me money and time.
Gimp has a certain unflattering, unfavorable meaning to it.
Ubuntu is weird to say, but to compare, it's no weirder than Nintendo or Atari. We're just used to some words. Eventually, we'll be used to Ubuntu.
Now if I could just stop thinking "Hairy Hardon" whenever I think about "Hardy Heron"...
(I don't know who first posted that name for 8.04 on/. but thank you for forever breaking my mind when I think of the next release... 8.10 can't get here fast enough now.)
As a huge Linux fan and user, I have to agree. The GIMP is just... it's a bad name.
I can tell someone I use Firefox, Ubuntu, OpenOffice, Pidgin -- that, not so bad. I can say I use Gnome or KDE (depends on my mood), or I can tell them I use Pan. But I cannot look at another human being and tell them to use "The GIMP."
Is your reading comprehension that bad? Even if you read the summary, it's pretty clear that they're going to be working on making WINE run photoshop, not actually doing any work with photoshop code.
There's nothing wrong with what they're doing, because they're making one product (WINE) more compatible with another (Photoshop). It would be like Microsoft/Apple including a compatibility layer to help run legacy programs on a new version of Windows/OS X.
While I don't write music, I can answer this from a writer's perspective.
1) What incentive does a "lifetime of income" give to songwriters to write new songs? Will amateurs be the only ones writing songs until their next big hit single?
Most people who are really artists -- ie, we do it because we feel drawn to it, not for the money -- are going to keep doing it as long as they can afford to, because they enjoy doing it. I've written a rather long novel. I'm trying to get it into publishable shape. But I'm also writing another one. Why? I enjoy it, I love it. Until I get to a point where life (job + other responsibilities) denies me the opportunity/energy to write, I'm going to. If I got published and made Harry Potter money, I'd still keep writing (in fact, I'd only write for a living).
Now, I don't agree with this act in the slightest; personally I'd be fine with my works becoming public domain ten years from publication or so. Because I'm going to keep making new ones as long as I have the ability.
Slashdot Mirror
I hate having to step in and defend someone who is an idiot, but I'll do it anyway:
1. 3MB per MP3? Hardly. I have 40GB of MP3s and they average closer to 7MB each. That cuts your estimate by more than half.
2. Nobody said $1/mp3, either. They may be ripped from CDs bought over a life time, and they may be ripped at a higher quality than mine (I'd place the average quality of my MP3s between 128 and 192, so 320 would definitely make a difference).
3. Nobody said each MP3 is music. There's always the possibility of some other sort of audio recording.
How is Linux more powerful then Windows...
;) Also, the hardware support in Linux is rapidly improving, and let's be honest, Vista came out the gates with some pretty bad hardware issues.
I can fire up Synaptic in Ubuntu Linux and find nearly everything I want for free. That's pretty powerful.
When Windows Crashes it is normally when Linux crashes, when there is a hardware failure, or a bad driver. To be honest I have seen Linux Crashed more then I have seen XP or Vista Crash... And I have used XP and Vista more the Linux...
The latter part of this is anecdotal evidence. I've used Linux nearly exclusively for two years now, and I've had more Windows crashes than Linux; the only time Linux has crashed on me in two years was once because of an nVidia driver. I've spent maybe 40 hours in Windows and still had spyware somehow get on the computer.
Linux is not simple it is a complex OS
Perhaps it used to be, but it's getting a lot less complex. Most of the complexity of Linux comes in the install.
inexpensive:
Your argument here is kind of flaky. Most people aren't going to need too much training to click on a different looking icon for e-mail or word processing, and anyone doing too much more complicated than that with a computer is hopefully computer savvy enough to figure out the difference between a / and a \.
open: I would agree but... Not when you have a problem.
I have never come across this apparent problem many have with Linux users offering them help. The biggest problem I've had is with some stupidities at the software developer level (yes, I'm still pissed off about Gnome Screensaver and the attitude of the developer there. You don't TAKE AWAY options and then say "well if you want them back, code it!" Bite me, I'll just install the screensaver that actually works.)
It's also easier to get Windows support since there tend to be FAR MORE people having to deal with Windows and its problems. The Linux user base is much smaller; there is a higher probability of having a problem no one has had before.
Schools are not (yet) private corporations.
Society as a whole does not benefit in any way from the RIAA labels. Society could run along just fine without them. This is for the benefit of private corporations, not the benefit of society as a whole. The money will go to relatively few already-rich people, after being taken from very many people of varying income levels. These corporations are not, in fact, running in any sort of deficit of funds. They're currently profitable. This is simply an attempt to gain more profit on the backs of internet users.
Music artists aren't the only people who have their copyrights infringed on through internet piracy. There are authors, movie studios, game developers, software developers. Would you propose they be allowed to assess fees as well?
Basically, what this tax does is subsidize the music pirates at the cost of everyone else, and funnel money into some wealthy corporations. So the few gain on the backs of the many.
I don't pirate music. In fact, I pay for music downloads.
Who else gets subsidized later? The MPAA? Movies cost more than music to make. Are they getting a $10 fee? What about authors? A very good PDF is about the same size as an MP3, and OCR is getting pretty good. They get $5 too? I'm sure video games are pirated. That's another $5. Who am I missing? Software companies... hey, Free Software, too! Let's double US Broadband prices in case users infringe on someone's copyrights!
Wow, are you drunk or something? What kind of asshole are you?
The difference is, land is the only thing they're not making more of. Property tax is partly an incentive for people to *use* property and not sit on it.
IP is much the same as other properties -- such as your computer, your books, your chair. Most places in the US don't tax these (I was shocked to find out some places actually tax you on the value of your property -- so in addition to income and sales tax, you have a "keep it" tax.)
I would have loved a place like that as a kid. The anti-robot fluid made me laugh.
Whoever made all those -- those people are creative geniuses and deserve applause.
One college I went to would be lucky to have 75% uptime for their e-mail. I swear, I think the e-mail server was ran by some sort of monkey with access to amphetamines and a wide variety of screwdrivers. Literally any time it wasn't being babysat -- any long weekend -- it was down from a few hours after everyone left until the second day back. So if we had two days off, it would go down sometime Friday night and not be back up until Thursday. Most times, it wasn't entirely "down." It was just playing multiple personalities -- sometimes it would hold on to but not send messages, sometimes it would just crap out if you tried to send, and sometimes it would pretend it worked and the messages would go nowhere. Othertimes, the damn thing wouldn't even respond at all. This wasn't a student excuse, either, because the faculty had their own problems with it.
Personally, I'm not sure the tech people weren't fucking with us all for giggles.
Anecdotal agreement time!
The last time I lost internet, I also lost cable television and landline phone service. Because a tug boat snagged an underwater cable near my house (not some huge expensive one like the ones under the ocean, I just live on what is basically a large inland island of sorts; we're cut off by water on three sides and there's nothing worth connecting to on the fourth side). The last time I lost power? A few days ago, and I don't even know why. It was brief -- two or three seconds. Just long enough that I had to reset the microwave clock.
The last time I lost power/tv/internet for any length of time was during a rather nasty storm. You might've heard of it -- Hurricane Katrina. Other than one incident with my shitty cable tv company (the reason I have DSL now...), I've had really great uptime. My cellphone has iffy service at my house, but it's 100% anywhere else I go. AT&T even installed some sort of antenna in a nearby underwater tunnel. I've never had an e-mail not reach someone outside of college e-mail servers.
I'm inclined to believe it's more of a regional issue than any global "omg services suck" situation. For example, my shitty cable company is apparently not shitty the next district over from me.
Actually, those idiots who respond to the "I am... ... give me your bank details" already pay quite the Idiot Tax.
Also, it'd be a lot less hassle and there'd be a lot less complaining if we just seized the assets of spammers and spam companies. The stuff they sell has to come from somewhere -- find out where and put the squeeze on them.
I mostly agree with you, and your replies to MacDork, however:
Both the spammer and anyone who buys crap from them needs to be punished.
Not so much agreement here. For a few reasons, but mainly: Anyone buying from spammers is probably not all that aware of the problems. Educated, maybe, but not punished. They're not committing any sort of crime (stupid is legal, at least in the US) unless the product is illegal for them to own.
Also, being stupid enough to finance spammers is probably a punishment in and of itself. I mean, they need viagra and penis enlargement pills: life sucks for the customers of spammers. ("I can't get it up... and even if I could, you couldn't see it!")
argh, the bold is what I get for accidentally not hitting "preview."
Oh well, everybody, pretend I was just exercising my constitutionally protected right to be heard... in bold.
I never said anything about free speech zones. I said there is no right to be heard. Reading comprehension: Try it!
Are you saying that I am constitutionally required to listen to anyone who wants to exercise their free speech?
Excuse me, but just what kind of a fucking nut are you?
How about a test to see which one of us is right? I'm going to "foe" you so it puts your posts at -1 and ignore all your future posts. Let's see if you can get any sort of injunction requiring me to read your drivel. It'll be fun, trust me!
See, it's great if I'm right and you don't have a right to be heard: You can post all you want -- unless slashdot bans you from their property, which is sort of the point of those of us saying spam isn't free speech -- and I don't have to put up with you! If only I could "foe" spam easily and not have to worry about e-mail I want getting caught in the crossfire.
No, you want to classify spam as free speech, and you argue (immaturely, replete with insults, because you can't argue without stooping), with anyone who says it isn't free speech.
There is no right to be heard. None. I don't want spam, and I consider it an invasion of my space. Because it's coming into MY e-mail without my permission. And attempting to tell them so will just result in a mountain more spam because now they know it's a live person.
You have no right to force me to deal with your free speech.
Do the comments come directly to your inbox?
Thank you for the most horrific mental image I've ever had on slashdot...
Also, you want to talk about spamming? Compare how many times I've posted to this thread (this is three) to how many times you have (more than ten).
Someone certainly has a vested, emotional interest in the legality of junk e-mail...
Spamming with your FUD eh Khaed? Perhaps you should go to jail?
Wow, are you that stupid? This is a discussion, and I'm not advertising "v1agr4." What crawled up your ass that me complaining about spam invoked such an angry response?
Forged headers: free speech doesn't protect lying.
That's not what I was saying, and you know it. Spammers fake being from other domains using the forged headers, which is quite a different thing from lying.
A huge percentage huh? Gotta real number?
Sure do, Skipper: 90%, up from 80% in 2005. I'd say either number qualifies as "huge."
As for what the ISP or user wants, are you a mind reader? Speak for yourself. I'm perfectly capable of deciding what I do and do not want myself.
ISPs have went after spammers on many occasions, pursuing every legal option, and in some cases pushing for more. Do I need to cite all that? Also, the post I responded to is titled "nobody likes spam." Are you asking for a cite from parent, too? Seriously, do you need a scientific poll on what users feel about spam? Because we both know that it would be pretty lopsided against spam. Are you honestly arguing that ISPs and users like spam?
I didn't want to read your bullshit drivel, and it certainly took me far longer to respond to it than simply ignore it.
Well, when I send it to your personal or work e-mail, instead of posting it on a public discussion site, then you can complain.
just because you're acting like an annoying fucking prick.
Well hello there Pot...
Except spammers frequently forge headers, use zombie computers, and their unwanted e-mail makes up a huge percent of e-mail now -- and someone ELSE is paying for it. They're profiting on someone else, for something that neither the ISP nor the ISP users want.
Also, you have a right to free speech, but not harassment... and the amount of time spam wastes could be considered harassment. I don't WANT to receive your e-mail and you're still sending it to me? That's harassment, not speech. And it costs me money and time.
Is it just me, or did anyone else laugh that two one-word posts got moderated up pretty high back to back like that?
Seriously though, thanks for what you do.
er, what exactly is fiscally conservative about higher taxes (regardless of who is paying them) and more government spending?
I agree that Republicans tend to be fiscally liberal now, but the Democrats sure as hell aren't fiscally conservative.
Gimp has a certain unflattering, unfavorable meaning to it.
...
/. but thank you for forever breaking my mind when I think of the next release... 8.10 can't get here fast enough now.)
Ubuntu is weird to say, but to compare, it's no weirder than Nintendo or Atari. We're just used to some words. Eventually, we'll be used to Ubuntu.
Now if I could just stop thinking "Hairy Hardon" whenever I think about "Hardy Heron"
(I don't know who first posted that name for 8.04 on
As a huge Linux fan and user, I have to agree. The GIMP is just... it's a bad name.
I can tell someone I use Firefox, Ubuntu, OpenOffice, Pidgin -- that, not so bad. I can say I use Gnome or KDE (depends on my mood), or I can tell them I use Pan. But I cannot look at another human being and tell them to use "The GIMP."
Is your reading comprehension that bad? Even if you read the summary, it's pretty clear that they're going to be working on making WINE run photoshop, not actually doing any work with photoshop code.
There's nothing wrong with what they're doing, because they're making one product (WINE) more compatible with another (Photoshop). It would be like Microsoft/Apple including a compatibility layer to help run legacy programs on a new version of Windows/OS X.
While I don't write music, I can answer this from a writer's perspective.
1) What incentive does a "lifetime of income" give to songwriters to write new songs? Will amateurs be the only ones writing songs until their next big hit single?
Most people who are really artists -- ie, we do it because we feel drawn to it, not for the money -- are going to keep doing it as long as they can afford to, because they enjoy doing it. I've written a rather long novel. I'm trying to get it into publishable shape. But I'm also writing another one. Why? I enjoy it, I love it. Until I get to a point where life (job + other responsibilities) denies me the opportunity/energy to write, I'm going to. If I got published and made Harry Potter money, I'd still keep writing (in fact, I'd only write for a living).
Now, I don't agree with this act in the slightest; personally I'd be fine with my works becoming public domain ten years from publication or so. Because I'm going to keep making new ones as long as I have the ability.
Especially TNG.
I liked TNG and all, but a lot of episodes felt like:
Beginning: X is impossible.
Filler
End: The crew does X anyway.