There's a difference between you (the programmer) using DirectDraw and the JVM using DirectDraw to realize some of your instructions. I don't know if the former is possible, and I doubt the latter is anywhere near as efficient. Although it's still a good thing, of course.
On a sidenote, it would seem that OpenGL is extremely well suited as a 3D API for J2SE, doesn't it? Unlike DirectDraw, it's platform independent and a fairly open standard, and it should be available on most of the target systems for the standard edition of Java, and perhabs be emulated on those who haven't got a native OpenGL interface. I'm sure I'm not the first one to think this, so either there are a lot of reasons why this is not a good idea, or it's already being done, or both.:)
Heh. I didn't even know there were scheduled power outages, especially not ones taking so long - I'd have figured they'd either have redundant systems or put up a backup of sorts while the maintenance takes place. But then I only just experienced a real power outage for the first time, for an hour or so - I left the house and it was back up by the time I was home, when construction workers nearby dug into the power cable supplying most of the street. (Oops!)
Well, strictly I wouldn't be amazed by it because I'm well aware of it. But I still think it's amazing, yeah (as in great - different meanings of words again, I love this stuff).
However, I think the vast majority of P2P traffic is made up by copyrighted material, and not by free material. Of course, I can't back it up by numbers and I'm not sure if any research has been done on the subject. As fas as anecdotal evidence goes, while bt.etree.org sports some nice numbers, they seem fairly miniscule compared to the numbers the sites for copyrighted materials sport. I just checked, as I'm writing this, 3.2 million people are using the SuprNova trackers which are used mainly (though not exclusively I hasten to add) for illegal traffic. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any statistics on etree.
Nevertheless, there's no doubt that the legal usage of P2P filesharing is increasing at a good speed. Amazingly this has only really happened with BitTorrent. It's not like there was no filesharing before BT, but it's only with BT that legal usage has really taken off. I guess this has to do with the fact that the original BT is a really lightweight application well suited for single downloads, and that, unlike with ED2k and others, there is a clearly defined direct communication partner, ie. the tracker and not a vague network. With legal sources, the tracker is often (but not always, as in the etree community) hosted by the same person who initially started distributing the file. Torrents for game demos and patches come to mind. This is never ever done with illegal filesharing because the seperation of the tracker and the seeds (who, arguably, are the only ones commiting a copyright violation) helps keeping the tracker legal and the admin of the tracker online.
Oh well, this was a bit long. Only the first paragraph was truly a reply, the rest is added thoughts I got while writing.
Wow, you are so completely wrong that I'm amazed you can feed yourself. Well, maybe you don't...
You're off to a great start into an argumentative comment there. I really don't understand why you feel you need to be so rude.
It has been used BY YOU to mean that.
No. Neither I, nor you, nor any single other person really has any saying on what a word means. They typically have more than one meaning, which I explicitly said. Nevertheless, often there is one predominant interpretation people have when hearing a word, and I argued, and still firmly believe, that when people hear filesharing, they typically associate the sharing of copyrighted materials, because that's the kind of filesharing that made the news recently and generally brought up the P2P hype. Now, what I or you personally associate with the word is, frankly, irrelevant, but for what it's worth, I actually would agree with you. And I guess mostly everyone on Slashdot would agree that the term filesharing also applies to sharing free material - that does not change the fact that most people in general, and probably most people on Slashdot first think of copyrighted materials when they hear the word out of context. Which is why it's really a good idea to qualify the term when you use it to describe the sharing of free material, simply to prevent misunderstandings from happening.
Note that generally, dictionaries serve as a tool to determine the various meanings of words. If a word has more than one common meaning, so does the dictionary entry for the word, sorted according to the regularity of the meanings usage. A good example, sometimes brought up (by me and others) here on Slashdot is democracy - according to some (fairly formal) meanings of the word, the USA are not a democracy, but according to the popular meaning, it is, which correctly reflects the majority notion which of course you'd get if you asked people on the street. Of course, this is difficult and sometimes controversial for well-established words, and extremely hard for words such as file sharing, which haven't even made it yet into most dictionaries. Also, connotations like the one in questions probably wouldn't make it into a dictionary anyway (which would be an argument for your case - I still think the connotation is there, without a doubt).
Again, just because YOU view the world so narrowly, don't assume everyone else does as well.
I wasn't even talking about me in the previous post, when I said nobody and anybody and such, it typically was just shorthand for "nearly nobody", which I leave out because in such regards I just take that for granted. Of course there are people who care about sharing free files, that's really extremely obvious since that's what this Slashdot story is about. And I certainly care about it, just like assumedly most people on Slashdot do to some degree. But the majority of Internet users, I think, does not, just like the majority in general.
Which goes contrary to your previous statement that "filesharing" means only "distributing copyrighted material illegally."
Exactly, except I never made such a statement. I think that's the predominant meaning. There is no word with strictly only one meaning.
Could you possibly explain what is different between sharing files and filesharing?
Simple. For the past years since Napster, filesharing has been used in a sense that refers to sharing copyrighted files without having the copyright holder's permission. When people talked about filesharing, they talked about Napster, Kazaa et al., simply because nobody gives (or gave) a damn about legal filesharing, the RIAA doesn't because it doesn't really concern them yet and the consumers don't because the music doesn't really concern them yet. So now when you refer to filesharing, people tend to think filesharing of copyrighted materials.
No doubt this is just one meaning of the word and can change according to how important legal filesharing alternatives become.
I've spent the last ten years extensively using Windows and, lately, Linux machines, and I have never, not once, had a problem with this in either operating system. And I install and remove software all the time on both platforms. Of course, with Linux it helps to use Gentoo and Debian, which are basically the only distributions I've used. And with Windows, I don't know, the problem never came up. In both cases I'm not even really aware of the underlying dependencies, things just work.
That's kind of interesting. I don't know how applicable it is though, especially if you try to communicate your own conclusions based on this to others. Which is kind of an important point when it comes to moral systems.
First off, are you basing this on actual consequences or intended consequences? I might have the best intentions and inadvertently hurt someone. Does that make me a bad person? And vice versa, someone engaged in what would typically be called a bad thing could in that process help someone else without actually intending it - does that make the action a good deed despite it's different motive? This is the motive of the classic tragedy. Sorry I can't come up with even a half-decent example, I tried and only came up with crap.:)
However, the thing I consider the most problematic is the definition of suffering and happiness. Both are really vague terms, and basically per definition subjective instead of objective. That leads to problems when trying to share a set of moral values with others, which is one of the reasons for moral philosophy to be discussed in the first place. For instance, (to draw upon another topic I'm discussing in a different thread) you might think that the suffering caused by stealing from someone is less than the happiness created by having stolen something for your family to eat. However, the person you stole from might disagree. And, using only your principle, you two won't really come to any common stance, you both are equally correct. For instance, non vegetarians tend to disregard the suffering they cause because it's not human suffering, so to them, according to your principle, eating meat is all right. If you do consider animal suffering as suffering in general, it's not so clear, of course, especially considering the difficulty of "measuring" any suffering and especially animal suffering. Nevertheless, not considering animal suffering as suffering in general is a fairly arbitrary choice. (Note that I eat meat myself, but I imagine that if humanity truly increases it's moral values eating meat will one day be considered extremely distasteful and barbaric, akin to, say, the way we look at witch burnings now.) Now if we accept that it's okay to arbitrarily ignore animal suffering, we must also accept it if other people arbitrarily ignore other suffering - say, based on race, religion and so on. To any sensible person, that seems horrible, but that's only true for todays culture and of course not all of todays cultures, either.
In a similar vein, a lot of smaller issues arise which kind of wreck havoc to the idea. I do still think it's a very nice way of looking at things and a good question to ask yourself.
Show me a real situation where it's absolultely necessary to speed to feed your family.
There probably is no such thing. I was aware that the example was constructed when I posted it, in fact that was part of the point. I critized the GP for constructing an example and created one that "proved" the opposite point.
While were at it though, people sure seem to speed a lot. Now, personally, I tend to think that there are a lot of worse things you can do - rape, murder, torture and a lot of other things. And that means to me it's more okay to speed than it is to commit a murder. I could also say it's even less okay to kill someone than it is to speed - that's the same thing with different words.
If we just replace the act of "stealing" with "murdering", then it would put things in clearer perspective.
It also totally changes the meaning. You can't just interchange the two to make a point. Obviously most people would answer your question with a no, but that really has no ramifications for the justification of stealing. BTW, this goes both ways, too: Is it okay to violate the speed limit to feed your starving family?
So maybe stealing to feed your family is not totally okay. I don't think anybody said it was, because the original point was that moral evaluation is not boolean. So it's not totally okay (whatever that means; perhabs nothing really is) but it's more okay than stealing for no good reason at all, and a lot more okay than killing to feed your family, which in turn would be more okay than killing for no good reason at all. Arguably.:)
Yep, me too. But I guess the logo (top right corner) settles that question. I really, really don't want to talk or even think about the US election. I mean, I read stuff about it all the time, but it pisses me off all the same. I don't mind having this section, though - I don't have to read it after all.
Yes. GP is still right, though - Doom 3 will have EAX eventually. AFAIK, Creative is working on that. Of course it might take a while and be of dubious quality, I don't know. They did this before, adding EAX to some game, although I don't recall which or how good of a job they did.
And hearing monsters behind me in an fps is not a compelling case for spending hundreds of dollars and making a complete mess of my living room (where my main PC is).
Agreed on the mess issue - it's a pain to install surround sound if the room isn't already set up in a way that suits it. But you really don't need to spend hundreds of dollars on a surround sound system. Most sound cards - including many onboard ones - support surround sound. And decent computer surround speakers by Creative, Logitech or whatever go for less than $100 (I bought mine for 70 Euros half a year ago), with the not-so-good noname sets going for 50 bucks.
The first preload downloaded two files. One of them, the smaller one by far, I can extract - it actually contains the HL2.exe - the other I can't, getting the same error you got.
My boss (IT administration) is furiously trying to get people to email him instead of coming in person. While I'm sure you are right, there'd be more mails than physical people coming in, answering a mail takes 1 minute in many cases while you rarely can deal with any person in less than one minute. There's always some sort of small talk involved. Furthermore, with email you deal with people's requests on your own time, and not when they want - often people come in every 5 minutes, making getting any work done beside helping them fairly hard. This can of course also be a problem if you're dealing with someone who just doesn't reply to his mails resulting in the people never getting any help.
The VGA adapter might come with it -- one came with my iBook, and it already has a display.
It might - but it doesn't: "All iMacs offer a mini-VGA plug so you can use the Composite/S-Video adapter to mirror your iMac display on television. You can also mirror your creative output to an external projector via the Apple VGA Display Adapter (adapters sold separately)." From the horse's mouth. I guess having Apple hardware talking directly to a PC-compatible monitor still is too hard too bear - I vividly remember fooling around with 8 tiny dip switches on a small Apple-proprietary to VGA adapter 8 years ago.
This is off-topic, but I guess there is some reason why you're using the Linux box for AIM...? If there isn't, there are plenty of very good AIM clients for Windows...
Technically, it looks like quite an achievement until you start considering the newer tablet PCs that will be out soon.
How is that relevant? It's still quite an achievement. Tablet PCs are really totally different devices in a lot of respects - including the price: those next gen tablets you refer to will go for twice the price Apple sells the iMac at. This is the entry-level Mac...
Personally, I think it's okay. Certainly not as neat as the last iMac, but still really nice. As others have mentioned, coupled with wireless input devices this would scream style. I'll stick with my ugly, wired PC, though.
What does piss me off, though, is that not only do you have to buy Bluetooth and WiFi addon cards, you also have to buy adapters if you want to, uh, use the mini-VGA out. Like connect a TV or another display.
Yes, you're right. because comp sci majors don't calibrate their monitors means that people who deal in photography and the arts shouldn't even have the option of including an ICC profile in a graphic.
Whatever. That's not what I meant, and it's certainly not what I said.
At least then, if people have a properly set up monitor I can be relatively sure they'll see a decent image.
Yes, all five of them. I don't think I personally know anyone who has a properly set up monitor - and I'm studying CS. You might have more luck in the arts/design department, but the point is that virtually no one in the general population has this, which makes it totally irrelevant for web designers (which is what this debate has been about so far). There are more Opera users than people with proofed monitors.
Or you preserve global public sanity by just having a ringtone that rings instead of abusing cell phone rining as some sort of individualised message to the world. Bah. It's not like I have anything against mobiles, but heck, the vibration alarm is really all you need in public.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a difference between you (the programmer) using DirectDraw and the JVM using DirectDraw to realize some of your instructions. I don't know if the former is possible, and I doubt the latter is anywhere near as efficient. Although it's still a good thing, of course.
:)
On a sidenote, it would seem that OpenGL is extremely well suited as a 3D API for J2SE, doesn't it? Unlike DirectDraw, it's platform independent and a fairly open standard, and it should be available on most of the target systems for the standard edition of Java, and perhabs be emulated on those who haven't got a native OpenGL interface. I'm sure I'm not the first one to think this, so either there are a lot of reasons why this is not a good idea, or it's already being done, or both.
Heh. I didn't even know there were scheduled power outages, especially not ones taking so long - I'd have figured they'd either have redundant systems or put up a backup of sorts while the maintenance takes place. But then I only just experienced a real power outage for the first time, for an hour or so - I left the house and it was back up by the time I was home, when construction workers nearby dug into the power cable supplying most of the street. (Oops!)
Well, strictly I wouldn't be amazed by it because I'm well aware of it. But I still think it's amazing, yeah (as in great - different meanings of words again, I love this stuff).
However, I think the vast majority of P2P traffic is made up by copyrighted material, and not by free material. Of course, I can't back it up by numbers and I'm not sure if any research has been done on the subject.
As fas as anecdotal evidence goes, while bt.etree.org sports some nice numbers, they seem fairly miniscule compared to the numbers the sites for copyrighted materials sport. I just checked, as I'm writing this, 3.2 million people are using the SuprNova trackers which are used mainly (though not exclusively I hasten to add) for illegal traffic. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any statistics on etree.
Nevertheless, there's no doubt that the legal usage of P2P filesharing is increasing at a good speed. Amazingly this has only really happened with BitTorrent. It's not like there was no filesharing before BT, but it's only with BT that legal usage has really taken off. I guess this has to do with the fact that the original BT is a really lightweight application well suited for single downloads, and that, unlike with ED2k and others, there is a clearly defined direct communication partner, ie. the tracker and not a vague network.
With legal sources, the tracker is often (but not always, as in the etree community) hosted by the same person who initially started distributing the file. Torrents for game demos and patches come to mind. This is never ever done with illegal filesharing because the seperation of the tracker and the seeds (who, arguably, are the only ones commiting a copyright violation) helps keeping the tracker legal and the admin of the tracker online.
Oh well, this was a bit long. Only the first paragraph was truly a reply, the rest is added thoughts I got while writing.
Wow, you are so completely wrong that I'm amazed you can feed yourself. Well, maybe you don't...
You're off to a great start into an argumentative comment there. I really don't understand why you feel you need to be so rude.
It has been used BY YOU to mean that.
No. Neither I, nor you, nor any single other person really has any saying on what a word means. They typically have more than one meaning, which I explicitly said.
Nevertheless, often there is one predominant interpretation people have when hearing a word, and I argued, and still firmly believe, that when people hear filesharing, they typically associate the sharing of copyrighted materials, because that's the kind of filesharing that made the news recently and generally brought up the P2P hype.
Now, what I or you personally associate with the word is, frankly, irrelevant, but for what it's worth, I actually would agree with you. And I guess mostly everyone on Slashdot would agree that the term filesharing also applies to sharing free material - that does not change the fact that most people in general, and probably most people on Slashdot first think of copyrighted materials when they hear the word out of context.
Which is why it's really a good idea to qualify the term when you use it to describe the sharing of free material, simply to prevent misunderstandings from happening.
Note that generally, dictionaries serve as a tool to determine the various meanings of words. If a word has more than one common meaning, so does the dictionary entry for the word, sorted according to the regularity of the meanings usage. A good example, sometimes brought up (by me and others) here on Slashdot is democracy - according to some (fairly formal) meanings of the word, the USA are not a democracy, but according to the popular meaning, it is, which correctly reflects the majority notion which of course you'd get if you asked people on the street.
Of course, this is difficult and sometimes controversial for well-established words, and extremely hard for words such as file sharing, which haven't even made it yet into most dictionaries. Also, connotations like the one in questions probably wouldn't make it into a dictionary anyway (which would be an argument for your case - I still think the connotation is there, without a doubt).
Again, just because YOU view the world so narrowly, don't assume everyone else does as well.
I wasn't even talking about me in the previous post, when I said nobody and anybody and such, it typically was just shorthand for "nearly nobody", which I leave out because in such regards I just take that for granted. Of course there are people who care about sharing free files, that's really extremely obvious since that's what this Slashdot story is about. And I certainly care about it, just like assumedly most people on Slashdot do to some degree. But the majority of Internet users, I think, does not, just like the majority in general.
Which goes contrary to your previous statement that "filesharing" means only "distributing copyrighted material illegally."
Exactly, except I never made such a statement. I think that's the predominant meaning. There is no word with strictly only one meaning.
And yes, I am a linguist.
Could you possibly explain what is different between sharing files and filesharing?
Simple. For the past years since Napster, filesharing has been used in a sense that refers to sharing copyrighted files without having the copyright holder's permission. When people talked about filesharing, they talked about Napster, Kazaa et al., simply because nobody gives (or gave) a damn about legal filesharing, the RIAA doesn't because it doesn't really concern them yet and the consumers don't because the music doesn't really concern them yet. So now when you refer to filesharing, people tend to think filesharing of copyrighted materials.
No doubt this is just one meaning of the word and can change according to how important legal filesharing alternatives become.
I've spent the last ten years extensively using Windows and, lately, Linux machines, and I have never, not once, had a problem with this in either operating system. And I install and remove software all the time on both platforms. Of course, with Linux it helps to use Gentoo and Debian, which are basically the only distributions I've used. And with Windows, I don't know, the problem never came up. In both cases I'm not even really aware of the underlying dependencies, things just work.
Does it cause more suffering than happiness?
:)
That's kind of interesting. I don't know how applicable it is though, especially if you try to communicate your own conclusions based on this to others. Which is kind of an important point when it comes to moral systems.
First off, are you basing this on actual consequences or intended consequences? I might have the best intentions and inadvertently hurt someone. Does that make me a bad person? And vice versa, someone engaged in what would typically be called a bad thing could in that process help someone else without actually intending it - does that make the action a good deed despite it's different motive? This is the motive of the classic tragedy. Sorry I can't come up with even a half-decent example, I tried and only came up with crap.
However, the thing I consider the most problematic is the definition of suffering and happiness. Both are really vague terms, and basically per definition subjective instead of objective. That leads to problems when trying to share a set of moral values with others, which is one of the reasons for moral philosophy to be discussed in the first place.
For instance, (to draw upon another topic I'm discussing in a different thread) you might think that the suffering caused by stealing from someone is less than the happiness created by having stolen something for your family to eat. However, the person you stole from might disagree. And, using only your principle, you two won't really come to any common stance, you both are equally correct.
For instance, non vegetarians tend to disregard the suffering they cause because it's not human suffering, so to them, according to your principle, eating meat is all right. If you do consider animal suffering as suffering in general, it's not so clear, of course, especially considering the difficulty of "measuring" any suffering and especially animal suffering. Nevertheless, not considering animal suffering as suffering in general is a fairly arbitrary choice.
(Note that I eat meat myself, but I imagine that if humanity truly increases it's moral values eating meat will one day be considered extremely distasteful and barbaric, akin to, say, the way we look at witch burnings now.)
Now if we accept that it's okay to arbitrarily ignore animal suffering, we must also accept it if other people arbitrarily ignore other suffering - say, based on race, religion and so on. To any sensible person, that seems horrible, but that's only true for todays culture and of course not all of todays cultures, either.
In a similar vein, a lot of smaller issues arise which kind of wreck havoc to the idea. I do still think it's a very nice way of looking at things and a good question to ask yourself.
Show me a real situation where it's absolultely necessary to speed to feed your family.
There probably is no such thing. I was aware that the example was constructed when I posted it, in fact that was part of the point. I critized the GP for constructing an example and created one that "proved" the opposite point.
While were at it though, people sure seem to speed a lot. Now, personally, I tend to think that there are a lot of worse things you can do - rape, murder, torture and a lot of other things. And that means to me it's more okay to speed than it is to commit a murder. I could also say it's even less okay to kill someone than it is to speed - that's the same thing with different words.
If we just replace the act of "stealing" with "murdering", then it would put things in clearer perspective.
:)
It also totally changes the meaning. You can't just interchange the two to make a point. Obviously most people would answer your question with a no, but that really has no ramifications for the justification of stealing. BTW, this goes both ways, too: Is it okay to violate the speed limit to feed your starving family?
So maybe stealing to feed your family is not totally okay. I don't think anybody said it was, because the original point was that moral evaluation is not boolean. So it's not totally okay (whatever that means; perhabs nothing really is) but it's more okay than stealing for no good reason at all, and a lot more okay than killing to feed your family, which in turn would be more okay than killing for no good reason at all. Arguably.
Yep, me too. But I guess the logo (top right corner) settles that question. I really, really don't want to talk or even think about the US election. I mean, I read stuff about it all the time, but it pisses me off all the same. I don't mind having this section, though - I don't have to read it after all.
Yes. GP is still right, though - Doom 3 will have EAX eventually. AFAIK, Creative is working on that. Of course it might take a while and be of dubious quality, I don't know. They did this before, adding EAX to some game, although I don't recall which or how good of a job they did.
And hearing monsters behind me in an fps is not a compelling case for spending hundreds of dollars and making a complete mess of my living room (where my main PC is).
Agreed on the mess issue - it's a pain to install surround sound if the room isn't already set up in a way that suits it. But you really don't need to spend hundreds of dollars on a surround sound system. Most sound cards - including many onboard ones - support surround sound. And decent computer surround speakers by Creative, Logitech or whatever go for less than $100 (I bought mine for 70 Euros half a year ago), with the not-so-good noname sets going for 50 bucks.
Nope - you were probably the target of malicious modding.
Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
The first preload downloaded two files. One of them, the smaller one by far, I can extract - it actually contains the HL2.exe - the other I can't, getting the same error you got.
My boss (IT administration) is furiously trying to get people to email him instead of coming in person. While I'm sure you are right, there'd be more mails than physical people coming in, answering a mail takes 1 minute in many cases while you rarely can deal with any person in less than one minute. There's always some sort of small talk involved.
Furthermore, with email you deal with people's requests on your own time, and not when they want - often people come in every 5 minutes, making getting any work done beside helping them fairly hard. This can of course also be a problem if you're dealing with someone who just doesn't reply to his mails resulting in the people never getting any help.
It's documented all right.
Fair enough. :)
IIRC, new PowerMacs have standard DVI connectors now.
;)
Yes. But I bet the Apple engineers mumbled and grumbled when they designed that!
The VGA adapter might come with it -- one came with my iBook, and it already has a display.
It might - but it doesn't: "All iMacs offer a mini-VGA plug so you can use the Composite/S-Video adapter to mirror your iMac display on television. You can also mirror your creative output to an external projector via the Apple VGA Display Adapter (adapters sold separately)." From the horse's mouth. I guess having Apple hardware talking directly to a PC-compatible monitor still is too hard too bear - I vividly remember fooling around with 8 tiny dip switches on a small Apple-proprietary to VGA adapter 8 years ago.
This is off-topic, but I guess there is some reason why you're using the Linux box for AIM...? If there isn't, there are plenty of very good AIM clients for Windows...
Technically, it looks like quite an achievement until you start considering the newer tablet PCs that will be out soon.
How is that relevant? It's still quite an achievement. Tablet PCs are really totally different devices in a lot of respects - including the price: those next gen tablets you refer to will go for twice the price Apple sells the iMac at. This is the entry-level Mac...
Personally, I think it's okay. Certainly not as neat as the last iMac, but still really nice. As others have mentioned, coupled with wireless input devices this would scream style. I'll stick with my ugly, wired PC, though.
What does piss me off, though, is that not only do you have to buy Bluetooth and WiFi addon cards, you also have to buy adapters if you want to, uh, use the mini-VGA out. Like connect a TV or another display.
Yes, you're right. because comp sci majors don't calibrate their monitors means that people who deal in photography and the arts shouldn't even have the option of including an ICC profile in a graphic.
Whatever. That's not what I meant, and it's certainly not what I said.
I'm so sorry for daring to forget the disclaimer that all I'm stating is merely my opinion. And in such a formal environment, too. I should be banned!
At least then, if people have a properly set up monitor I can be relatively sure they'll see a decent image.
Yes, all five of them. I don't think I personally know anyone who has a properly set up monitor - and I'm studying CS. You might have more luck in the arts/design department, but the point is that virtually no one in the general population has this, which makes it totally irrelevant for web designers (which is what this debate has been about so far). There are more Opera users than people with proofed monitors.
Or you preserve global public sanity by just having a ringtone that rings instead of abusing cell phone rining as some sort of individualised message to the world. Bah. It's not like I have anything against mobiles, but heck, the vibration alarm is really all you need in public.