Re:Is it possible to write your own music?
on
Borrowing ROMs
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
You're still not getting it.
Music is a sport. It is just as good as a verb as it is when you treat it as an object. It's a form of emotional communication, it's a form of aerobics (well, drumming), it's a form of meditation, a thousand things beyond merely producing objects for sale in a market.
Some of the most fun I've had in my life has been playing music, just jammin', with people who were able to seize on musical ideas I put out, toss them back to me, grab onto trickier ideas, take them a different direction- it's like playing chess with a bunch of people all of whom are on the SAME SIDE. That would be a jazzy, improv-type approach- if they're rock and roll people, jump around, bang out some loud noises.
If you're already thinking about how to bottle that and sell it to consumers, you're not really there for it- pack up your instrument and go home!
The day I can't legally JAM on the melody to 'Free Bird' or something, shoot me.
But this is based on an assumption- the assumption is that the RIAA, MPAA, Microsoft will be able to produce media players that play only watermarked content.
That time is not here yet, and passage of this legislation gives you a potent weapon against that ever coming to pass- it impedes adoption of that kind of player, by raising the legitimate issue of penalties for playing your own content.
It goes from "Yeah, you could buy that, but it won't play CDs" to (literally) "Yeah, you could buy that, but getting it to play CDs is a felony that will get you five years in prison, and good luck getting a job as a convicted felon!"
This is an opportunity, not an obstacle, because the fact is that DRM media players are NOT widely adopted. Across the board, this serves as a polarizing mechanism. How appealing is it to upgrade to Windows XP (DRM Edition) when any 'get my mp3s to play' hacking or tweaking could legally land you in prison for five years as a felon? How 'must-have' is that upgrade when (for the first time) it demands you sit still and don't touch anything for fear of committing FEDERAL CRIMES? How appealing would a portable media player be that not only won't play your unDRMed CDs, but if you dare try to fool it you risk five years imprisonment in federal prison?
These arguments against DRM things are not relevant right now. But they could be! And it'd be better to have them available, than to have everything transition (with much pushing from the content industry) over to DRM and THEN have the punishments legislated. This is a political favor and should be treated as such.
Give them their penalties- and then kill any hope of DRM ever succeeding, with 'sure, if you want to spend five years in federal prison for playing your own CD' sound bites. And save the slashdotting of legislators for when the content industry tries (it will) to make unDRMed content itself illegal- because that is absurd, and way more easily fought.
And, if the 'five years in prison' legislation does pass, then it completely sabotages any further attempt by the content industry to legislate away non-DRM stuff. Doing that in a vacuum may be possible. Doing that when 'amateurs', legit users of non-DRM stuff, face prison, is political suicide. Bad enough to make your CD collection legally unusable, but making it a Federal crime to use it? Forget it.
Then, the DRM people can try to sell their DRM products in a market that also includes (by law!) free and unencumbered products, further hobbled by the 'five years in the federal pen' reality.
I would go so far as to say, SUPPORT this and hope it gets through- because we aren't looking for a quick fix, right? It's like judo- the law is mostly unenforcable but political dynamite to be used AGAINST further DRM agendas. You point to it and go, "You can't pass that DRM-mandating law- look at what it would mean!" That's when you fire up the PAC and slashdot the senate phonelines. You use this as a neatly planted spoke in the wheels to stop ANY further movement in the direction of mandated DRM.
It looked to me like this one's about jacking up punishments for counterfeiting stuff to outrageous levels, and the DRM bits were about counterfeiting or evading DRM.
The answer is simple really- let 'em have this one, and then make it illegal for home electronics manufacturers to produce media players that refuse to play non-DRM media.
Surely people determined to copy can take their own risks, whatever the penalties? The real concern is ensuring that independent content producers don't get shut out of consumer media completely.
That's for sure. Proper fencing has very formal rules- I still don't understand 'right of way'. Movies tend to be big impressive swings and hitting people's swords enthusiastically- any light weapons combat fan finds this very funny and smirks a lot watching it. (Exception: recent Star Wars movies got impressively believable with this, probably thanks to Ray Park, a martial artist. The lightsaber fights in TPM were fantastic- still fake, but the fighters were going for real targets and blocking believably, not bonking their swords into each other)
Probably the best option for Slashdot geeks is not fencing, or SCA, but boffs: lightest-touch foam weapons combat. SCA demands a hell of a lot of committment to do serious combat- you will break fingers and such, this is bad for most geeks. Fencing demands more discipline and is as formalized as chess, sort of dignified. Boffs, your main rules are (IMHO) 'get hit, you lose it' (as in arms, legs) and 'no face shots', for obvious reasons. Some systems like the one I played allow top-of-head-bops, an amazingly swift and deadly attack but prone to face shots if tried by newbies.
Fighting in boffs, you move in to the strike zone of your opponent (reach and sword length matter- but a great fighter with a 'dagger' can take out a poor fighter with a 'hand and a half'). You will probably use a fencing-like pose with extended leg and sword-tip up above your head. That means you can duck your leg up rapidly if it's swung at, and you can form a sort of umbrella with your sword, deflecting blows. If your sword tip is way over to the side, you're wide open, you probably can't bring it back in time to deflect a blow.
My favorite boffs move is one my brother Steve taught me- don't know if he invented it. You slash fiercely out to the side of your opponent's head, forcing them to block to that direction (if you're right handed it'll be to the right of them as you see it). Before their block can hit, you whip your sword around really fast, over your head, all from the wrist, and 'catch' it just as it's going to slam into them from the other side, so it just lightly bops them. Fast and spectacular move that's safe and effective- you're never thrusting directly at the person, and when the whirling sword reaches them, your arm's in a position to pull the blow very effectively, sparing them a Louisville Slugger whack (and those are against the rules anyway).
What can I say- it's a cool sport:)
Re:My one-and-only shot at live action role-playin
on
Virtual Sword Fighting
·
· Score: 2
Oooo! Keep an eye out for whether, in his Errol Flynn showing-off, he is totally out of balance at any point, like with the swords well to the side or something. Or better still, see if you can get him to twirl!
*g* musta got hit in the head too much with rattan;) there's a reason SCAdians have to wear real armor:)
Another alternative is, find or make a boffs system instead. Boffer swords means basically pipe-foam on PVC, covered with duct tape. The padding and use of a properly constructed thrusting tip means that boffer sword fighting can be done in less controlled circumstances than SCA rattan sword fighting- boffs is lightest-touch, as well, further reducing the danger. The swords are not as heavy as steel weapons but they're certainly heavy enough to seem real- this is not Nerf (tm), at all.
Plus, anyone who begins to explore the subtleties of light-weapons combat with boffs will be developing skills which last a lifetime- and when you do go and play the inevitable Star Wars lightsaber VR games, well *G* you will be Darth Geek, in a big way.
I don't know if I'd be able to beat Charles here- SCAdian that he is- but most of you guys, hah!:D for I was trained in Boffs by my brother Steve, who at one point wasn't happy unless he won every tourney he entered. Plus I'm 6' and have reach. So, listen well to Lord Duncan Forbes here- you can't imagine how cool real light-weapons sparring is unless you've tried it and had enough basic tutoring to know what the hell you're doing. It is way cool. And cheaper than paying the arcade tons of quarters;)
...and judging from reports of just how quick and dirty these little videos are, apparently they were effortlessly thrown together by amateurs in iMovie on an Apple notebook. Hmmmmm;)
Back down, hell! What is bothering Jack is that the proposed law would also allow individuals who have created their own works to hack into THEIR computers in turn, legally.
My URL contains copyrighted material- it is still copyright me even though I allow people to give it to others over the Internet. At airwindows.com I have other copyrighted material, analyses of mp3 encoders, fiction I wrote.
Under the law as proposed, that gives me as many rights to hack the hell out of them as they have to hack me. Maybe I want to see whether the MPAA has copies of 'Kings Of Rainmoor', which I've considered trying a screenplay for (if they can do LoTR they can do this). That is a legitimate reason under this law to hack the hell out of the MPAA and the movie studios- it is MY content. Supposing some movie studio came out with something similar and I had a need to see if they had copies of my original work that they had referred to?
And this is what makes Jack unhappy. He is very clear on the notion that he, the MPAA, the RIAA et all should get to hack up 'consumers'. Not being a 'consumer' is not an option. The idea of an independent content producer does not fit into their little minds- and the idea of these unthinkable things, content producers NOT affiliated with **AAs, having the legal right to hack him right back, well, he is not happy with this. Damn right he is stating objections but it's important to understand what his objections are.
I would call it 'Jacking up', not backing down. He's in favor of the hacking- he just wants the language changed so that only the MPAA and the RIAA ever get to do it!
...and a nice spin that seemingly everyone has fallen for.
Two words: desktop OSX.
Want more words? iMovie, iTunes, iPod, Final Cut Pro, Apple's recent acquisition of Emagic (Logic Audio) to produce yet another i-something and possibly also a DAW version of FCP, Cocoa, shipping developer tools with the OS, Appleworks, falling demand for Microsoft Office on OSX showing that people are actively considering alternatives even to that...
I guess it depends which 'market domination' you mean. IBM/Linux may well be a threat on the server space, where they do not already have market domination. Apple is hitting them right in the desktop, where they already HAVE market domination which Linux is basically unwilling to directly attack.
Apple itself would be just as much of a problem IF they had 97% of the desktop market, but in this situation, they are absolutely deadly to Microsoft, and due to decreasing interest in Office for OSX, increasingly immune from Microsoft's private pressures and threats.
Want to see a serious threat to MS's desktop market? Wait to see if the antitrust case truly slams Microsoft. If, and only if, Microsoft takes serious damage and blood is in the water, then you may see Apple suddenly spring a complete OSX environment (with a complete set of apps to go with it, and you'll pay for it, too) on x86.
They are positioned to execute a total blitzkrieg attack on the Windows desktop monopoly, but only if Microsoft is gravely injured by antitrust action. If Microsoft isn't harmed, you won't see any of this: too risky unless the situation is ripe for a really startling change, like to 50/50% virtually overnight. Apple cannot do this if it'll only cannibalize its own hardware sales. Also note it'd be the most wildly copied piece of software around...
This is speculative- but the bottom line is, this (planted?) article is notable in what it does NOT say. Isn't it interesting that as OSX takes off and shows signs of being a tough market for Microsoft to even sell into, an article is published that pointedly relegates the threat of Apple to beneath mention? Sure, the Desktop is dominated by Microsoft, and that can never change. Unless it does- and it is...
Is anyone besides me reminded of those old AT&T commercials?
"Have you seen the era of open computing end? The death of the PC? Have you seen your ability to run your own computer systems dry up and blow away forever?"
You Will.
And the people who will take it from you? Microsoft (tm)."
That's a very good point- and it's both a confirmation of the "There's no such thing as privacy, get over it" viewpoint (who was that, Scott McNealy? Easy enough to find out) and a subtle repudiation of the libertarian viewpoint.
What is bothering people is that they cannot be expected to be Superman 24/7.
I put great effort into understanding the legalities behind hosting sites for my music. I could be signing away rights for a long, long time, and I'd rather not, so I do a lot better than most in researching this.
By contrast, my diet ain't that great, and I often use chemicals such as adhesives without being scrupulously careful to avoid all contact with them or their vapors. So, where the libertarian view would be 'if you can make a super-glue that has one small problem- touch it to your skin and you die in two years of horrible poisoning- you should be allowed to sell it and people are responsible for reading the label', there's a good chance I'd die in that situation, simply from not placing the same value on 'don't touch this crap' as the manufacturer would. In our non-libertarian society, it's fairly likely that you couldn't sell that glue, given the risks.
This relates to the privacy argument because people expect to be able to communicate without having their words USED AGAINST THEM. In a way I think it could go either way- wouldn't it be neat to have perfect transparency on stuff like WorldCom or Enron, to know where Bush's or Clinton's money is from? However, when those with power (including employers) have amazing transparency into the lives of those they rule, and it doesn't cut both ways, there's a problem, and the problem is the ability to harm people and take advantage of them in a variety of ways.
For example- I'm bi. I live in a town where there are some people with anti-civil-union, 'Take Back Vermont' bumper stickers- I've seen work vehicles with the damn things on 'em. I have actually used the 'transparency' of this to deny some of these people business- I see that as my privilege. If they had equal transparency, would they beat me to a pulp and hang me on a barbed wire fence to die? It's happened. I don't want to be lynched because someone else's value system tells them I should be killed.
Perfect transparency places the entire burden on people's behavior- everybody knows everything and it is up to the individual to behave reasonably. It's too bad that people generally don't behave perfectly reasonably. The only answer to perfect transparency is to hammer out workable rules for coexisting with each other... I am a Vermonter, and for all I know, an Enron or WorldCom bigwig live right nearby me. We certainly have some Porsches and fancy cars in town, it's not unthinkable. I think some of those people are destroying CIVILISATION... but it has to be very clear that I still can't go out and kill them, no matter how desperate my perceived grievance with them.
I don't trust everybody to be capable of sticking with such rules... but they're going to have to either learn or be removed from society, because the walls of privacy are coming DOWN.
In my analysis, ogg had plenty of artifacts and problems when trying to be as compressed as mp3, but started to really _stomp_ mp3 when the bit rate went up. By the time you had 256K or 320K, forget it- it was doing an amazing job, particularly with regard to simultaneously having tonal purity and transient sock. mp3 can do pretty good at one or the other given the right encoder for the job, but not both, whatever the bit rate.
If space expands to where 320K 'something' is nice and compact, ogg will truly come into its own. Particularly since you can peel back the 320K to lower bit rate files in case you're still just a BIT short on space on your portable player and need to fit on a song that's not quite fitting.
*probable spoilers, only without workings*
Anyone else having this problem? With certain puzzles, I'm struck forcefully with an answer but I can't (currently) come up with the rationalization to show it is unarguably correct.
For instance: Brown Eyes and Red Eyes. I have this sense that upon being told by the outsider 'at least one of you has red eyes' (no top limit to the number), ALL the monks go commit suicide at midnight. I can see they still can't communicate, and can't prove they're not among the not-red-eyed, but there are links in the logical chain missing here- yet it points to that result somehow, due to their non-self-awareness and the confirmation that there are red-eyes present.
By the same token- The mother is 21 years older than the child. In 6 years from now, the mother will be 5 times as old as the child. Question: Where's the father? I have to say: on top of the mother, conceiving the child- but I can't get the numbers to add up to anything sensible, it's just the only intersection that would give you the location of the father! *rrrrr*
And finally, 0.999999... is not 1.0000000.... really it's not, though in practice, well...
Hah, a challenge! I tend to use Island Harbors sauces rather a lot but here's something that doesn't necessarily use anything with a brand name on it...
Honey Mustard Chicken
Slice chicken breast very very thin, and put in wok with some chopped onion, some tarragon and possibly scallions or chives or some such green-stuff, and about a tablespoon of butter. Turn wok on medium heat (not high) and keep stirring mixture as it begins to simmer and the chicken begins to turn color. It should want to boil unless you keep it moving, but keep it moving. When almost every bit of the chicken is nonpink, add honey mustard sauce (or just honey and mustard and possibly some chicken boullion?) Stir that up as well, until it seems done- it should end up simmering just a bit. Serve in the center of a ring of mashed potatoes. Should have marvellous texture, with the mustard not overpowering the chicken too much.
That the sort of thing you were after?
Re:.net is not evil
on
.NET for Apache
·
· Score: 2, Offtopic
You could have had all that in what, 1997? It was up and running on the Mac platform, through OpenDoc. Specifically, the live values (up to and including having fancy charting driven by live values over the Internet), the ability to drag web or graphics or word processing objects onto pretty much anything. That's what OpenDoc was.
From looking back at the history of that and the interactions with Apple, it looks like Microsoft killed it. Told Apple, 'we don't want you doing this' and Apple looked at the costs, the earliness of the paradigm (document-oriented not application-oriented), and Microsoft's obvious objection to the technology being out there, and *sniccckt!* killed it on command. It got 'Steved', and it was out there being used, the base of a brilliant internet suite of functionalities, the base of a set of technology startups building stuff to work with the new way of doing things.
That was OpenDoc, which threatened Microsoft's Office dominance by undercutting the whole application model. It existed, it was out there being used. The fact that you're looking to.NET to do this is pretty obscene, considering the history. Microsoft won't be letting you do this. Not unless they start charging per use-of-embedded-object...
Penny an email, across the board. Not inbound- OUTBOUND. With really harsh penalties for anyone anywhere who's not charging- blackhole anyone who isn't being paid to put emails into the Internet. Carrot and stick: "Hey ISP! You are ordered to begin charging your customers a penny per outbound email- and keep the proceeds! But if you make exceptions, sayonara!"
I'd have no problem whatsoever paying this. Most people wouldn't have a problem with it. Spammers? *chuckle*
It might possibly be wise to have special cases- like, businesses and corporations pay a DIME per outgoing email.
At which point- relax and give up all other ideas for spam control and legislation. Go ahead and spam, guys. Here's your bill. Your list of ten million email addresses will run... one hundred thousand dollars for ONE mail to each (that will be filtered/ignored by the recipient...) and if you're a business/corporation, hey! One million dollars please:D
People talk about the 'end of the free internet'... well, THIS would be a GOOD move in that direction. Take over email and make it so bulk mailers are forced to pay a share exactly proportional to their usage...
"We will emerge from Chapter 11 as quickly as possible and with our competitive spirit intact."
Is it me, or does anyone else also want to smack this person and cry out, "Fuck your competitive spirit! That is what got you into this mess! Get some sense of perspective already!"
Only way that remark could have been more sick-humor is if it was, "We will emerge from Chapter 11 as quickly as possible and with our integrity and honesty unshaken"... sometimes you read the remarks of these people and you SO want to slap them...
OK, so Clinton and the Democrats are sleazebags doing shady dealings. The trouble is, Bush and the Republicans are also sleazebags doing shady dealings. I'll happily grant that Clinton was all you say he is- now, are you going to come around suggesting Bush is any better? I mean, ANY better?
I voted for Nader for a reason. This IS the reason. I ask only that I get to vote for the guy again. And I'm aware he's a rich lawyer- but he makes crusades out of SPANKING people like this. At this time in American history, that is what we need. I would like to see Nader elected President, and to see him survive long enough that things get straightened out until maybe I _can_ find something in the two-deeply-entrenched-and-indistinguishable-party system that I would want to be associated with.
If I can't get that, I'll still try. To hell with your Bush and Clinton and Cheney and Gore etc etc. They're all SCUM!
Seems to me that just taking a longer view might work. The problem is when people go 'if only we can grow forever everything will be wonderful and perfect!' True but irrelevant... since reality says nothing can grow forever (hell, the UNIVERSE can't grow forever), you can't go around building whole ways of life based on 'Long Boom' nonsense.
So fine- grow- but keep some perspective, and in fact w.r.t corporations and such, maybe sustained cash flow shouldn't be put so subsidiary to growth and market seizing?
I'm thinking of some companies and products- for some reason PDAs come to mind, the first Palms, Newton etc. If you are a company doing business selling stuff, shouldn't it be more important to make great stuff that people can appreciate and rely on for years, rather than churning the userbase and squeezing as much growth as you can out of your marketshare until you go splat from trying to be all things to all people?
It's getting harder and harder to produce comedy and satire that isn't eclipsed by reality. Personally, I think that is a brilliant link, and it will be a not-joke within ten years:)
Sounds great except for the fact that direct democracy is bread and circuses, and the kind in the US commonly known as 'democracy' is actually a republic set up to safeguard the interests of smaller factions which would otherwise get trodden on (and breed revolution).
Got any good ideas for how to avoid the perils of faction and the tyranny of the majority? The founding fathers of the USA had. Are you that good?
If you look at my page at airwindows.com you will see that you don't have to pay to get in. Why? Because I pay to put it up, to have a domain name, etc etc and I have been doing so since 1998.
What I'm concerned about is the prospect that I will still have to pay to put my page up, but also any visitor will have to pay a third party (not me) just to see it.
Slashdot Mirror
Music is a sport. It is just as good as a verb as it is when you treat it as an object. It's a form of emotional communication, it's a form of aerobics (well, drumming), it's a form of meditation, a thousand things beyond merely producing objects for sale in a market.
Some of the most fun I've had in my life has been playing music, just jammin', with people who were able to seize on musical ideas I put out, toss them back to me, grab onto trickier ideas, take them a different direction- it's like playing chess with a bunch of people all of whom are on the SAME SIDE. That would be a jazzy, improv-type approach- if they're rock and roll people, jump around, bang out some loud noises.
If you're already thinking about how to bottle that and sell it to consumers, you're not really there for it- pack up your instrument and go home!
The day I can't legally JAM on the melody to 'Free Bird' or something, shoot me.
That time is not here yet, and passage of this legislation gives you a potent weapon against that ever coming to pass- it impedes adoption of that kind of player, by raising the legitimate issue of penalties for playing your own content.
It goes from "Yeah, you could buy that, but it won't play CDs" to (literally) "Yeah, you could buy that, but getting it to play CDs is a felony that will get you five years in prison, and good luck getting a job as a convicted felon!"
This is an opportunity, not an obstacle, because the fact is that DRM media players are NOT widely adopted. Across the board, this serves as a polarizing mechanism. How appealing is it to upgrade to Windows XP (DRM Edition) when any 'get my mp3s to play' hacking or tweaking could legally land you in prison for five years as a felon? How 'must-have' is that upgrade when (for the first time) it demands you sit still and don't touch anything for fear of committing FEDERAL CRIMES? How appealing would a portable media player be that not only won't play your unDRMed CDs, but if you dare try to fool it you risk five years imprisonment in federal prison?
These arguments against DRM things are not relevant right now. But they could be! And it'd be better to have them available, than to have everything transition (with much pushing from the content industry) over to DRM and THEN have the punishments legislated. This is a political favor and should be treated as such.
Give them their penalties- and then kill any hope of DRM ever succeeding, with 'sure, if you want to spend five years in federal prison for playing your own CD' sound bites. And save the slashdotting of legislators for when the content industry tries (it will) to make unDRMed content itself illegal- because that is absurd, and way more easily fought.
And, if the 'five years in prison' legislation does pass, then it completely sabotages any further attempt by the content industry to legislate away non-DRM stuff. Doing that in a vacuum may be possible. Doing that when 'amateurs', legit users of non-DRM stuff, face prison, is political suicide. Bad enough to make your CD collection legally unusable, but making it a Federal crime to use it? Forget it.
Then, the DRM people can try to sell their DRM products in a market that also includes (by law!) free and unencumbered products, further hobbled by the 'five years in the federal pen' reality.
I would go so far as to say, SUPPORT this and hope it gets through- because we aren't looking for a quick fix, right? It's like judo- the law is mostly unenforcable but political dynamite to be used AGAINST further DRM agendas. You point to it and go, "You can't pass that DRM-mandating law- look at what it would mean!" That's when you fire up the PAC and slashdot the senate phonelines. You use this as a neatly planted spoke in the wheels to stop ANY further movement in the direction of mandated DRM.
It looked to me like this one's about jacking up punishments for counterfeiting stuff to outrageous levels, and the DRM bits were about counterfeiting or evading DRM.
The answer is simple really- let 'em have this one, and then make it illegal for home electronics manufacturers to produce media players that refuse to play non-DRM media.
Surely people determined to copy can take their own risks, whatever the penalties? The real concern is ensuring that independent content producers don't get shut out of consumer media completely.
Probably the best option for Slashdot geeks is not fencing, or SCA, but boffs: lightest-touch foam weapons combat. SCA demands a hell of a lot of committment to do serious combat- you will break fingers and such, this is bad for most geeks. Fencing demands more discipline and is as formalized as chess, sort of dignified. Boffs, your main rules are (IMHO) 'get hit, you lose it' (as in arms, legs) and 'no face shots', for obvious reasons. Some systems like the one I played allow top-of-head-bops, an amazingly swift and deadly attack but prone to face shots if tried by newbies.
Fighting in boffs, you move in to the strike zone of your opponent (reach and sword length matter- but a great fighter with a 'dagger' can take out a poor fighter with a 'hand and a half'). You will probably use a fencing-like pose with extended leg and sword-tip up above your head. That means you can duck your leg up rapidly if it's swung at, and you can form a sort of umbrella with your sword, deflecting blows. If your sword tip is way over to the side, you're wide open, you probably can't bring it back in time to deflect a blow.
My favorite boffs move is one my brother Steve taught me- don't know if he invented it. You slash fiercely out to the side of your opponent's head, forcing them to block to that direction (if you're right handed it'll be to the right of them as you see it). Before their block can hit, you whip your sword around really fast, over your head, all from the wrist, and 'catch' it just as it's going to slam into them from the other side, so it just lightly bops them. Fast and spectacular move that's safe and effective- you're never thrusting directly at the person, and when the whirling sword reaches them, your arm's in a position to pull the blow very effectively, sparing them a Louisville Slugger whack (and those are against the rules anyway).
What can I say- it's a cool sport :)
*bop* dead ;)
Another alternative is, find or make a boffs system instead. Boffer swords means basically pipe-foam on PVC, covered with duct tape. The padding and use of a properly constructed thrusting tip means that boffer sword fighting can be done in less controlled circumstances than SCA rattan sword fighting- boffs is lightest-touch, as well, further reducing the danger. The swords are not as heavy as steel weapons but they're certainly heavy enough to seem real- this is not Nerf (tm), at all.
Plus, anyone who begins to explore the subtleties of light-weapons combat with boffs will be developing skills which last a lifetime- and when you do go and play the inevitable Star Wars lightsaber VR games, well *G* you will be Darth Geek, in a big way.
I don't know if I'd be able to beat Charles here- SCAdian that he is- but most of you guys, hah! :D for I was trained in Boffs by my brother Steve, who at one point wasn't happy unless he won every tourney he entered. Plus I'm 6' and have reach. So, listen well to Lord Duncan Forbes here- you can't imagine how cool real light-weapons sparring is unless you've tried it and had enough basic tutoring to know what the hell you're doing. It is way cool. And cheaper than paying the arcade tons of quarters ;)
...and judging from reports of just how quick and dirty these little videos are, apparently they were effortlessly thrown together by amateurs in iMovie on an Apple notebook. Hmmmmm ;)
My URL contains copyrighted material- it is still copyright me even though I allow people to give it to others over the Internet. At airwindows.com I have other copyrighted material, analyses of mp3 encoders, fiction I wrote.
Under the law as proposed, that gives me as many rights to hack the hell out of them as they have to hack me. Maybe I want to see whether the MPAA has copies of 'Kings Of Rainmoor', which I've considered trying a screenplay for (if they can do LoTR they can do this). That is a legitimate reason under this law to hack the hell out of the MPAA and the movie studios- it is MY content. Supposing some movie studio came out with something similar and I had a need to see if they had copies of my original work that they had referred to?
And this is what makes Jack unhappy. He is very clear on the notion that he, the MPAA, the RIAA et all should get to hack up 'consumers'. Not being a 'consumer' is not an option. The idea of an independent content producer does not fit into their little minds- and the idea of these unthinkable things, content producers NOT affiliated with **AAs, having the legal right to hack him right back, well, he is not happy with this. Damn right he is stating objections but it's important to understand what his objections are.
I would call it 'Jacking up', not backing down. He's in favor of the hacking- he just wants the language changed so that only the MPAA and the RIAA ever get to do it!
Two words: desktop OSX.
Want more words? iMovie, iTunes, iPod, Final Cut Pro, Apple's recent acquisition of Emagic (Logic Audio) to produce yet another i-something and possibly also a DAW version of FCP, Cocoa, shipping developer tools with the OS, Appleworks, falling demand for Microsoft Office on OSX showing that people are actively considering alternatives even to that...
I guess it depends which 'market domination' you mean. IBM/Linux may well be a threat on the server space, where they do not already have market domination. Apple is hitting them right in the desktop, where they already HAVE market domination which Linux is basically unwilling to directly attack.
Apple itself would be just as much of a problem IF they had 97% of the desktop market, but in this situation, they are absolutely deadly to Microsoft, and due to decreasing interest in Office for OSX, increasingly immune from Microsoft's private pressures and threats.
Want to see a serious threat to MS's desktop market? Wait to see if the antitrust case truly slams Microsoft. If, and only if, Microsoft takes serious damage and blood is in the water, then you may see Apple suddenly spring a complete OSX environment (with a complete set of apps to go with it, and you'll pay for it, too) on x86.
They are positioned to execute a total blitzkrieg attack on the Windows desktop monopoly, but only if Microsoft is gravely injured by antitrust action. If Microsoft isn't harmed, you won't see any of this: too risky unless the situation is ripe for a really startling change, like to 50/50% virtually overnight. Apple cannot do this if it'll only cannibalize its own hardware sales. Also note it'd be the most wildly copied piece of software around...
This is speculative- but the bottom line is, this (planted?) article is notable in what it does NOT say. Isn't it interesting that as OSX takes off and shows signs of being a tough market for Microsoft to even sell into, an article is published that pointedly relegates the threat of Apple to beneath mention? Sure, the Desktop is dominated by Microsoft, and that can never change. Unless it does- and it is...
If they were, libertarianism would work :)
Is anyone besides me reminded of those old AT&T commercials?
"Have you seen the era of open computing end? The death of the PC? Have you seen your ability to run your own computer systems dry up and blow away forever?"
You Will.
And the people who will take it from you? Microsoft (tm)."
What is bothering people is that they cannot be expected to be Superman 24/7.
I put great effort into understanding the legalities behind hosting sites for my music. I could be signing away rights for a long, long time, and I'd rather not, so I do a lot better than most in researching this.
By contrast, my diet ain't that great, and I often use chemicals such as adhesives without being scrupulously careful to avoid all contact with them or their vapors. So, where the libertarian view would be 'if you can make a super-glue that has one small problem- touch it to your skin and you die in two years of horrible poisoning- you should be allowed to sell it and people are responsible for reading the label', there's a good chance I'd die in that situation, simply from not placing the same value on 'don't touch this crap' as the manufacturer would. In our non-libertarian society, it's fairly likely that you couldn't sell that glue, given the risks.
This relates to the privacy argument because people expect to be able to communicate without having their words USED AGAINST THEM. In a way I think it could go either way- wouldn't it be neat to have perfect transparency on stuff like WorldCom or Enron, to know where Bush's or Clinton's money is from? However, when those with power (including employers) have amazing transparency into the lives of those they rule, and it doesn't cut both ways, there's a problem, and the problem is the ability to harm people and take advantage of them in a variety of ways.
For example- I'm bi. I live in a town where there are some people with anti-civil-union, 'Take Back Vermont' bumper stickers- I've seen work vehicles with the damn things on 'em. I have actually used the 'transparency' of this to deny some of these people business- I see that as my privilege. If they had equal transparency, would they beat me to a pulp and hang me on a barbed wire fence to die? It's happened. I don't want to be lynched because someone else's value system tells them I should be killed.
Perfect transparency places the entire burden on people's behavior- everybody knows everything and it is up to the individual to behave reasonably. It's too bad that people generally don't behave perfectly reasonably. The only answer to perfect transparency is to hammer out workable rules for coexisting with each other... I am a Vermonter, and for all I know, an Enron or WorldCom bigwig live right nearby me. We certainly have some Porsches and fancy cars in town, it's not unthinkable. I think some of those people are destroying CIVILISATION... but it has to be very clear that I still can't go out and kill them, no matter how desperate my perceived grievance with them.
I don't trust everybody to be capable of sticking with such rules... but they're going to have to either learn or be removed from society, because the walls of privacy are coming DOWN.
If space expands to where 320K 'something' is nice and compact, ogg will truly come into its own. Particularly since you can peel back the 320K to lower bit rate files in case you're still just a BIT short on space on your portable player and need to fit on a song that's not quite fitting.
For instance: Brown Eyes and Red Eyes. I have this sense that upon being told by the outsider 'at least one of you has red eyes' (no top limit to the number), ALL the monks go commit suicide at midnight. I can see they still can't communicate, and can't prove they're not among the not-red-eyed, but there are links in the logical chain missing here- yet it points to that result somehow, due to their non-self-awareness and the confirmation that there are red-eyes present.
By the same token- The mother is 21 years older than the child. In 6 years from now, the mother will be 5 times as old as the child. Question: Where's the father? I have to say: on top of the mother, conceiving the child- but I can't get the numbers to add up to anything sensible, it's just the only intersection that would give you the location of the father! *rrrrr*
And finally, 0.999999... is not 1.0000000.... really it's not, though in practice, well...
If it takes two men three and a half hours to build a brick wall, how long does it take twenty thousand men?
Ironically, he seems to have a Flash-only site...
Honey Mustard Chicken
Slice chicken breast very very thin, and put in wok with some chopped onion, some tarragon and possibly scallions or chives or some such green-stuff, and about a tablespoon of butter. Turn wok on medium heat (not high) and keep stirring mixture as it begins to simmer and the chicken begins to turn color. It should want to boil unless you keep it moving, but keep it moving. When almost every bit of the chicken is nonpink, add honey mustard sauce (or just honey and mustard and possibly some chicken boullion?) Stir that up as well, until it seems done- it should end up simmering just a bit. Serve in the center of a ring of mashed potatoes. Should have marvellous texture, with the mustard not overpowering the chicken too much.
That the sort of thing you were after?
From looking back at the history of that and the interactions with Apple, it looks like Microsoft killed it. Told Apple, 'we don't want you doing this' and Apple looked at the costs, the earliness of the paradigm (document-oriented not application-oriented), and Microsoft's obvious objection to the technology being out there, and *sniccckt!* killed it on command. It got 'Steved', and it was out there being used, the base of a brilliant internet suite of functionalities, the base of a set of technology startups building stuff to work with the new way of doing things.
That was OpenDoc, which threatened Microsoft's Office dominance by undercutting the whole application model. It existed, it was out there being used. The fact that you're looking to .NET to do this is pretty obscene, considering the history. Microsoft won't be letting you do this. Not unless they start charging per use-of-embedded-object...
I'd have no problem whatsoever paying this. Most people wouldn't have a problem with it. Spammers? *chuckle*
It might possibly be wise to have special cases- like, businesses and corporations pay a DIME per outgoing email.
At which point- relax and give up all other ideas for spam control and legislation. Go ahead and spam, guys. Here's your bill. Your list of ten million email addresses will run... one hundred thousand dollars for ONE mail to each (that will be filtered/ignored by the recipient...) and if you're a business/corporation, hey! One million dollars please :D
People talk about the 'end of the free internet'... well, THIS would be a GOOD move in that direction. Take over email and make it so bulk mailers are forced to pay a share exactly proportional to their usage...
Is it me, or does anyone else also want to smack this person and cry out, "Fuck your competitive spirit! That is what got you into this mess! Get some sense of perspective already!"
Only way that remark could have been more sick-humor is if it was, "We will emerge from Chapter 11 as quickly as possible and with our integrity and honesty unshaken"... sometimes you read the remarks of these people and you SO want to slap them...
OK, so Clinton and the Democrats are sleazebags doing shady dealings. The trouble is, Bush and the Republicans are also sleazebags doing shady dealings. I'll happily grant that Clinton was all you say he is- now, are you going to come around suggesting Bush is any better? I mean, ANY better?
I voted for Nader for a reason. This IS the reason. I ask only that I get to vote for the guy again. And I'm aware he's a rich lawyer- but he makes crusades out of SPANKING people like this. At this time in American history, that is what we need. I would like to see Nader elected President, and to see him survive long enough that things get straightened out until maybe I _can_ find something in the two-deeply-entrenched-and-indistinguishable-party system that I would want to be associated with.
If I can't get that, I'll still try. To hell with your Bush and Clinton and Cheney and Gore etc etc. They're all SCUM!
Now mod me down, dammit! I scorn everybody! :D
So fine- grow- but keep some perspective, and in fact w.r.t corporations and such, maybe sustained cash flow shouldn't be put so subsidiary to growth and market seizing?
I'm thinking of some companies and products- for some reason PDAs come to mind, the first Palms, Newton etc. If you are a company doing business selling stuff, shouldn't it be more important to make great stuff that people can appreciate and rely on for years, rather than churning the userbase and squeezing as much growth as you can out of your marketshare until you go splat from trying to be all things to all people?
It's getting harder and harder to produce comedy and satire that isn't eclipsed by reality. Personally, I think that is a brilliant link, and it will be a not-joke within ten years :)
Got any good ideas for how to avoid the perils of faction and the tyranny of the majority? The founding fathers of the USA had. Are you that good?
What I'm concerned about is the prospect that I will still have to pay to put my page up, but also any visitor will have to pay a third party (not me) just to see it.