If the result is acceptable, then knock yourself out. Just make sure to mark the files so you know not to try it a third time (when you'll definitely hear the difference).
Re:Less support for WMA the better
on
No WMA for HP iPod
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Easily converted? The last thing your friend needs to do is convert from one lossy format to another. If anything, that will convince him that WMA was superior all along.
You didn't list a lossless format (FLAC for example). With disks getting bigger and cheaper, it's making less and less sense to lock yourself into a lossy format. Lossy is still useful for devices with limited storage, and for quicker transfer over the network, but eventually all of that will be eclipsed by cheaper, better technology.
If you compress a WAV into FLAC, and then decompress back to WAV, it matches the original WAV file bit for bit.
If you compress a WAV into MP3, and then decompress back to WAV, it does not match the original WAV file bit for bit.
In other words, once you go lossy, you're stuck. You can never go back to the "first generation" copy.
That is the simple reason why lossless is better than lossy for some applications, for example archiving (I have my entire CD collection on my hard disk in FLAC format).
Through a series of tax cuts and spending increases, the current administration is doggedly pursuing a "starve the beast" strategy that will ultimately require a huge decrease in the size of the federal government, and a corresponding increase in the power of the states. Which, essentially, is what Republicans have been trying to accomplish for years.
Is this a joke? The Republicans are just as determined to increase the cost and power of centralized government as the Democrats -- just in slightly different ways.
Over the past 100 years, the US federal government has expanded nearly exponentially in scope, cost, and power over the people. Who has dominated political power over these years? The Republicans and Democrats. Neither party has dominated exclusively -- they have dominated together, supposedly "at odds". If these two parties really were at odds -- if one favored limited centralized power and the other favored expanded centralized power -- then how exactly did the federal government succeed in expanding at such an incredible rate?
There is only one logical conclusion: BOTH parties seek to expand centralized power.
Do you really think the outcome would be different if everybody voted? The problem is not a lack of interest in how power is distributed -- the problem is that power exists in the first place. Without strict limits on the size and scope of government, oppression is inevitable.
It is the natural tendency of government to expand. The people who strive to obtain coercive power are those who wish to control others through force, not those who wish to mind their own business and interact through voluntary means only.
Beyond the core laws which protect the individual against force, government is nothing but a collection of mandated special interests, each one benefiting some group at the necessary expense of everyone else. Everybody wins in some small way, and everyone loses in a huge way.
How so? By definition, government does not and cannot produce its own revenue. Every expansion of government, no matter what scale, is necessarily funded by forcibly extracting revenue from the people who actually do produce wealth (the market). Every law, every regulation, every modification of government requires that, at some level, revenue is forcibly extracted from the market. For every tax dollar taken to fund government, one dollar is removed from the market, where it would have been used to generate more wealth.
This is the fundamental difference between government and free enterprise -- the market produces its wealth through voluntary association, while government produces its wealth through force. (If government was funded voluntary, it wouldn't be government -- it would be free enterprise.) So no, laws are not free at all -- even the most "insignificant" one comes only at the expense of the market.
Nothing makes me more enraged than corporations that seek protection from congress rather than adapting to new market conditions.
How about the congressmen who take the bribe?
The corporations only seek to abuse the arbitrary powers of government because those powers exist. If government were strictly limited in scope and power, then those corporations would have to either adapt to the market (without invoking force, like everyone else), or fail and be replaced by a more efficient business.
Just to nitpick, every instance of government is founded on deadly force or the threat of deadly force. That is what necessarily defines government: the unique "right" to initiate force (and ultimately deadly force) as a means to an end. No private individual or group posesses this power (if a private individual or group initiates force, they are liable for damages to the victim). At the very least, government couldn't generate revenue without forcibly extracting it from the people who actually do generate revenue (the market).
Places of business advertised and promoted the fact that their place of business was air conditioned and they managed the burden of the increased cost of air conditioning in order to attract customers.
Very true, and the same applies to employees. This is a great example of how the market continually refines itself to the needs of customers and employees, in addition to business owners. No force (government) was necessary to make this happen -- the business owners simply determined that it was in their best interest to cater to the needs of customers and employees.
The point was that this law is redundant and unnecessary and serves only to increase the scope of criminal law. It was already perfectly illegal (breach of contract) to do this.
But since you asked, I personally don't care for movies and I haven't seen one in years, so I have no interest in obtaining "0-day screeners". What I am concerned with is the expansion of government.
Simple: Because it expands the cost and scope of government. As government gets bigger and more powerful, the people who control government increasingly view their roles not as protectors of individual rights, but as business executives whose purpose is to increase revenue and expand market share.
This is just another example of pork barrel politics: expansions of government designed to further empower the people who control government, at the necessary expense of the people.
I did the jukebox, but I used FLAC instead of lossy compression. Why? Because with lossless compression, you will always have the master digital copy, bit for bit. If the original CD is lost or damaged, you still have the master copy. Not so with lossy compression. Once you go lossy, you're stuck. If you compress a WAV file into FLAC, and then uncompress back to WAV, you will have the original WAV file bit for bit. Not so with ogg or mp3.
The jukebox is killer, but the main reason I did all this was to permanently archive my CD collection. In the event it was destroyed or stolen, I would still have the master digital copies.
I don't think you need to use all that fancy database-driven jukebox software that he suggests in the article. I use plain old XMMS in random/repeat mode, usually with every song from every CD in the playlist (this is guaranteed to impress the guests). If you structure your directory tree by music category (rock, jazz, new age, etc) then you can easily select playlists by category.
Of course, you will need a large hard disk in order to do this. I have one 120GB main disk, and another one for backup (yes I know it's not the most reliable backup solution), but large disks are getting so cheap that I'll probably buy another one for redundancy.
(Quoted from your article:) By selling a gallon of kosher dills for less than most grocers sell a quart, Wal-Mart may have provided a ser-vice for its customers. But what did it do for Vlasic? The pickle maker had spent decades convincing customers that they should pay a premium for its brand.
So, Wal-Mart demonstrates that Vlasic pickles aren't worth quite as much as Vlasic claims, and we're supposed to pity Vlasic and their investment in marketing, and scold Wal-Mart for acting in self-interest? Now that's laughable.
That doesn't make sense. Government holds the key, not lawyers or any other private enterprise. Lawyers can persuade government, but government makes the final decision. Govermment defines justice, not private enterprise.
Kind of like blaming Napster or Kazaa for the actions of its users.
Again, that doesn't make sense. Napster and Kazaa do not determine the law. Government does.
As I was saying -- the more complex, ambiguous, and exploitable the law, the more absurd lawsuits. Common sense.
It's absurd, but it's really no surprise. Big government teaches us that we are not responsible for our own actions. Goverment provides the incentive to sue not for justice, but for quick and easy profit. Absurd lawsuits only exist because government is willing to acknowledge them.
Good lord, please stop calling them "congress critters". We are not talking about fuzzy, snuggly, harmless stuffed animals. These are the people who hold the power to initiate force as a means to an end. Their business is the application of force, not cuddling.
Open source is not "at odds" with capitalism. That doesn't make sense. Capitalism is voluntary association. Nobody is forced to produce, and nobody is forced to consume. That is exactly what defines open source: All interactions are conducted on a voluntary basis. Open source *is* capitalism.
You didn't mention it, but many people have the misguided idea that open source is anagalous to socialism. But what is socialism? Is it the notion of people working together towards a common goal? That's meaningless, and could just as well be used to describe capitalism. The one true difference between capitalism and socialism is force: Under socialism, the initiation of force is used as a means to an end. Under capitalism, the initiation of force is forbidden.
(No, the US is not an example of a capitalist society.)
Slashdot Mirror
If the result is acceptable, then knock yourself out. Just make sure to mark the files so you know not to try it a third time (when you'll definitely hear the difference).
Easily converted? The last thing your friend needs to do is convert from one lossy format to another. If anything, that will convince him that WMA was superior all along.
Bad for the carriers? Not the ones who come out on top.
You didn't list a lossless format (FLAC for example). With disks getting bigger and cheaper, it's making less and less sense to lock yourself into a lossy format. Lossy is still useful for devices with limited storage, and for quicker transfer over the network, but eventually all of that will be eclipsed by cheaper, better technology.
If you compress a WAV into FLAC, and then decompress back to WAV, it matches the original WAV file bit for bit.
If you compress a WAV into MP3, and then decompress back to WAV, it does not match the original WAV file bit for bit.
In other words, once you go lossy, you're stuck. You can never go back to the "first generation" copy.
That is the simple reason why lossless is better than lossy for some applications, for example archiving (I have my entire CD collection on my hard disk in FLAC format).
Civil Rights
Corruption
Crime
Prisoners
Race and Prison
For those in power, there is more to be gained from war than climate control.
Is this a joke? The Republicans are just as determined to increase the cost and power of centralized government as the Democrats -- just in slightly different ways.
Over the past 100 years, the US federal government has expanded nearly exponentially in scope, cost, and power over the people. Who has dominated political power over these years? The Republicans and Democrats. Neither party has dominated exclusively -- they have dominated together, supposedly "at odds". If these two parties really were at odds -- if one favored limited centralized power and the other favored expanded centralized power -- then how exactly did the federal government succeed in expanding at such an incredible rate?
There is only one logical conclusion: BOTH parties seek to expand centralized power.
It is the natural tendency of government to expand. The people who strive to obtain coercive power are those who wish to control others through force, not those who wish to mind their own business and interact through voluntary means only.
Beyond the core laws which protect the individual against force, government is nothing but a collection of mandated special interests, each one benefiting some group at the necessary expense of everyone else. Everybody wins in some small way, and everyone loses in a huge way.
Sure it does. It simply proposes infinity.
How so? By definition, government does not and cannot produce its own revenue. Every expansion of government, no matter what scale, is necessarily funded by forcibly extracting revenue from the people who actually do produce wealth (the market). Every law, every regulation, every modification of government requires that, at some level, revenue is forcibly extracted from the market. For every tax dollar taken to fund government, one dollar is removed from the market, where it would have been used to generate more wealth.
This is the fundamental difference between government and free enterprise -- the market produces its wealth through voluntary association, while government produces its wealth through force. (If government was funded voluntary, it wouldn't be government -- it would be free enterprise.) So no, laws are not free at all -- even the most "insignificant" one comes only at the expense of the market.
That is exactly my point.
How about the congressmen who take the bribe?
The corporations only seek to abuse the arbitrary powers of government because those powers exist. If government were strictly limited in scope and power, then those corporations would have to either adapt to the market (without invoking force, like everyone else), or fail and be replaced by a more efficient business.
Just to nitpick, every instance of government is founded on deadly force or the threat of deadly force. That is what necessarily defines government: the unique "right" to initiate force (and ultimately deadly force) as a means to an end. No private individual or group posesses this power (if a private individual or group initiates force, they are liable for damages to the victim). At the very least, government couldn't generate revenue without forcibly extracting it from the people who actually do generate revenue (the market).
Very true, and the same applies to employees. This is a great example of how the market continually refines itself to the needs of customers and employees, in addition to business owners. No force (government) was necessary to make this happen -- the business owners simply determined that it was in their best interest to cater to the needs of customers and employees.
The point was that this law is redundant and unnecessary and serves only to increase the scope of criminal law. It was already perfectly illegal (breach of contract) to do this.
But since you asked, I personally don't care for movies and I haven't seen one in years, so I have no interest in obtaining "0-day screeners". What I am concerned with is the expansion of government.
Simple: Because it expands the cost and scope of government. As government gets bigger and more powerful, the people who control government increasingly view their roles not as protectors of individual rights, but as business executives whose purpose is to increase revenue and expand market share.
This is just another example of pork barrel politics: expansions of government designed to further empower the people who control government, at the necessary expense of the people.
The jukebox is killer, but the main reason I did all this was to permanently archive my CD collection. In the event it was destroyed or stolen, I would still have the master digital copies.
I don't think you need to use all that fancy database-driven jukebox software that he suggests in the article. I use plain old XMMS in random/repeat mode, usually with every song from every CD in the playlist (this is guaranteed to impress the guests). If you structure your directory tree by music category (rock, jazz, new age, etc) then you can easily select playlists by category.
Of course, you will need a large hard disk in order to do this. I have one 120GB main disk, and another one for backup (yes I know it's not the most reliable backup solution), but large disks are getting so cheap that I'll probably buy another one for redundancy.
Anyone want to buy a 5-disc CD changer?
Link 1
Link 2
Link 3
(Quoted from your article:)
By selling a gallon of kosher dills for less than most grocers sell a quart, Wal-Mart may have provided a ser-vice for its customers. But what did it do for Vlasic? The pickle maker had spent decades convincing customers that they should pay a premium for its brand.
So, Wal-Mart demonstrates that Vlasic pickles aren't worth quite as much as Vlasic claims, and we're supposed to pity Vlasic and their investment in marketing, and scold Wal-Mart for acting in self-interest? Now that's laughable.
Kind of like blaming Napster or Kazaa for the actions of its users.
Again, that doesn't make sense. Napster and Kazaa do not determine the law. Government does.
As I was saying -- the more complex, ambiguous, and exploitable the law, the more absurd lawsuits. Common sense.
It's absurd, but it's really no surprise. Big government teaches us that we are not responsible for our own actions. Goverment provides the incentive to sue not for justice, but for quick and easy profit. Absurd lawsuits only exist because government is willing to acknowledge them.
Porto Rico? And I thought *I* was a gringo.
Good lord, please stop calling them "congress critters". We are not talking about fuzzy, snuggly, harmless stuffed animals. These are the people who hold the power to initiate force as a means to an end. Their business is the application of force, not cuddling.
#1 is void because the contracts between Wal-Mart and Wal-Mart employees are engaged voluntarily.
#3 is void because the contracts between Wal-Mart and Wal-Mart suppliers are engaged voluntarily.
#4 is void because it is a matter of personal opinion. Quite obviously, the millions of people who shop at Wal-Mart don't agree with you.
#5 is vague. Please elaborate.
Open source is not "at odds" with capitalism. That doesn't make sense. Capitalism is voluntary association. Nobody is forced to produce, and nobody is forced to consume. That is exactly what defines open source: All interactions are conducted on a voluntary basis. Open source *is* capitalism.
You didn't mention it, but many people have the misguided idea that open source is anagalous to socialism. But what is socialism? Is it the notion of people working together towards a common goal? That's meaningless, and could just as well be used to describe capitalism. The one true difference between capitalism and socialism is force: Under socialism, the initiation of force is used as a means to an end. Under capitalism, the initiation of force is forbidden.
(No, the US is not an example of a capitalist society.)