Do you happen to know of the name/address of a Linux boot floppy or CD with NTFS read and write support? I actually needed this last night, but all the boot CDs, etc., I had couldn't write to NTFS, only read from it. I needed to rename a file so I needed write access. If you know of one please let me know, it would have saved a lot of time last night.
Hmm, that is interesting to hear. I have a 1999 model year black SC2. It's black, though, still very black. It's never been in a garage, either, it sits out all year in the Philadelphia area, baking in the sun and (like today) sitting under 6 inches of snow, ice, and rock salt. On the whole I've been pretty impressed with the plastic panels; I don't have any scratches, and the only issue is on part of the bumper, where it looks like someone hit me while I wasn't around. The bumper isn't dented, but it is missing paint somehow. Not sure if the bumper is the same plastic though, but it appears to be.
I wonder what happened to yours? Is it one of the 3-door ones? I got mine a few months before that one was released (which was a little annoying since they never mentioned a big change with the new model coming out in the next 3 months, but I suppose I wouldn't really expect them to.) That's the biggest change between those years, but I'm sure there were others.
Mayhap this has been mentioned further down; a week or so ago I heard on the news about a Zenith HDTV recall (rear projection TV), due to leaky capaciters. I assumed at the time it was related to the earlier story on/. They didn't go into it, of course (it's a stretch for them to say the word "capacitor" let alone go into any actual issues) but, hey, that's what I know.
If I have something to say, and want people to hear it, how can I get it to them? Lets step through time.
I can tell it to them orally, one of the oldest traditions we have as humans
I can write it down, but making more than one copy is a pain. Monks did this for a while.
Printing press is invented: now we can print books instead of handwriting! This is good, right? Increases distribution by decreasing human labor.
Computers come along. Now everyone has a "printing press," but the presses aren't connected, so while I can print lots of copies getting them spread around the world is hard. Getting them out my immediate area is hard, without me physically leaving my area and going to other areas to distribute it.
Eventually, we connect the computers. There were a few stories and other things (ANSI/ASCII art) I wrote and distributed on local BBSs; now someone (granted, someone nearby most likely) could get my work without much effort on my part, and if they wanted they could send it somewhere else, on other boards they frequent, helping my work get farther. Still pretty limited though - most BBS users were in your local area.
Internet. Anyone can put a story on a web server now, and anyone around the world can read it. But you still need a server, which costs money for hardware and bandwidth.
P2P. You don't need a server anymore; many P2P systems are serverless. I can put a file on my computer, and with two clicks and some creative titling, metadata and promotion I can share my work with the world. The cost is the cost of one peer, I don't need a server anymore.
I don't argue that this is how the system is currently used. It's not. However it is the next step in information sharing, in a long tradition of people trying to share information better, easier, and faster. We've gone from the oral tradition up to Peer-to-peer. No longer do I need to be in the same room as someone else to tell them my story. Even here on Slashdot, I don't know where you are and you are hearing my story - but there is a server between us that I rely on. P2P removes one of those last limitations.
The fact that there are industries that rely on old methods of distribution doesn't really matter; eventually the Monks had to stop handwriting books too. We just have powerful industries that support the old ways and lots of work locked up legally, so we need new works.
P2P is important because it is your printing press and distribution method. It's not just the way you save your story, but the way you tell it to the world, and you can tell it to everyone (potentially). That's amazing. It is unlike any invention ever before, really. That's why P2P is important.
I agree that it is mostly copyrighted material being illegally distributed now. But most of that material was created before P2P was a possibility, or by authors who didn't see P2P as a possibility and are stuck contractually with another distribution method. We need people to grow up with this distribution model in their minds, so they can properly take advantage of it. Maybe not to get rich, but the point isn't to get rich for a lot of people, the point is to share your ideas, be recognized, contribute, and maybe make the world a better place. It got better and continues to get better because people talk to people, and ideas spread, creating and improving upon our culture. Yes, this is idealistic, but P2P is a distribution method that lets people connect directly to other people, without middlemen, enablers, distributers, corporations, hardly even any costs.
Does the artist get more royalties for CD than a LP or cassette? I think not.
Actually, most bands (IAN in the music industry) get less for CD sales, because of "Breakage." I quote from Moses Avalon:
Breakage is a left over scam from the old days when vinyl records were fragile and crumbled while shipping. The label would not pay the artist for broken records and so they estimated the "breakage" at 10% and deducted it from the amount of records sold. They still deduct this 10%, even though CDs are made of an almost indestructible material...
He also mentions that you (as an artist) will be deducted the cost of packaging your album, which is usually 25% for CDs and 20% for tapes and LPs. Now, everyone knows that CD liners are pretty small and involve a lot less color printing than LPs... read Moses' site, it's very interesting.
Posted earlier to slashdot, sorry I don't know who posted it... but here it is modified to include those new sizes... put it in your <profile>\chrome directory as userContent.css. For Windows 98 that is <windir>\Application Data\Mozilla\Profiles\default\<random.slt>\chrome; Win2k puts it under C:\Documents and Settings\<username>\Application Data\etc.
Watch out for the slashcode bug that inserts an extra space on the 180x150 line... and on the 180x150:hover line.
---
/* makes ads almost invisible * - taken from http://archivist.incutio.com/css-discuss/?id=13557 * slightly modified to include new banner sizes... */
They used to sell lots of CD singles (and before that tapes) in the US. But, you can't buy singles much anymore. Some group (you get one guess) decided that if you can buy the one song you want too cheaply, it will impact high(er)-profit CD sales, so they pretty much cancelled CD singles. Granted you can still find a few, but not like you used to.
There was a link I had months ago talking about this, but it's long gone. My own experience, though, was that around 1996 or so Best Buy and local CD stores were SWAMPED with CD singles of all kinds, Best Buy especially used to sell them for less than $5, and I bought (and still own) a ton of them, and often own the albums too. Go into a Best Buy or local CD shop now, though, and you'll find little else beyond the full releases.
This is NOT because CD singles weren't selling, it is because they WERE selling...
I feel compelled to mention that the Berman bill is the bill giving copyright holders the legal ability to disable or disrupt a Peer to Peer node that they believe is distributing their content without a license.
The CBDTPA sponsored by Fritz is the one that would regulate Berman's car horn.
With all the proposed legislation attempting regulate tools, though, your confusion is forgiven.:)
I always found it quite interesting that the most vocal anti-napster groups were the soon to be totally washed-up has-beens from the early 90's.
I don't disagree, but it's also interesting to note that many vocal anti-sharing bands are ones who own their own publishing companies, like Dr. Dre.
By being their own publishers, they make a lot more money - I'm not going to pretend to be an expert, but publishers split royalties with whoever has song writing credit on the song. So, Dr. Dre can be the publisher of many songs (possibly every song on his label; he has a label, right?), and make 50% of the royalties on those songs, even if he didn't write them or record them personally. Thus, in this respect, Dre is closer to a music industry exec than an artist - he is financially hurt by music sharing, because his publishing royalties come directly from CD sales. A very quick search found this article for reference.
So, many of the vocal opposers were some of the very popular bands / musicians who also have a larger interest in higher CD sales than most bands. So if music is shared, while a regular band might see increased ticket or merchandise sales that could improve their bottom line (meager as it is) the publisher only loses. (OK, so more downloaded songs might mean more CD sales, but you understand the publisher's objections I'm sure.)
In this respect an artist like Dre would be very valuable to the RIAA, because while he seems to be primarily a musician, I imagine most of his money actually comes from publishing credits. So, he can appear to be a musician opposed to sharing, when he is actually a publisher/musician opposed to sharing.
Seems to me that if all projection booths go to digital projection, that many fewer movies will be pirated using camcorders anyway, because someone will figure out how to intercept the signal and rip it straight from the projection booth, somehow.
You can't do that now because the film is on a big canister that needs light shone through it... but if it's just bits on a HD, the bits can be intercepted, or even copied when the movie isn't being played.
This DivX company seems doomed to failure. Now they're trying to introduce something akin to stopping people from copying CDs onto audio tapes. Sure, it might work, but those who want a copy of a CD now just rip it...
And, seems that the industry's biggest problem now is untrustable DVD screeners, honestly.
If you're about to say that there aren't HDs big enough to store a full digital projection movie, well, my HD used to get pretty full ripping an audio CD, too...
Rip the digital stream, bring it home, reencode. If it's at all possible, it'll be done. It's essentially an early copy of the DVD playing on a really nice projector. Capturing that video through a camcorder won't be necessary for much longer.
The KDE desktop looks and feels like Windows, with a few exceptions. You have to double-click an icon on the desktop to get it to open, but only single-click an icon in the toolbar to get the same result.
Umm.. has he used Windows? Lemme check real quick... yup, double-click an icon on the desktop, but only single-click an icon in the toolbar to get the same result. Does anyone double-click the Start menu? Quicklaunch bar? How about the Save button in the toolbar of any application?
What in the world was he expecting?
More generally, this is very neat news. I know many people's parents and grandparents who would love a new machine for $200, as long as they can run AOL.
How can they quote someone in the opening paragraph, and then say something completely different later on?
Ian Rogers: "The selection has finally reached a threshold I'm happy with, and the interface is good now. With other services before, there was a bad selection of songs, they were of bad quality, and they were hard to get to."
And yet, the quality of the service has nothing to do with it, right? Because right after that, the author claims the "success" of these new sites is:
largely because of tough actions by the record companies to combat free music sites through the courts, legislation and even through techno-guerrilla tactics, there is a noticeable change of sentiment in a small segment of the downloading cognoscenti.
So, the fact that the first services sucked, had poor selection and were hard to use, means nothing - it's really "largely because of" legislation that EMusic and Rhapsody are succeeding?
I find a lot of the rest of the article wrong as well. "Just six months ago, this sort of talk [about actually paying for music] would have been unthinkable, downright apostasy." No... actually, a lot of reasonable people were complaining that music was simply too expensive. You know, we've all been buying music for YEARS. We didn't all just forget about paying for things, we just realized that the music cartel has an unhealthy amount of control.
"A downloaded file titled as an Eminem song, for example, could be a virus."
I have no sympathy for you if you get a virus from an MP3. You should have noticed the extension was.exe, or.scr, or whatever. Really, do people get viruses from things they think are songs? Sigh..
"But now there are other options: EMusic..."
EMusic has been around for a long time... possibly that's how they got their 60,000 registered users. They cater to a niche market, because their unrestricted downloads scare most major labels, "even Universal, whose corporate parent owns it."
If, however, EMusic had a better catalog, and Rhapsody offered actual downloads, users say it would be easy to see these subscription services succeeding.
So, this online music thing could really work! Just don't put restrictions on the files, but attract major label acts which are afraid of unrestricted files. Rhapsody, you should stop being a radio station and be more like EMusic, but be sure to keep the major bands.
Really, they're advocating some kind of huge website where you can find lots of varied bands in some kind of unrestricted format that you can download to your computer. Boy, this is starting to sound a whole lot like the service we've all been asking for! And it's sounding more and more like what Napster used to be, and what Kazaa is now. Strange how that works.
"...more than 70 percent of dial-up users cited cost as the main reason they aren't upgrading to faster access."
And yet in the 2nd paragraph they claim:
"a need for more music, movies and games on the Internet in order to make broadband connections more popular."
No - that's spin. I really think it's cost. I pay about $12 a month for dial-up access, and Comcast wants me to buy a cable broadband for $50+ a month, plus taxes, modem rental, etc. A telemarketer called offering a free month, and I asked her what the full, regular price was. $50, as always. I told her it was too expensive, and she agreed and said that most people she talks to say that. In fact, she didn't have broadband from her own company because it was too expensive.
Don't be fooled, I think there is a huge demand for broadband (although for mostly underground reasons) - but every article I read about it tries to spin it towards supporting the RIAA/MPAA demands for DRM. They say "no one has broadband because they're waiting for OUR stuff," but in reality most people just aren't going to pay $50 a month for broadband. I don't think they're waiting for MPAA-blessed DRM (so they can pay EVEN MORE for pay-per-download schemes) - they're waiting for affordable broadband.
I'd pay $20 a month for something above 56k but below Cable/DSL, but such a thing doesn't exist, so I'll just wait until broadband is affordable.
Slashdot Mirror
thanks horde. :)
sheephead
I wonder what happened to yours? Is it one of the 3-door ones? I got mine a few months before that one was released (which was a little annoying since they never mentioned a big change with the new model coming out in the next 3 months, but I suppose I wouldn't really expect them to.) That's the biggest change between those years, but I'm sure there were others.
sheephead
sheephead
- I can tell it to them orally, one of the oldest traditions we have as humans
- I can write it down, but making more than one copy is a pain. Monks did this for a while.
- Printing press is invented: now we can print books instead of handwriting! This is good, right? Increases distribution by decreasing human labor.
- Computers come along. Now everyone has a "printing press," but the presses aren't connected, so while I can print lots of copies getting them spread around the world is hard. Getting them out my immediate area is hard, without me physically leaving my area and going to other areas to distribute it.
- Eventually, we connect the computers. There were a few stories and other things (ANSI/ASCII art) I wrote and distributed on local BBSs; now someone (granted, someone nearby most likely) could get my work without much effort on my part, and if they wanted they could send it somewhere else, on other boards they frequent, helping my work get farther. Still pretty limited though - most BBS users were in your local area.
- Internet. Anyone can put a story on a web server now, and anyone around the world can read it. But you still need a server, which costs money for hardware and bandwidth.
- P2P. You don't need a server anymore; many P2P systems are serverless. I can put a file on my computer, and with two clicks and some creative titling, metadata and promotion I can share my work with the world. The cost is the cost of one peer, I don't need a server anymore.
I don't argue that this is how the system is currently used. It's not. However it is the next step in information sharing, in a long tradition of people trying to share information better, easier, and faster. We've gone from the oral tradition up to Peer-to-peer. No longer do I need to be in the same room as someone else to tell them my story. Even here on Slashdot, I don't know where you are and you are hearing my story - but there is a server between us that I rely on. P2P removes one of those last limitations.The fact that there are industries that rely on old methods of distribution doesn't really matter; eventually the Monks had to stop handwriting books too. We just have powerful industries that support the old ways and lots of work locked up legally, so we need new works.
P2P is important because it is your printing press and distribution method. It's not just the way you save your story, but the way you tell it to the world, and you can tell it to everyone (potentially). That's amazing. It is unlike any invention ever before, really. That's why P2P is important.
I agree that it is mostly copyrighted material being illegally distributed now. But most of that material was created before P2P was a possibility, or by authors who didn't see P2P as a possibility and are stuck contractually with another distribution method. We need people to grow up with this distribution model in their minds, so they can properly take advantage of it. Maybe not to get rich, but the point isn't to get rich for a lot of people, the point is to share your ideas, be recognized, contribute, and maybe make the world a better place. It got better and continues to get better because people talk to people, and ideas spread, creating and improving upon our culture. Yes, this is idealistic, but P2P is a distribution method that lets people connect directly to other people, without middlemen, enablers, distributers, corporations, hardly even any costs.
sheephead
Actually, most bands (IAN in the music industry) get less for CD sales, because of "Breakage." I quote from Moses Avalon:
He also mentions that you (as an artist) will be deducted the cost of packaging your album, which is usually 25% for CDs and 20% for tapes and LPs. Now, everyone knows that CD liners are pretty small and involve a lot less color printing than LPs... read Moses' site, it's very interesting.SheepHead
Posted earlier to slashdot, sorry I don't know who posted it... but here it is modified to include those new sizes... put it in your <profile>\chrome directory as userContent.css. For Windows 98 that is <windir>\Application Data\Mozilla\Profiles\default\<random.slt>\chrome; Win2k puts it under C:\Documents and Settings\<username>\Application Data\etc.
7 ... */
u bleclick."] *,
[ width="468"][height="60"]," 600"],] [height="90"],d th="300"][height="250"],5 0"]
8 "]:hover,d th="120"][height="600"]:hover,g ht="60"]:hover,, " ][height="250"]:hover," ]:hover
Watch out for the slashcode bug that inserts an extra space on the 180x150 line... and on the 180x150:hover line.
---
/* makes ads almost invisible
* - taken from http://archivist.incutio.com/css-discuss/?id=1355
* slightly modified to include new banner sizes
[src*="ads."], [src*="ads/"],
[src*="doubleclick"],
[href*="do
[href*="rd.yahoo.com"] [src*="yimg.com"],
[width="60"][height="468"],
[width="120"][height=
[width="120"][height="60"],
[width="728"
[width="160"][height="600"],
[wi
[width="180"][height="1
{
-moz-outline: medium dotted red;
-moz-opacity: 10%;
}
/* returns ads to 40% opacity when the mouse hovers... */
[src*="ads."]:hover, [src*="ads/"]:hover,
[src*="doubleclick"]:hover,
[href*=".doubleclick."] *:hover,
[href*="rd.yahoo.com"] [src*="yimg.com"]:hover,
[width="60"][height="46
[width="468"][height="60"]:hover,
[wi
[width="120"][hei
[width="728"][height="90"]:hover
[width="160"][height="600"]:hover,
[width="300
[width="180"][height="150
{
-moz-outline: medium dashed red;
-moz-opacity: 40%;
}
There was a link I had months ago talking about this, but it's long gone. My own experience, though, was that around 1996 or so Best Buy and local CD stores were SWAMPED with CD singles of all kinds, Best Buy especially used to sell them for less than $5, and I bought (and still own) a ton of them, and often own the albums too. Go into a Best Buy or local CD shop now, though, and you'll find little else beyond the full releases.
This is NOT because CD singles weren't selling, it is because they WERE selling...
sheephead
net send? Phew, thought I had something to worry about for a second!
sheephead
The CBDTPA sponsored by Fritz is the one that would regulate Berman's car horn.
With all the proposed legislation attempting regulate tools, though, your confusion is forgiven. :)
sheephead
By being their own publishers, they make a lot more money - I'm not going to pretend to be an expert, but publishers split royalties with whoever has song writing credit on the song. So, Dr. Dre can be the publisher of many songs (possibly every song on his label; he has a label, right?), and make 50% of the royalties on those songs, even if he didn't write them or record them personally. Thus, in this respect, Dre is closer to a music industry exec than an artist - he is financially hurt by music sharing, because his publishing royalties come directly from CD sales. A very quick search found this article for reference.
So, many of the vocal opposers were some of the very popular bands / musicians who also have a larger interest in higher CD sales than most bands. So if music is shared, while a regular band might see increased ticket or merchandise sales that could improve their bottom line (meager as it is) the publisher only loses. (OK, so more downloaded songs might mean more CD sales, but you understand the publisher's objections I'm sure.)
In this respect an artist like Dre would be very valuable to the RIAA, because while he seems to be primarily a musician, I imagine most of his money actually comes from publishing credits. So, he can appear to be a musician opposed to sharing, when he is actually a publisher/musician opposed to sharing.
sheephead
You can't do that now because the film is on a big canister that needs light shone through it... but if it's just bits on a HD, the bits can be intercepted, or even copied when the movie isn't being played.
This DivX company seems doomed to failure. Now they're trying to introduce something akin to stopping people from copying CDs onto audio tapes. Sure, it might work, but those who want a copy of a CD now just rip it...
And, seems that the industry's biggest problem now is untrustable DVD screeners, honestly.
If you're about to say that there aren't HDs big enough to store a full digital projection movie, well, my HD used to get pretty full ripping an audio CD, too...
Rip the digital stream, bring it home, reencode. If it's at all possible, it'll be done. It's essentially an early copy of the DVD playing on a really nice projector. Capturing that video through a camcorder won't be necessary for much longer.
sheephead
What in the world was he expecting?
More generally, this is very neat news. I know many people's parents and grandparents who would love a new machine for $200, as long as they can run AOL.
sheephead
I find a lot of the rest of the article wrong as well. "Just six months ago, this sort of talk [about actually paying for music] would have been unthinkable, downright apostasy." No... actually, a lot of reasonable people were complaining that music was simply too expensive. You know, we've all been buying music for YEARS. We didn't all just forget about paying for things, we just realized that the music cartel has an unhealthy amount of control.
I have no sympathy for you if you get a virus from an MP3. You should have noticed the extension wasReally, they're advocating some kind of huge website where you can find lots of varied bands in some kind of unrestricted format that you can download to your computer. Boy, this is starting to sound a whole lot like the service we've all been asking for! And it's sounding more and more like what Napster used to be, and what Kazaa is now. Strange how that works.
sheephead
Don't be fooled, I think there is a huge demand for broadband (although for mostly underground reasons) - but every article I read about it tries to spin it towards supporting the RIAA/MPAA demands for DRM. They say "no one has broadband because they're waiting for OUR stuff," but in reality most people just aren't going to pay $50 a month for broadband. I don't think they're waiting for MPAA-blessed DRM (so they can pay EVEN MORE for pay-per-download schemes) - they're waiting for affordable broadband.
I'd pay $20 a month for something above 56k but below Cable/DSL, but such a thing doesn't exist, so I'll just wait until broadband is affordable.
sheephead