I have been subscribing to emusic for about two years now, and they provide exactly what you just described. If you type in an artist's name, emusic will show you not only the artist you searched for, but other artists that you may also be interested in who have a similar type of style. They will return these results even if the artist you originally searched for is not available from their website.
Another great feature is that based off of your download history, emusic will display what other people who have downloaded some of the same albums/artists also downloaded. It's a great way to discover bands you have never heard of.
I worked under an IP attorney who graduated from Harvard, Yale AND Cambridge and his rates were $250-$300 an hour, and he had some very impressive clients. Not all attorneys are blood sucking leeches, some actually enjoy the work they do.
As other posters have pointed out, as soon as someone pays you for your service, you are now the de facto go-to guy for any future computer problems.
I live in New York City, and at first it seemed like a great idea to get paid to tinker around with other people's computers. I charged an initial fee of $75 for a house visit which also covered the first two hours of work and an additional $35 for each additional hour. People enjoyed having someone come to their doorstep and exorcize the computer demons while at the same time offering them tips on how to avoid the same problems from happening again.
But after the first two months I realized that the majority of my weeknights were being consumed by computer-related issues. It is none too convenient to go to someone's house in Brooklyn or downtown Manhattan after work, putz around on their computer for ninety minutes, and then treck all the way back uptown to get home. My girlfriend was not very happy either with all the time that I spent fixing other people's problems. Also, gone were the days when I could tinker around with my own computer, since all the time I used to spend messing around with my own setup was now devoted to others.
Long story short, I no longer do housecalls for tech support, it feels like I have a lot more free time on my hands and as an added bonus I am free to work on my own computer. I still answer the occasional e-mail or phone call for minor computer problems but usually those are relatively minor issues.
While I do agree with the gist of your statement, building technology and technology in general has advanced so far beyond what was available back when the Duomo was constructed that there is no need to bankroll a project which may take centuries to complete.
In the realm of science, however, I can still see a project taking much longer than the span of the life of any scientist who may be involved in the project from the beginning.
Most people seem to have the idea that the language used in a legal document is purposefully obtuse or is written in some language that is nigh impossible to comprehend. The reason legal contracts are worded the way they are is to prevent ANY misunderstanding or obscurity if it ever comes down to litigation. It is a language used by professionals who have spent time understanding basic concepts and jargon which apply to the legal field. You wouldn't expect the average person to be able to look at programming code or even html and understand completely what is going on.
I understand that the point you were trying to make is that the law should be easily understood by whomever wishes to take a look, but more often than not this leads to ambiguity and even larger loopholes. Reading a legal document is not impossible, they don't contain make believe words; unfortunately most people find it utterly boring to read through a legal document and therefore equate a legal document with being impossible to decipher.
I use Mozilla Thunderbird to view my hotmail account using Hotmail Popper which allows me to save all my hotmail e-mails locally so I never run out of storage
What about when I want to watch DVDs on my linux box? Currently I do this using mplayer but since mplayer uses DeCSS to decrypt the DVD I am in violation of the DMCA...
I've always wondered about this. Say I use bittorrent to download some music, but I am not a seed. Since I upload the same file to other users in chunks, can I still be held liable for copyright infringement if I do not upload the entire song/album that I just downloaded?
From what I understand, an individual has to distribute the entire contents of a copyrighted work in order for it to consitute as copyright infringement. Since bittorrent uploads/downloads in chunks, it is possible that I only upload 3/10 of one track of an album and 1/5 of another track etc. etc., Will it still be considered illegal even though I have not shared the entire file?
McDonald's lost the right to use their famous golden arches in South Africa because another local South African company beat them to it. More info here
Re:Somewhat related question
on
iPod Mini Autopsy
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I do a lot of rollerblading with my iPod here in the streets of New York City and I've had my fair share of wipeouts. The trick is to get a case similar to this one which provides non-slip rubberized sides and a nylon face and backing. I've dropped my iPod while standing up, fallen on it, crashed into various obstacles etc. and my iPod is still working perfectly to this day.
Just make sure to get a case which will offer some shock protection, the standard case which ships with the iPod wasn't really meant for any contact sports.
Re:Slightly OT, does anyone use iPod with Linux?
on
No WMA for HP iPod
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I also use Linux to transfer files to my iPod, and the program I use is gtkpod. For the most part it is a painless process, since you can auto mount/umount your iPod when you start/close gtkpod, but it's not uncommon to have gtkpod freeze up in the mounting stage or not umount properly. Then the only way to get things to work again is to reboot. Hopefully when I upgrade to the 2.6 kernel things will be a bit more smooth.
This is where you are wrong. A contract by it's very definition has to be agreeable to both parties, meaning that either party can make an amendment. As long as it's signed and accepted by both parties, the terms set forth in the signed agreement are considered binding.
When my old iPod developed hard drive issues, I sent it in for $39 to have a replacement iPod shipped out to me. While I was talking to the service rep about the exchange, I inquired as to whether or not I could purchase an extended warranty to cover more than the 1 year already covered by the original warranty. I was told that the only product for which you could not purchase an extended warranty was for the iPod. If you could provide some info to the contrary it would be appreciated
Amazingly enough, this allows you to rip streaming audio onto your hard drive. I just tune in to shoutcast and streamripper rips each song using the meta data in the stream.
Separates each song and writes id3 information for each track. It may not be cd quality, but works great for any portable media player.
In this instance, the attorneys for the RIAA were acting on behalf of the copyright owner (in this case the RIAA) who believed that another party (Professor Usher) was infringing upon their copyright (Usher the musician). They nowhere claimed to be representing a party with whom they were not the legal agent.
The perjury clause of the DMCA is only valid if someone claims to be representing a copyright owner when, in fact, they have no legal grounds to do so. If I were to start issuing takedown notices to people saying that I was representing the RIAA even though I had no legal grounds to do so, I would be commiting perjury, NOT the RIAA.
In the end, yes the attorney's for the RIAA were wrong in assuming Professor Usher was infringing on the RIAA's copyright, but they were representing the RIAA who were the legal copyright holders of Usher's music. Therefore, they are not commiting perjury because they were the legal agents of the RIAA.
Let me try to clarify a bit, I don't think I got my point across too well in my last post.
theft and copyright infringement are governed by totally separate laws, so the act of theft has separate legal repercussions than the act of copyright infringement.
Using a five fingered discount to get 200 cd's from your local record store isn't exactly the same as downloading those same cd's from kazaa
No, legally you are wrong. Copyright infringement is in no way, shape or form legally considered *stealing*, it is copyright infringement. I am not pointing this out to rationalize or condone the act of copyright infringement, but rather, as the parent post pointed out, to clarify the distinctions between theft and copyright infringement.
One can debate endlessly the differences between infringement and theft, i.e. is there any monetary loss if the person who infringed never had the intention or did not have the financial means to obtain the product legally, but try to identify the crime (yes, copyright infirngement is a crime) for what it is.
Don't let some corporate oligopoly interpert the law for you, there is a reason for writing a law in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
That's crap, who do you think pays the most taxes in the state? Oh that's right, NYC. Therefore shouldn't most of the money be spent there as well??
I have been subscribing to emusic for about two years now, and they provide exactly what you just described. If you type in an artist's name, emusic will show you not only the artist you searched for, but other artists that you may also be interested in who have a similar type of style. They will return these results even if the artist you originally searched for is not available from their website.
Another great feature is that based off of your download history, emusic will display what other people who have downloaded some of the same albums/artists also downloaded. It's a great way to discover bands you have never heard of.
In New York City, if a police officer asks you for identification and you have none they can legally arrest you.
I worked under an IP attorney who graduated from Harvard, Yale AND Cambridge and his rates were $250-$300 an hour, and he had some very impressive clients. Not all attorneys are blood sucking leeches, some actually enjoy the work they do.
I use Speedfan
Not sure how it will work on a laptop but give it a try
As other posters have pointed out, as soon as someone pays you for your service, you are now the de facto go-to guy for any future computer problems.
I live in New York City, and at first it seemed like a great idea to get paid to tinker around with other people's computers. I charged an initial fee of $75 for a house visit which also covered the first two hours of work and an additional $35 for each additional hour. People enjoyed having someone come to their doorstep and exorcize the computer demons while at the same time offering them tips on how to avoid the same problems from happening again.
But after the first two months I realized that the majority of my weeknights were being consumed by computer-related issues. It is none too convenient to go to someone's house in Brooklyn or downtown Manhattan after work, putz around on their computer for ninety minutes, and then treck all the way back uptown to get home. My girlfriend was not very happy either with all the time that I spent fixing other people's problems. Also, gone were the days when I could tinker around with my own computer, since all the time I used to spend messing around with my own setup was now devoted to others.
Long story short, I no longer do housecalls for tech support, it feels like I have a lot more free time on my hands and as an added bonus I am free to work on my own computer. I still answer the occasional e-mail or phone call for minor computer problems but usually those are relatively minor issues.
While I do agree with the gist of your statement, building technology and technology in general has advanced so far beyond what was available back when the Duomo was constructed that there is no need to bankroll a project which may take centuries to complete.
In the realm of science, however, I can still see a project taking much longer than the span of the life of any scientist who may be involved in the project from the beginning.
Simply not true, I use Firefox to pay my Verizon Wireless bills all the time and I ahve never had any troubles.
Most people seem to have the idea that the language used in a legal document is purposefully obtuse or is written in some language that is nigh impossible to comprehend. The reason legal contracts are worded the way they are is to prevent ANY misunderstanding or obscurity if it ever comes down to litigation. It is a language used by professionals who have spent time understanding basic concepts and jargon which apply to the legal field. You wouldn't expect the average person to be able to look at programming code or even html and understand completely what is going on.
I understand that the point you were trying to make is that the law should be easily understood by whomever wishes to take a look, but more often than not this leads to ambiguity and even larger loopholes. Reading a legal document is not impossible, they don't contain make believe words; unfortunately most people find it utterly boring to read through a legal document and therefore equate a legal document with being impossible to decipher.
I use Mozilla Thunderbird to view my hotmail account using Hotmail Popper which allows me to save all my hotmail e-mails locally so I never run out of storage
What about when I want to watch DVDs on my linux box? Currently I do this using mplayer but since mplayer uses DeCSS to decrypt the DVD I am in violation of the DMCA...
I've always wondered about this. Say I use bittorrent to download some music, but I am not a seed. Since I upload the same file to other users in chunks, can I still be held liable for copyright infringement if I do not upload the entire song/album that I just downloaded?
From what I understand, an individual has to distribute the entire contents of a copyrighted work in order for it to consitute as copyright infringement. Since bittorrent uploads/downloads in chunks, it is possible that I only upload 3/10 of one track of an album and 1/5 of another track etc. etc., Will it still be considered illegal even though I have not shared the entire file?
McDonald's lost the right to use their famous golden arches in South Africa because another local South African company beat them to it. More info here
I do a lot of rollerblading with my iPod here in the streets of New York City and I've had my fair share of wipeouts. The trick is to get a case similar to this one which provides non-slip rubberized sides and a nylon face and backing. I've dropped my iPod while standing up, fallen on it, crashed into various obstacles etc. and my iPod is still working perfectly to this day.
Just make sure to get a case which will offer some shock protection, the standard case which ships with the iPod wasn't really meant for any contact sports.
I also use Linux to transfer files to my iPod, and the program I use is gtkpod. For the most part it is a painless process, since you can auto mount/umount your iPod when you start/close gtkpod, but it's not uncommon to have gtkpod freeze up in the mounting stage or not umount properly. Then the only way to get things to work again is to reboot. Hopefully when I upgrade to the 2.6 kernel things will be a bit more smooth.
This is where you are wrong. A contract by it's very definition has to be agreeable to both parties, meaning that either party can make an amendment. As long as it's signed and accepted by both parties, the terms set forth in the signed agreement are considered binding.
When my old iPod developed hard drive issues, I sent it in for $39 to have a replacement iPod shipped out to me. While I was talking to the service rep about the exchange, I inquired as to whether or not I could purchase an extended warranty to cover more than the 1 year already covered by the original warranty. I was told that the only product for which you could not purchase an extended warranty was for the iPod. If you could provide some info to the contrary it would be appreciated
Amazingly enough, this allows you to rip streaming audio onto your hard drive. I just tune in to shoutcast and streamripper rips each song using the meta data in the stream.
Separates each song and writes id3 information for each track. It may not be cd quality, but works great for any portable media player.
The perjury clause of the DMCA is only valid if someone claims to be representing a copyright owner when, in fact, they have no legal grounds to do so. If I were to start issuing takedown notices to people saying that I was representing the RIAA even though I had no legal grounds to do so, I would be commiting perjury, NOT the RIAA.
In the end, yes the attorney's for the RIAA were wrong in assuming Professor Usher was infringing on the RIAA's copyright, but they were representing the RIAA who were the legal copyright holders of Usher's music. Therefore, they are not commiting perjury because they were the legal agents of the RIAA.
theft and copyright infringement are governed by totally separate laws, so the act of theft has separate legal repercussions than the act of copyright infringement.
Using a five fingered discount to get 200 cd's from your local record store isn't exactly the same as downloading those same cd's from kazaa
No, legally you are wrong. Copyright infringement is in no way, shape or form legally considered *stealing*, it is copyright infringement. I am not pointing this out to rationalize or condone the act of copyright infringement, but rather, as the parent post pointed out, to clarify the distinctions between theft and copyright infringement. One can debate endlessly the differences between infringement and theft, i.e. is there any monetary loss if the person who infringed never had the intention or did not have the financial means to obtain the product legally, but try to identify the crime (yes, copyright infirngement is a crime) for what it is. Don't let some corporate oligopoly interpert the law for you, there is a reason for writing a law in the first place.