>But what inspiration does a person have to go and >buy a cd when they could download and burn the cd >in much less time than they could go to a store >and buy it?
Actually a couple...
1) Convinence: I can take a CD with me anywhere. My car (no in-dash MP3 player in my budget yet, but plenty of CD options), the bus, the subway, the beach... pretty much ANYWHERE that I do NOT have a high speed connection to my MP3 archive at home, or to napster.
2) The big one.
Compared to real CDs, an MP3, or an MP3 converted to red book and burnes to a CDR, SOUNDS LIKE CRAP!!! Even @ 196 conversion, there's still a noticeably lack of quality. Sure, you might not be able to tell the difference on those crappy computer speakers, or on those $2 headphones on your discman... but on a GOOD stereo, with REAL speakers, MP3s sound like CRAP compared to the real thing.
And #2 is the big reason that, while I have a hefty collection of MP3s for convinence and previewing, I also have a huge CD collection. Any MP3 worth keeping is worth buying the CD, partly for the convince of listening to my music at work and school, but especially for the quality. And if it's not good enough to buy the CD, it's not worth listening to, or keeping on my HD when the next cleanup day comes along.
And I can't help but wonder when the RIAA and their stooges like metallica, dr dre, et al. are going to realise 1 and 2.
>Before you compare, "stealing" music to >"stealing" a car, consider the following:
>Can you touch a car? Is a car a physical thing, >tangible?
>Now, can you say the same for music? What's the >difference between a $2.50 blank CD from Pick N >Pay, and a "%Band Name%" CD ? To me, very little. >They are physically tangible only at one layer: >the physical, CD layer. The music is just a >bunch of ridges and gaps.
Quite right. But I'll use computers as a better analogy in this instance.
I would actually be quite pissed if someone were to *STEAL* my computer.
But if anybody out there would like to build their own COPY of my computer, I would be more than happy to provide you with the specs. Hell, I could even give some of the part numbers in addition to brand and models. You could make an exact DUPLICATE, and I wouldn't give a damn. Good luck finding some of the parts tho... there's some OLD stuff lingering in there.
But I would still be quite mad if you were to STEAL it.
>But would we blame blockbuster for it if people >were caught doing just that?
Not Blockbuster per se, but...
Our good friends the MPAA DID *try* to destory the entire VCR/Videocassete industry before Blockbuster ever got started and Wayne H. was just another Miami garbageman.
There was a rathar well known case between Sony and the MPAA that went all the way to the supreme court, which basiclly tole the MPAA to stuff it.
The MPAA was claiming that Sony's betamax tapes (and, by extension, everyone else's VHS tapes) were nothing but a tool for piracy and would destroy the movie industry (sound familiar?) and a bunch of other nonsence.
Hmmm, I guess since videotapes were SURE to *destroy* the movie industry, the MPAA that has been persecuting anyone who so much as mentions the word deCSS is just a figment of my imagination, eh?
How ironic that Sony, after taking the VCR to the supreme court, is now in bed with their old enemies and sideing with the RIAA against napster and the MPAA against deCSS.
Those who do not learm from history....
So who's going to take the MP3 format and deCSS to the supreme court so that the RIAA, MPAA, and their stooges like metallica can be told, finally, to stick it?
The ACLU appears to be sitting around doing dick about it. So I guess it's time to cancel my membership with them, and switch over to the EFF, who sure seem to be more on the top of things these days.
>So by that logic, it's OK to walk into Borders >and steal "I, Robot" by Asimov if you then go >out and purchase other Asimov books?
I'll rephrase it in Neal Stephenson terms...
Wheras if you stole "Snow Crash" (or, in metallica CD terms, an album, say... master of puppets), for example, and liked it so much that you went back and bought "Cryptonomicon" (the black album) that WOULD be wrong.
OTOH, The analogy in the first post is more like: You downloaded and read the first few chapters (enter sandman) of "Cryptonomicon" for free over at cryptomonicon.com, and you liked them so much that you went to the bookstore and bought the whole book (the black album).
And you know what? You may delude yourself into denying that it happens, but I HAVE discovered and purchased albums that I otherwise would not have bought in this way. And I know plenty of others who have made their music purchaseing decisions on the "try before you buy" model as well.
Simple fact is, any MP3 thats worth listening to, is worth buying the CD. Because, while you may not be able to tell the difference in quality on the crappy speakers on a computer, when you compare the MP3 to the CD on a REAL stereo, the MP3 (or a red book CD burned from MP3s) sounds like crap compared to the real thing. So any MP3 that's not worth buying the CD, is not really worth listening to anyway and gets deleted in short order.
Is is, as I said, a "try before you buy" purchaseing model. After all, you expect to test drive a car before you buy it. You expect to try out a computer in the store before you commit your funding.
So why should you expect to rush blindly into a music purchase without knowing what you're getting?
Looked at the name on one post, replied to this one.
But the point still stands. Plenty of people try that reverse psychology crap to try to get their karma modded up. Look around. You see plenty of examples:
"I know this'll be modded down, but..." "The hypocrite moderators will demolish my karma, but..." "Mod you down if you must, but..."
etc. etc. etc.
And the fact that he posted anon doesn't make this troll any less of a karma whore. In fact, it makes him more of one, because he's afraid that his precious karma might be knocked down a couple of notches because of the inane schilling he's doing for metalica and the riaa.
At least when I say something that might piss someone off, or get me modded down; I don't hide my karma behind the "Post Anonymously" shield like this troll did.
The obvious answer is to use freenet, which is being built so that even the file TRANSFER is anonymous. You can't see who's downloading from your box. They can't see whose box they're downloading from. With any luck, features like this will work their way into gnutella and mabye even napster in the future.
I'll grant you that freenet is still a work in progress, and that its anonymonity features may not be perfect...
But,like cryptography, it doesn't have to be PERFECT. It just has to be good enough that breaking through becomes more trouble/expensive than it's worth.
(very hypothetical example here...) After all, if it turns out that it takes the NSA a week on a Cray to break the crypto key and expose a raw IP; do you think for a second that the NSA considers it worth their computer time to help a bunch of burned out metalheads harass their "fans"???
How many times has this been said in other Apple related stories???
Seems like everytime Apple is mentioned on Slashdot, SOMEONE will start b*tching about this.
FACT: Apple does NOT own *all* of the code in Quicktime.
Portions of QT are licensed from other vendors. In particular, the Sorenson codec, which is responsible for live QT streaming, is NOT Apple's intellectual property. No Sorenson, no streaming QT... No Sorenson, no super-high-quality QT like the Star Wars trailers.
A handful of other components are licensed technology, but Sorenson is the biggie. Without the Sorenson codec, you might as well be using Quicktime Three, rathar than four or five.
Now, since Apple does not own the code; do you think they are going to open-source it and intentionally expose themselves to the resulting lawsuits?
For all the mistakes that Apple has made over the years, I don't think giving away someone else's copyrighted code will be one of them... not anytime soon anyway.
And that's why there is no Quicktime for Linux. And that's why there WILL NOT be Quicktime for Linux anytime soon.
Wanna complain to someone? Go to Sorenson and convince them to open-source their codec. If you are sucessful (I doubt it), you will have made a big step (perhaps the biggest) towards a Linux version of Quicktime.
Seems like the ACLU's lawyers are trying to rig the game so no one can win (except themselves of course).
If you don't comply with a subpoena, you go to jail. Or, I guess the judge issuing the subpoena would slap down some hefty fines in the case of a corperation like Yahoo.
But if you *DO* obey the laful order of a court of law...
... the ACLU comes in and tries to sue you into oblivion?!?!?!?
You don't have to be any kind of lawyer to know that this kind of no-win situation is patently ridiculous. Just what ARE you supposed to do in a situation like this?
Sounds to me like this aquadrool person is miffed that Yahoo didn't fight his battle against the plantiff for him, and now wants to be seen as some poor victim of the big evil corperate Yahoo giant.
>So now anyone who doesn't agree with you is one >of Gates' minions?
In the average thread, no. Disagreements are a healthy way to promote discourse. Dissenting opinions are usually a good thing.
But that's the very heart of this matter. Gates is attempting to supress dissenting opinion. He is attacking the very right to disagree. He is attempting to silence his critics.
To support gates in an action such as this is ludicrous. And weather you draw your paycheck from microsoft is irrelevant. It is a galling example of cult-like behavior for you to agree with microsoft that the dissenting voice must be silenced. Notice that the cult of scientology uses remarkably simular tactics to supress it's own critics.
First, I agree that you don't speak for 100% of Slashdot's readers. It's been common knowledge for quite some time that gates has commanded his minions to infiltrate, monitor, and astroturf Slashdot. You can see some of them in this very thread that you started, and quite a few more in the other threads on this topic.
Speaking for myself, however, I agree 100%.
Look. We all knew this was comeing. It was only a matter of time before gates moved to silence his critics. It is an inevitable part of any tyrant's rise... seize control of the critical press. Make sure ONLY your viewpoint is heard by the masses. Stalin did it. Mao did it. Castro did it. Hussain did it.
And let's face it. Outside of gates' own astroturfing schills, most of the Slashdot community IS critical of microsoft. Now Gates has begun his own campaign to silence his critics.
I say FIGHT! Do NOT submit without making gates pay dearly for his every inch. The old cliche applies. If you give an inch, he will take a mile. But if you stand your ground, this MAY be the turning point in the struggle for freedom. Who knows? Mabye resistance REALLY is not futile.
And don't keep the fight in the courtroom only. Take it to the public. Let the media know that gates is attempting to do away with the first amendment. And I don't mean just the tech press like ZDnet and Cnet. Take it to the mass media! CNN, AP, the New York Times, even sensationalist press like Fox. Let the WHOLE WORLD know what gates is trying! Put that Andover IPO money to good use; take out a full page ad in the Wall Street Journal.
But above all, NEVER GIVE IN! If microsoft suceeds, if gates takes away our right to freely speak and write, critically or no, who knows what right is next on his list during his ascension? Keep and bear arms would be the next logical chioce, but free assembly, trial by jury, and redress of grievances would also be high on his list.
Slashdot should learn from others who fought such battles against tyrants. The forces of good invariably have triumphed in the past, and I hope that we triumph in the future. Adopt the philosophy of other great fighters. I am reminded of one quote in particular. Some of you might recognise it:
"We shall have no truce or parley with you, or the grizley gang who work your wicked will. You do your worst. And we shall do our best."
>Everyone that actively trades mp3s ALL trade >some illegal ones along with the legal ones.
I assume, from your accusation therefore, that you have, at some point in the near past:
1) Hacked into every computer I own which contains ANY MP3 files.
2) Cataloged my MP3s by song title & artist... keeping in mind that on the Mac and the Linux box, they don't have that convinent.mp3 suffix. This makes the search a bit more difficult than a simple "ls -r *.mp3"
3) Broken into my home, my car, and my rented storage locker so as to:
4) Taken a complete inventory of EVERY CD, Tape, and record I own.
6) Obtained a complete list of ALL of the music purchases I've made in my whole life, so as to allow for the CDs, tapes, and records I've lost or had stolen over the years.
7) Correlated the data from steps 2, 4, & 6 to determine that I am in possetion of MP3s for which I have never purchased original media.
8) Done all of the above for EVERYONE who has MP3s
If not, you are wrongfully accusing a LOT of people, and are a complete idiot... or possibly just another rathar pathaetic AC troll. Hmm... idiot == AC == Troll.... looks like a good tautology to me.
If you have done 1-7, you are quite a superhuman individual. Oh, and you are also a criminal. Many of the tasks you would have had to perform to determine that I posses or trade illegal MP3s are quite illegal in of themselves.... Care to share your real name so I can forward it to the proper authorities?
>If that's the only definition of computer that >your dictionary gives, the it's a bad dictionary.
It's not a BAD dictionary by any means, it's an edition of the Oxford dictionary of the English Language. But it's an OLD dictionary, given to me by my grandfather and dating from the '30s as I recall.
>Some hackers feel that their definition of hacker >is somehow more valid than a newspaper's >definition of hacker, simply because they belong >to the group described
No, the journalist's definition is wrong because they display a complete ignorance of the meaning and history of the word. They don't bother to check the jargon file OR the history of the word.
Have you ever read Stephen Levy's "Hackers"? If you had, you'd know that the word originally didn't apply to computer work AT ALL. It came in to use at MIT's model railroading club. And even when it DID move into the computer field, it still only had positive connotations.
It wasn't until some idiot in the mass media who had no comprehension of the culture he was describing needed a buzzword to scare the unwashed masses that hacker was equated to cracker. The negative connotations of hacker are a completely manuefactured fiction of tabloid-level journalism.
If you HAVEN'T read Levy's book, I suggest you do. He did quite a good job of chronicleing the hacker culture, and the entemology of the word "hacker". And beyond it's value as a history text, it's a fascinating chronicle in of itself.
... that one obsolete medium (the CBC) is using another obsolete medium (dead-tree editions of dictionarys) to defend their isiotic and improper use of terminology.
I have, at home, a dead-tree dictionary that defines "computer" along the lines of "a person whos job it is to do complex mathematical computations", with no mention of transistors, microchips, or silicon.
If *I* relied on dead-tree format references for MY language skills, how then, would I describe this box sitting on my desk?
Either this is a setup, either the government needing a scaprgoat, or the real author misdirecting the authorities...
... or this guy is the king of all idiots and desperately deserves to be caught and removed from the gene pool.
Okay, for starters, it's worth repeating that the security experts who traced the melissia virus think the REAL author is some German kid living in Australia.
But, if this Phillipine guy *IS* the author of the "Love Bug", he is desprately in need of a good bludgeoning.
Think about it for a sec. The media (CNN, AP, and Fox at least) was reporting ALL WEEKEND that "authorities" suspected him, but they could NOT get a search or arrest warrant because the courts were closed over the weekend.
Now, if *I* had done the "love bug", and *I* had a whole weekend of warning that the cops were coming on monday, I would have spent most of the weekend shredding and burning any hard copy of the virus code; and, more importantly, PGPwipeing every related file AND free space on my hard drive. Then I'd move my swap file to a new partition and PGPwipe the old swap partition. Then, for good measure, I'd prolly pull out the HD and give it a good round with a bulk eraser or speaker magnent.
Reformat, reinstall, and restore. No evidence, no worries.
With two days warning, if he left enough evidence that they really DID arrest him today, he's too dumb to breed anyway, and deserves to be caught.
All of which assumes, of course, that the cops are right, and the computer guys who trackes Melessia are wrong; which is, amittedly, a rathar dubious assumption at best, but WTF.
Hello... Washington state uphelds shrink wrap licensing?!?!? Well, I'd respond to this "news" with a resounding: DUH!!!
That's like saying that the city council of Berlin had endorced the invasion of France and calling it news.
The only real question here is: How much did each judge cost, or did gates get them all in a package discount?
And perhaps then, will Washington be the second state to pass UCITA? Hell, I'm bloody well supprised that it wasn't the first. But all that shows is that AOL was a bit quicker in it's own blitzkreig.
Well, at least the govergnment is FINALLY starting to react. Though it does seem to be too little too late.
It was tested and thrown out in court, last year I beleive.
The chief litigant??? None other than Larry Flynt, of Hustler fame. Not too supprising there, eh?
Anyway, the crux of that case was a publication of his entitled "Barely Legal". "Barely Legal" seeks out eighteen and nineteen year old girls who look younger than they are, say fourteen to sixteen, and is every bit explicit as Hustler.
And it's all perfectly legal, and Mr. Flynt is making a good deal of money off of "Barely Legal"
If MP3 distrobution is such an anathema to the possibility of profiting from music, and MP3s are costing the industry so much money...
How do you explain the fact that CD sales INCREASED by more than a billion dollars over the last year, and how do you explain the success of artists such as Limp Bizkit, Check D, The Offspring, Less Than Jake, Phish, The Grateful Dead, etc...
... all of whom take a very positive view of fans trading their mucic, many of whom have been very vocal in supporting the MP3 format, and a number of whom provide archives or links to archives of MP3s, on their own websites?
Anyone else here have HASMAT or HASCOM training?
on
Silicon Hell
·
· Score: 2
I read this article in dead tree form a few days ago after arriving in San Francisco for my new job.
I find myself wondering how much of this article is based on objective fact, and how much is based on biased editorialism and sloppy research.
In just a week of reading the local papers, I've noticed, in the editorial sections at least, a good deal of outright hostility towards computer geeks in general. But just by virtue of moveing here, I've , according to the Guardian, gone from being a slacker-punk-computer-geek to being a predatory yuppie scum.
Why, I don't know. I can only guess that the editors, and some of the writers/letters to the ed readers/writers have never matured past their assinine little high school we-hate-the-computer-nerds cliques. Either that, or they just have such a liberal bias (SF *IS* known as a VERY liberal area after all) that they hate anyone who might ever become sucessful in life... and let's face it, out profession is potentially very profitable. Oh well. At least most of the PEOPLE I've met so far (as opposed to journalists) haven't shown themselves to hate computer geeks.
I've gotten a little off-topic here, but I think it *IS* very important to remember the anti-geek bias in the Guardian when you're reading about them trashing geeks and the computer industry.
If you haven't had HASMAT training, you'd be quite suprised at how many substances, common in everyday life, are considered hazardous/toxoc/carginogenic/etc if used in the workplace.
*The bleach you use in your toilet or to clean your whites... *The gasoline you use to fuel your car... *The windex you clean your glass with...
Each and every one of these is considered a hazardous/toxic material by OSHA. And each one requires a MSDS to be on hand if used in the workplace.
And MSDS's are VERY conservative. If there's the slightest chance of an adverse effect at ANY concentration, you are warned about it. Chlorine, for instance, has a good half page or so dealing with it's irritant/toxic qualities at concentrations you'd find in a swimming pool!
I find it quite hard to beleive that tech workers were cast into toxic conditions completely ignorant of the risks and unable to take any precautions.
... so as to include shills who troll on behalf of the MPAA, RIAA, Metallica, etc. as well as those who do so for gates and his cronies.
"deCSS is only for copying DVDs" "MP3 is only for music pirates" "you doodz suck.... lars roolz!"
blah, blah, blah...
Just how pathateic are these trolls' lives that they have nothing better to do than lower the signal to noise ratio and disrupt the discussions of others?
>They may only get 50 cents per disc, but when >someone downloads music via Napster, Gnutella, >etc. the artist gets squat.
... Because I just bought The Mighty Mighty Bosstones new CD, "Pay Attention" last night, on the first day of it's release.
But I had downloaded many of the songs that appear on Pay Attention via Napster weeks ago. Those MP3s just made me that much more anxious to get the actual CD and hear the songs at full quality, AND hear the songs I coundn't find an MP3 for.
So tell me, Mister Copyright Guru....
If, by virtue of my having downloaded the MP3s ahead of time, "the artist gets squat", just where does the Bosstone's royalty money from my CD purchase go? If "the artist gets squat" where does the money I'll pay for admission next time I see them live go? If "the artist gets squat" where does the money I'll pay for a T-shirt at the show go?
Obviously, none of that money goes to the Bosstones, because, as you say, when you download MP3s, "the artist gets squat".
The truth behind Gates' so-called "chairity" was discoved many months ago.
When WILL gates learn to reign in ms's email network??? These embarassing leaks occur so frequently, that I sometimes think there must be a secret resistance working within the collective itself; feeding information to the forces of freedom.
Anyway, The Register exposed gates' supposed "generousity" as a fraud last year. It's nothing more than a quite cynical PR exercise.
And it's a grossly overvalued PR exercise at that. Note the paragraph which mentions just *HOW* the values of his donations are computed.
A rathar pathaetic and transparent ruse, I would think.
Isn't it just a little bit early to be celebrating? Especially considering that this patch won't do *US* any good at all.
Assuming that this patch is made available to civillians in 2025, at the same time as it becomes available to the military; the only programmers that'll benefit from it are the ones just getting around to being *born* right now.
Twenty-five years from now, we'll all be over the hill and obsolete. Unless of course there's a Y2K-esque emergency that'll bring us C/C++/Java/Perl guys in from the pasture; like Y2K itself did for the COBOL and Fortran geezers. Other than that, it'll be no use whatsoever for those of us programming NOW.... oh well.
Depressing? Yeah, a little. But that's the nature of our game.
It might help our kids do those all-nighter programming sessions tho. That's definately something.
After all, the Lara Croft character is basically a female Indiana Jones with a british accent, and very well.... well... endowed physique.
Everyone knows how well the Indiana Jones trilogy did. Can it be done without Speilberg at the helm? Can Angelina stand up to that kind of non-stop action as well as Harrison Ford? Who knows. But it IS possible.
And well endowed girls with british accents have enjoied a great deal of commercial sucess these last few years. Spice Girls anyone???
I can definately see it doing well at the box office... if it's done right. I can even see it being a very good movie... if it's done right. Angelina Jolie IS, after all, a very good actress (and the only high point of "Hackers") afterall.
Slashdot Mirror
>But what inspiration does a person have to go and
>buy a cd when they could download and burn the cd
>in much less time than they could go to a store
>and buy it?
Actually a couple...
1)
Convinence: I can take a CD with me anywhere. My car (no in-dash MP3 player in my budget yet, but plenty of CD options), the bus, the subway, the beach... pretty much ANYWHERE that I do NOT have a high speed connection to my MP3 archive at home, or to napster.
2)
The big one.
Compared to real CDs, an MP3, or an MP3 converted to red book and burnes to a CDR, SOUNDS LIKE CRAP!!! Even @ 196 conversion, there's still a noticeably lack of quality. Sure, you might not be able to tell the difference on those crappy computer speakers, or on those $2 headphones on your discman... but on a GOOD stereo, with REAL speakers, MP3s sound like CRAP compared to the real thing.
And #2 is the big reason that, while I have a hefty collection of MP3s for convinence and previewing, I also have a huge CD collection. Any MP3 worth keeping is worth buying the CD, partly for the convince of listening to my music at work and school, but especially for the quality. And if it's not good enough to buy the CD, it's not worth listening to, or keeping on my HD when the next cleanup day comes along.
And I can't help but wonder when the RIAA and their stooges like metallica, dr dre, et al. are going to realise 1 and 2.
john
>Before you compare, "stealing" music to
>"stealing" a car, consider the following:
>Can you touch a car? Is a car a physical thing,
>tangible?
>Now, can you say the same for music? What's the
>difference between a $2.50 blank CD from Pick N
>Pay, and a "%Band Name%" CD ? To me, very little.
>They are physically tangible only at one layer:
>the physical, CD layer. The music is just a
>bunch of ridges and gaps.
Quite right. But I'll use computers as a better analogy in this instance.
I would actually be quite pissed if someone were to *STEAL* my computer.
But if anybody out there would like to build their own COPY of my computer, I would be more than happy to provide you with the specs. Hell, I could even give some of the part numbers in addition to brand and models. You could make an exact DUPLICATE, and I wouldn't give a damn. Good luck finding some of the parts tho... there's some OLD stuff lingering in there.
But I would still be quite mad if you were to STEAL it.
john
>But would we blame blockbuster for it if people
>were caught doing just that?
Not Blockbuster per se, but...
Our good friends the MPAA DID *try* to destory the entire VCR/Videocassete industry before Blockbuster ever got started and Wayne H. was just another Miami garbageman.
There was a rathar well known case between Sony and the MPAA that went all the way to the supreme court, which basiclly tole the MPAA to stuff it.
The MPAA was claiming that Sony's betamax tapes (and, by extension, everyone else's VHS tapes) were nothing but a tool for piracy and would destroy the movie industry (sound familiar?) and a bunch of other nonsence.
Hmmm, I guess since videotapes were SURE to *destroy* the movie industry, the MPAA that has been persecuting anyone who so much as mentions the word deCSS is just a figment of my imagination, eh?
How ironic that Sony, after taking the VCR to the supreme court, is now in bed with their old enemies and sideing with the RIAA against napster and the MPAA against deCSS.
Those who do not learm from history....
So who's going to take the MP3 format and deCSS to the supreme court so that the RIAA, MPAA, and their stooges like metallica can be told, finally, to stick it?
The ACLU appears to be sitting around doing dick about it. So I guess it's time to cancel my membership with them, and switch over to the EFF, who sure seem to be more on the top of things these days.
john
>So by that logic, it's OK to walk into Borders
>and steal "I, Robot" by Asimov if you then go
>out and purchase other Asimov books?
I'll rephrase it in Neal Stephenson terms...
Wheras if you stole "Snow Crash" (or, in metallica CD terms, an album, say... master of puppets), for example, and liked it so much that you went back and bought "Cryptonomicon" (the black album) that WOULD be wrong.
OTOH, The analogy in the first post is more like: You downloaded and read the first few chapters (enter sandman) of "Cryptonomicon" for free over at cryptomonicon.com, and you liked them so much that you went to the bookstore and bought the whole book (the black album).
And you know what? You may delude yourself into denying that it happens, but I HAVE discovered and purchased albums that I otherwise would not have bought in this way. And I know plenty of others who have made their music purchaseing decisions on the "try before you buy" model as well.
Simple fact is, any MP3 thats worth listening to, is worth buying the CD. Because, while you may not be able to tell the difference in quality on the crappy speakers on a computer, when you compare the MP3 to the CD on a REAL stereo, the MP3 (or a red book CD burned from MP3s) sounds like crap compared to the real thing. So any MP3 that's not worth buying the CD, is not really worth listening to anyway and gets deleted in short order.
Is is, as I said, a "try before you buy" purchaseing model. After all, you expect to test drive a car before you buy it. You expect to try out a computer in the store before you commit your funding.
So why should you expect to rush blindly into a music purchase without knowing what you're getting?
john
Mad bad...
Looked at the name on one post, replied to this one.
But the point still stands. Plenty of people try that reverse psychology crap to try to get their karma modded up. Look around. You see plenty of examples:
"I know this'll be modded down, but..."
"The hypocrite moderators will demolish my karma, but..."
"Mod you down if you must, but..."
etc. etc. etc.
And the fact that he posted anon doesn't make this troll any less of a karma whore. In fact, it makes him more of one, because he's afraid that his precious karma might be knocked down a couple of notches because of the inane schilling he's doing for metalica and the riaa.
At least when I say something that might piss someone off, or get me modded down; I don't hide my karma behind the "Post Anonymously" shield like this troll did.
In other words, put up or shut up.
john
>I find it interesting that so many non-musicians
>have all this advice for changing an industry
>they aren't part of.
I find it interesting that so many non-computer-programmers have all this advice for changing an industry they aren't part of.
>Who are YOU to say how musicians can and cannot
>make money? Isn't it up to THEM?
Who are YOU to say how computer geeks can and cannot make use their machines? Isn't it up to THEM?
>(Whatever...I know the mp3-loving Slashdot
>moderators will moderate this into oblivion.)
Yet another transparant attempt to gain karma through reverse psychology.
john
The obvious answer is to use freenet, which is being built so that even the file TRANSFER is anonymous. You can't see who's downloading from your box. They can't see whose box they're downloading from. With any luck, features like this will work their way into gnutella and mabye even napster in the future.
I'll grant you that freenet is still a work in progress, and that its anonymonity features may not be perfect...
But,like cryptography, it doesn't have to be PERFECT. It just has to be good enough that breaking through becomes more trouble/expensive than it's worth.
(very hypothetical example here...)
After all, if it turns out that it takes the NSA a week on a Cray to break the crypto key and expose a raw IP; do you think for a second that the NSA considers it worth their computer time to help a bunch of burned out metalheads harass their "fans"???
john
How many times has this been said in other Apple related stories???
Seems like everytime Apple is mentioned on Slashdot, SOMEONE will start b*tching about this.
FACT: Apple does NOT own *all* of the code in Quicktime.
Portions of QT are licensed from other vendors. In particular, the Sorenson codec, which is responsible for live QT streaming, is NOT Apple's intellectual property. No Sorenson, no streaming QT... No Sorenson, no super-high-quality QT like the Star Wars trailers.
A handful of other components are licensed technology, but Sorenson is the biggie. Without the Sorenson codec, you might as well be using Quicktime Three, rathar than four or five.
Now, since Apple does not own the code; do you think they are going to open-source it and intentionally expose themselves to the resulting lawsuits?
For all the mistakes that Apple has made over the years, I don't think giving away someone else's copyrighted code will be one of them... not anytime soon anyway.
And that's why there is no Quicktime for Linux. And that's why there WILL NOT be Quicktime for Linux anytime soon.
Wanna complain to someone? Go to Sorenson and convince them to open-source their codec. If you are sucessful (I doubt it), you will have made a big step (perhaps the biggest) towards a Linux version of Quicktime.
john
Seems like the ACLU's lawyers are trying to rig the game so no one can win (except themselves of course).
If you don't comply with a subpoena, you go to jail. Or, I guess the judge issuing the subpoena would slap down some hefty fines in the case of a corperation like Yahoo.
But if you *DO* obey the laful order of a court of law...
... the ACLU comes in and tries to sue you into oblivion?!?!?!?
You don't have to be any kind of lawyer to know that this kind of no-win situation is patently ridiculous. Just what ARE you supposed to do in a situation like this?
Sounds to me like this aquadrool person is miffed that Yahoo didn't fight his battle against the plantiff for him, and now wants to be seen as some poor victim of the big evil corperate Yahoo giant.
john
>So now anyone who doesn't agree with you is one
>of Gates' minions?
In the average thread, no. Disagreements are a healthy way to promote discourse. Dissenting opinions are usually a good thing.
But that's the very heart of this matter. Gates is attempting to supress dissenting opinion. He is attacking the very right to disagree. He is attempting to silence his critics.
To support gates in an action such as this is ludicrous. And weather you draw your paycheck from microsoft is irrelevant. It is a galling example of cult-like behavior for you to agree with microsoft that the dissenting voice must be silenced. Notice that the cult of scientology uses remarkably simular tactics to supress it's own critics.
john
First, I agree that you don't speak for 100% of Slashdot's readers. It's been common knowledge for quite some time that gates has commanded his minions to infiltrate, monitor, and astroturf Slashdot. You can see some of them in this very thread that you started, and quite a few more in the other threads on this topic.
Speaking for myself, however, I agree 100%.
Look. We all knew this was comeing. It was only a matter of time before gates moved to silence his critics. It is an inevitable part of any tyrant's rise... seize control of the critical press. Make sure ONLY your viewpoint is heard by the masses. Stalin did it. Mao did it. Castro did it. Hussain did it.
And let's face it. Outside of gates' own astroturfing schills, most of the Slashdot community IS critical of microsoft. Now Gates has begun his own campaign to silence his critics.
I say FIGHT! Do NOT submit without making gates pay dearly for his every inch. The old cliche applies. If you give an inch, he will take a mile. But if you stand your ground, this MAY be the turning point in the struggle for freedom. Who knows? Mabye resistance REALLY is not futile.
And don't keep the fight in the courtroom only. Take it to the public. Let the media know that gates is attempting to do away with the first amendment. And I don't mean just the tech press like ZDnet and Cnet. Take it to the mass media! CNN, AP, the New York Times, even sensationalist press like Fox. Let the WHOLE WORLD know what gates is trying! Put that Andover IPO money to good use; take out a full page ad in the Wall Street Journal.
But above all, NEVER GIVE IN! If microsoft suceeds, if gates takes away our right to freely speak and write, critically or no, who knows what right is next on his list during his ascension? Keep and bear arms would be the next logical chioce, but free assembly, trial by jury, and redress of grievances would also be high on his list.
Slashdot should learn from others who fought such battles against tyrants. The forces of good invariably have triumphed in the past, and I hope that we triumph in the future. Adopt the philosophy of other great fighters. I am reminded of one quote in particular. Some of you might recognise it:
"We shall have no truce or parley with you,
or the grizley gang who work your wicked will.
You do your worst.
And we shall do our best."
-- Sir Winston Spencer Churchill
john
>Everyone that actively trades mp3s ALL trade
.mp3 suffix. This makes the search a bit more difficult than a simple "ls -r *.mp3"
.... looks like a good tautology to me.
>some illegal ones along with the legal ones.
I assume, from your accusation therefore, that you have, at some point in the near past:
1)
Hacked into every computer I own which contains ANY MP3 files.
2)
Cataloged my MP3s by song title & artist... keeping in mind that on the Mac and the Linux box, they don't have that convinent
3)
Broken into my home, my car, and my rented storage locker so as to:
4)
Taken a complete inventory of EVERY CD, Tape, and record I own.
6)
Obtained a complete list of ALL of the music purchases I've made in my whole life, so as to allow for the CDs, tapes, and records I've lost or had stolen over the years.
7)
Correlated the data from steps 2, 4, & 6 to determine that I am in possetion of MP3s for which I have never purchased original media.
8)
Done all of the above for EVERYONE who has MP3s
If not, you are wrongfully accusing a LOT of people, and are a complete idiot... or possibly just another rathar pathaetic AC troll. Hmm... idiot == AC == Troll
If you have done 1-7, you are quite a superhuman individual. Oh, and you are also a criminal. Many of the tasks you would have had to perform to determine that I posses or trade illegal MP3s are quite illegal in of themselves.... Care to share your real name so I can forward it to the proper authorities?
john
>If that's the only definition of computer that
>your dictionary gives, the it's a bad dictionary.
It's not a BAD dictionary by any means, it's an edition of the Oxford dictionary of the English Language. But it's an OLD dictionary, given to me by my grandfather and dating from the '30s as I recall.
>Some hackers feel that their definition of hacker
>is somehow more valid than a newspaper's
>definition of hacker, simply because they belong
>to the group described
No, the journalist's definition is wrong because they display a complete ignorance of the meaning and history of the word. They don't bother to check the jargon file OR the history of the word.
Have you ever read Stephen Levy's "Hackers"? If you had, you'd know that the word originally didn't apply to computer work AT ALL. It came in to use at MIT's model railroading club. And even when it DID move into the computer field, it still only had positive connotations.
It wasn't until some idiot in the mass media who had no comprehension of the culture he was describing needed a buzzword to scare the unwashed masses that hacker was equated to cracker. The negative connotations of hacker are a completely manuefactured fiction of tabloid-level journalism.
If you HAVEN'T read Levy's book, I suggest you do. He did quite a good job of chronicleing the hacker culture, and the entemology of the word "hacker". And beyond it's value as a history text, it's a fascinating chronicle in of itself.
john
... that one obsolete medium (the CBC) is using another obsolete medium (dead-tree editions of dictionarys) to defend their isiotic and improper use of terminology.
I have, at home, a dead-tree dictionary that defines "computer" along the lines of "a person whos job it is to do complex mathematical computations", with no mention of transistors, microchips, or silicon.
If *I* relied on dead-tree format references for MY language skills, how then, would I describe this box sitting on my desk?
john
Either this is a setup, either the government needing a scaprgoat, or the real author misdirecting the authorities...
... or this guy is the king of all idiots and desperately deserves to be caught and removed from the gene pool.
Okay, for starters, it's worth repeating that the security experts who traced the melissia virus think the REAL author is some German kid living in Australia.
But, if this Phillipine guy *IS* the author of the "Love Bug", he is desprately in need of a good bludgeoning.
Think about it for a sec. The media (CNN, AP, and Fox at least) was reporting ALL WEEKEND that "authorities" suspected him, but they could NOT get a search or arrest warrant because the courts were closed over the weekend.
Now, if *I* had done the "love bug", and *I* had a whole weekend of warning that the cops were coming on monday, I would have spent most of the weekend shredding and burning any hard copy of the virus code; and, more importantly, PGPwipeing every related file AND free space on my hard drive. Then I'd move my swap file to a new partition and PGPwipe the old swap partition. Then, for good measure, I'd prolly pull out the HD and give it a good round with a bulk eraser or speaker magnent.
Reformat, reinstall, and restore. No evidence, no worries.
With two days warning, if he left enough evidence that they really DID arrest him today, he's too dumb to breed anyway, and deserves to be caught.
All of which assumes, of course, that the cops are right, and the computer guys who trackes Melessia are wrong; which is, amittedly, a rathar dubious assumption at best, but WTF.
john
Hello... Washington state uphelds shrink wrap licensing?!?!? Well, I'd respond to this "news" with a resounding: DUH!!!
That's like saying that the city council of Berlin had endorced the invasion of France and calling it news.
The only real question here is: How much did each judge cost, or did gates get them all in a package discount?
And perhaps then, will Washington be the second state to pass UCITA? Hell, I'm bloody well supprised that it wasn't the first. But all that shows is that AOL was a bit quicker in it's own blitzkreig.
Well, at least the govergnment is FINALLY starting to react. Though it does seem to be too little too late.
john
FYI
It was tested and thrown out in court, last year I beleive.
The chief litigant??? None other than Larry Flynt, of Hustler fame. Not too supprising there, eh?
Anyway, the crux of that case was a publication of his entitled "Barely Legal". "Barely Legal" seeks out eighteen and nineteen year old girls who look younger than they are, say fourteen to sixteen, and is every bit explicit as Hustler.
And it's all perfectly legal, and Mr. Flynt is making a good deal of money off of "Barely Legal"
john
If MP3 distrobution is such an anathema to the possibility of profiting from music, and MP3s are costing the industry so much money...
How do you explain the fact that CD sales INCREASED by more than a billion dollars over the last year, and how do you explain the success of artists such as Limp Bizkit, Check D, The Offspring, Less Than Jake, Phish, The Grateful Dead, etc...
... all of whom take a very positive view of fans trading their mucic, many of whom have been very vocal in supporting the MP3 format, and a number of whom provide archives or links to archives of MP3s, on their own websites?
I read this article in dead tree form a few days ago after arriving in San Francisco for my new job.
I find myself wondering how much of this article is based on objective fact, and how much is based on biased editorialism and sloppy research.
In just a week of reading the local papers, I've noticed, in the editorial sections at least, a good deal of outright hostility towards computer geeks in general. But just by virtue of moveing here, I've , according to the Guardian, gone from being a slacker-punk-computer-geek to being a predatory yuppie scum.
Why, I don't know. I can only guess that the editors, and some of the writers/letters to the ed readers/writers have never matured past their assinine little high school we-hate-the-computer-nerds cliques. Either that, or they just have such a liberal bias (SF *IS* known as a VERY liberal area after all) that they hate anyone who might ever become sucessful in life... and let's face it, out profession is potentially very profitable. Oh well. At least most of the PEOPLE I've met so far (as opposed to journalists) haven't shown themselves to hate computer geeks.
I've gotten a little off-topic here, but I think it *IS* very important to remember the anti-geek bias in the Guardian when you're reading about them trashing geeks and the computer industry.
If you haven't had HASMAT training, you'd be quite suprised at how many substances, common in everyday life, are considered hazardous/toxoc/carginogenic/etc if used in the workplace.
*The bleach you use in your toilet or to clean your whites...
*The gasoline you use to fuel your car...
*The windex you clean your glass with...
Each and every one of these is considered a hazardous/toxic material by OSHA. And each one requires a MSDS to be on hand if used in the workplace.
And MSDS's are VERY conservative. If there's the slightest chance of an adverse effect at ANY concentration, you are warned about it. Chlorine, for instance, has a good half page or so dealing with it's irritant/toxic qualities at concentrations you'd find in a swimming pool!
I find it quite hard to beleive that tech workers were cast into toxic conditions completely ignorant of the risks and unable to take any precautions.
john
Somebody call ESR. I think it's time for him to update the "astroturfing" entry in the jargon file:
s troturfing
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/jargon.html#a
... so as to include shills who troll on behalf of the MPAA, RIAA, Metallica, etc. as well as those who do so for gates and his cronies.
"deCSS is only for copying DVDs"
"MP3 is only for music pirates"
"you doodz suck.... lars roolz!"
blah, blah, blah...
Just how pathateic are these trolls' lives that they have nothing better to do than lower the signal to noise ratio and disrupt the discussions of others?
john
>They may only get 50 cents per disc, but when
>someone downloads music via Napster, Gnutella,
>etc. the artist gets squat.
... Because I just bought The Mighty Mighty Bosstones new CD, "Pay Attention" last night, on the first day of it's release.
But I had downloaded many of the songs that appear on Pay Attention via Napster weeks ago. Those MP3s just made me that much more anxious to get the actual CD and hear the songs at full quality, AND hear the songs I coundn't find an MP3 for.
So tell me, Mister Copyright Guru....
If, by virtue of my having downloaded the MP3s ahead of time, "the artist gets squat", just where does the Bosstone's royalty money from my CD purchase go? If "the artist gets squat" where does the money I'll pay for admission next time I see them live go? If "the artist gets squat" where does the money I'll pay for a T-shirt at the show go?
Obviously, none of that money goes to the Bosstones, because, as you say, when you download MP3s, "the artist gets squat".
So just where DOES the money go?
I'm waiting.
john
Anonymous computer time at Kinkos: $.20/minute...
Anonymous Geocities site to host the file: $0.00
The looks on Gates and Ballmer's faces as their "trade secret" is mirrored on thousands of sites worldwide....
... Priceless!
john
Try reading this article:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/991001-000005.html
The truth behind Gates' so-called "chairity" was discoved many months ago.
When WILL gates learn to reign in ms's email network??? These embarassing leaks occur so frequently, that I sometimes think there must be a secret resistance working within the collective itself; feeding information to the forces of freedom.
Anyway, The Register exposed gates' supposed "generousity" as a fraud last year. It's nothing more than a quite cynical PR exercise.
And it's a grossly overvalued PR exercise at that. Note the paragraph which mentions just *HOW* the values of his donations are computed.
A rathar pathaetic and transparent ruse, I would think.
john
Isn't it just a little bit early to be celebrating? Especially considering that this patch won't do *US* any good at all.
Assuming that this patch is made available to civillians in 2025, at the same time as it becomes available to the military; the only programmers that'll benefit from it are the ones just getting around to being *born* right now.
Twenty-five years from now, we'll all be over the hill and obsolete. Unless of course there's a Y2K-esque emergency that'll bring us C/C++/Java/Perl guys in from the pasture; like Y2K itself did for the COBOL and Fortran geezers. Other than that, it'll be no use whatsoever for those of us programming NOW.... oh well.
Depressing? Yeah, a little. But that's the nature of our game.
It might help our kids do those all-nighter programming sessions tho. That's definately something.
john
After all, the Lara Croft character is basically a female Indiana Jones with a british accent, and very well.... well... endowed physique.
Everyone knows how well the Indiana Jones trilogy did. Can it be done without Speilberg at the helm? Can Angelina stand up to that kind of non-stop action as well as Harrison Ford? Who knows. But it IS possible.
And well endowed girls with british accents have enjoied a great deal of commercial sucess these last few years. Spice Girls anyone???
I can definately see it doing well at the box office... if it's done right. I can even see it being a very good movie... if it's done right. Angelina Jolie IS, after all, a very good actress (and the only high point of "Hackers") afterall.
john