had trouble finding out whether iPod could simply operate in "mount/mnt/player; cp *.mp3 *.m3u/mnt/player; umount/mnt/player" terms, without needed extra software
It can't, not quite. You can copy files directly to the drive, but the iPod uses an index file at /mnt/player/iPod_Control/iTunes/iTunesDB . This must be rebuilt to reflect the extra songs. I think that gnupod nearly does the trick, but I haven't got it working just exactly as I'd like.
Okay, but why not still use CyberNanny? Now I fully agree that I would not want children looking at a hard core porn site. But here are two possible remedies to this problem:
All parents who have the internet should install content blocking.
The United States federal government should issue arrest warrants for those people who post porn which children might then see. They arrest them. They hold a lengthy trial. They pen them up in costly, high-security prisons, at tax-payer expense. Now and then, web-masters of an adult site will inadvertently select a name that sounds a bit like someone else's and have their lives wrecked by career prosecutors.
Now, can't you just install a filter, and take responsibility for solving your own problem?
The other approach, and it is one I favour - especially as the parent of two children who both use the net a lot - is to throw away today's network and build a new one, one which can be properly regulated.
Problem is Bill - it's not your network! The network was built by countless engineers, investors, academics and interested users. These people sweated and sacrificed to build that which you take for granted. Sorry, but it's just none of your business. As an parent of two children - if you don't like it - pull the plug.
The impression of weightlessness has got nothing to do with altitude. Gravitional force remains strong in low Earth orbit. The reason orbiting astronauts feel feel weightless is because they are effectively 'falling' in the same trajectory as their craft. There are no attractive forces between the craft and the passenger. The same would apply for a craft at 200,000 ft if air friction were negligble.
Agreed, but I find the Economist more than a little pleased with itself. It makes a big play of covering all the angles and looking at both sides but in the end, its conclusions are rather pedestrian. A memorable TQ article discussed at length the future of software development in terms of 'Java versus.NET'. All its usual tricks came into play: a sober sounding evaluation of each product's pros and cons peppered with knowing quotes from industry insiders. But in the end, it just regurgitated the marketing idea that pricey proprietary application servers are the future. Like any other source, Economist articles embody a particular set of assumptions about the world, but it is particularly skilled in concealing these, which at its worst makes it a kind of clever propaganda. It is far more concerned with flattering its readership's intelligence than stimulating it. And as for handing out gongs to the inventors of MRI and the internet, how self important! As if these people needed affirmation of that kind.
Supposedly, the copyright exists to create an incentive. Can anybody quantify the benefit? Can anybody prove that it exists? Until somebody does, and I doubt that it's possible, we should err towards the greatest freedom, and abolish copyright completely.
Not sure about the 'surplus of intelligence' however!
I think you couldn't be more wrong; copyright in no way impedes the "free exchange of ideas." Copyright doesn't protect ideas from being copied, it protects expression from being copied.
I think that 'tps12' is hardly wrong at all. Okay, so copyright doesn't protect ideas, agreed. What tps was saying was it impedes their free exchange, and this is true.
For example, I'm in strong agreement of the ideas in the book 'The Meme Machine'. It may be true that I am free to express those in any way I like. But for me, the best way to promote them is to buy or copy Susan Blackmore's book because I can't approach the quality of her expression. If for any reason I can't buy it, then I've got a problem. So copyright does not prevent the exchange of ideas, but without doubt it can impede them in a very concrete way.
I don't say there is no valid case for copyright. But tps12's case against is not so easily knocked down.
Slashdot Mirror
Surely 'they are selling cheap refrigeration in an ice age'?
All parents who have the internet should install content blocking.
The United States federal government should issue arrest warrants for those people who post porn which children might then see. They arrest them. They hold a lengthy trial. They pen them up in costly, high-security prisons, at tax-payer expense. Now and then, web-masters of an adult site will inadvertently select a name that sounds a bit like someone else's and have their lives wrecked by career prosecutors.
Now, can't you just install a filter, and take responsibility for solving your own problem?
Ah yes, the 'Economist' is ever so droll.
The impression of weightlessness has got nothing to do with altitude. Gravitional force remains strong in low Earth orbit. The reason orbiting astronauts feel feel weightless is because they are effectively 'falling' in the same trajectory as their craft. There are no attractive forces between the craft and the passenger. The same would apply for a craft at 200,000 ft if air friction were negligble.
Nah, they should just stay with the landfill plan. War can be averted by retaking mainland China one truckload at a time.
Agreed, but I find the Economist more than a little pleased with itself. It makes a big play of covering all the angles and looking at both sides but in the end, its conclusions are rather pedestrian. A memorable TQ article discussed at length the future of software development in terms of 'Java versus .NET'. All its usual tricks came into play: a sober sounding evaluation of each product's pros and cons peppered with knowing quotes from industry insiders. But in the end, it just regurgitated the marketing idea that pricey proprietary application servers are the future. Like any other source, Economist articles embody a particular set of assumptions about the world, but it is particularly skilled in concealing these, which at its worst makes it a kind of clever propaganda. It is far more concerned with flattering its readership's intelligence than stimulating it. And as for handing out gongs to the inventors of MRI and the internet, how self important! As if these people needed affirmation of that kind.
Supposedly, the copyright exists to create an incentive. Can anybody quantify the benefit? Can anybody prove that it exists? Until somebody does, and I doubt that it's possible, we should err towards the greatest freedom, and abolish copyright completely.
Not sure about the 'surplus of intelligence' however!
Ha-ha! I agree. Shouldn't that read, 'would be compounded by the additional revenue to the government'?
I think that 'tps12' is hardly wrong at all. Okay, so copyright doesn't protect ideas, agreed. What tps was saying was it impedes their free exchange, and this is true.
For example, I'm in strong agreement of the ideas in the book 'The Meme Machine'. It may be true that I am free to express those in any way I like. But for me, the best way to promote them is to buy or copy Susan Blackmore's book because I can't approach the quality of her expression. If for any reason I can't buy it, then I've got a problem. So copyright does not prevent the exchange of ideas, but without doubt it can impede them in a very concrete way.
I don't say there is no valid case for copyright. But tps12's case against is not so easily knocked down.