What's the deal with the AOL graph on Sheet 2? AOL wasn't around in 1972, so is this a fake, or does AOL refer to something else besides "It's so lame and slow, no wonder it's #1"?
Yah, but on Linux? I've got the same printer, and the only way to print to it from Linux was to throw Win95 on an old 386 and connect the printer to the 386, share the printer, then use SMB printing to send the print jobs to the share. Direct connecting the 400e to my Linux box always resulted in garbage, no matter how long I sat and tweaked the settings.
If you did figure it out, let me know how you set it up!
Hmmm... Maybe this is the real reason that schoolchildren are no longer allows the say "I pledge allegiance (TM M$) to the flag..."
No more sending out Links (TM M$) to good sites to your friends. And I thought that BT said that IT had the patent on Links?
Uh oh, the Magic 8 Ball is out too, cannot say "Outlook (TM M$) not so good" anymore...
Outsmart... How can they really be beleived to be the originator of that term?:)
Windows - I thought it was already long ago decided that Windows is a generic term?
NT - Microsoft already was successfully sued by Northern Telecom over the NT thing... (Look on an NT 4.0 box - it says "NT is a trademark of Northern Telecom" even...)
How about they at least go back to playing videos instead of all these stupid "breasts on the beach" lane things that seem to be on all the time."
Fuck, even if they play N'Sync videos I could understand. I wouldn't like it, but I'd understand. But it's supposed to be MUSIC TV, not goofy bimbo pseudo-reality beach TV. Where's the music?
YOUR address YOUR income YOUR favorite color YOUR...
I'd say you pretty much defined it right there - any of YOUR own personal information. Any information uniquely pertaining to an individual should be that unique individual. An easy test to see what falls into that category would be "If speaking to a person directly, the word YOUR would be used in speaking about a thing that should be considered personal information".
Now it just depends on avoiding idiots that don't know the difference between YOUR and YOU'RE.:)
Sure, in theory... but having control of the money would sure be better. Regardless of who is in charge, I can say "my money is going to go to 'this'". Sounds like more granular control to me.
When I vote is kind of a joke. Hmmm... Well, I'll either pick this moron or that moron. I don't have a bunch of money, so you wont see me running as well, it'd be a waste of time.
I'd rather just have more control over my life than hope some stuffed shirt will have my interests in mind.
a change to the tax process where we can at least specify what a small percentage (I'd be happy with even 1%, but more would be better) of our income tax goes directly towards.
I don't think that's too much to ask. You'd be forced to still give up 99% of your income tax to whatever 'they' decide, typically wasteful crap. It's OUR damn tax money, we should be able to at least specify where a tiny amount goes. We should be able to specify ALL of it, directly, but that ain't gonna happen.
Just think of other ramifications this kind of a change could have. I think it would be great.
And maybe with another 1% of it you can say "This 1% of my money will definitely NOT be spent on X" That'd be cool.
Possible, but highly unlikely, I admit. But does anyone see any bad coming of this, except slightly higher tax administration/distribution costs since they don't just throw it all in a pile.
So, what is the alternative?
on
CFP 2002 Wrapup
·
· Score: 1
I, like most people, am totally against these new draconian methods being proposed to keep people from ripping and sharing digital music.
I don't think laws of this nature are the answer to this problem, and I don't think laws should be created simply to preserve a dinosaur business model.
I also don't think that the music companies are in any way fairly reimbursing the actual artists for their creations. I think the music companies are raking in far too much money for what they do, but that's debatable.
What I'd like to see is: What IS the alternative proposal from the technical people? Not saying that we have to keep the music publishers afloat. A new business model could simply be that the musicians directly distribute their music over the internet - you buy your music directly from them.
But, what keeps someone (besides personal honesty) from giving a copy to all their friends? I don't see a way. But it would really suck if even the actual musicians don't get paid for their work.
It's a 1.6 gigahertz box with 640 megs RAM and an 80 gig HD. I had a couple old 1.2 megabyte 5 1/2 floppy drives sitting around, so I put one in the box, just more to get strange looks that to actually use it.:)
But, it runs Linux, never NEVER will I put XP on anything, I cannot agree with the licensing restrictions, plus the only way to actually USE XP is to get in and tweak all the settings so that it acts like Win2K, which in my opinion is the best OS M$ has ever released, but Linux is still far better!
This'll probably seem embarrassingly obvious once someone expands the acronym for me, but what is SD? That's a new one for me. Or did you mistype MD (minidisc)?
I haven't actually heard one yet, but the 5.1 channel DVD Audio sounds very cool. Imagine some Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon or Led Zeppelin Physical Graffiti remastered into 5.1!
That's something I could see myself buying, but these dumb little discs are totally uninteresting to me.
I'd like to hear the point of view of someone who'd rather have a bunch of these little discs instead of a 40+ gig portable MP3 player. (Seriously, I'd like to know (1) if anybody actually does and (2) if so, WHY?
" Portability and price will draw in the 18-34 age group first, predicts Bob Higgins, chairman and CEO of Albany, N.Y.-based Trans World Entertainment. The company invested in DataPlay last year, and Higgins sits on its board of directors.
"I just know by being in the business, there's definitely a need for a portable format," he said. "Portable CD players are too big and too bulky."
OK, in my opinion, I wouldn't put much trust in any of this guys "predictions". The younger market is already solidly behind MP3, they aren't going to go for this any more than people went for the MiniDiscs. MP3 players are both cheaper, and I'd say more portable, especially since you don't have to carry around discs for them. I still am not convinced on the lame memory chip-based (128 megs of flash memory is not enough for a long outing, at least not for me) ones, but the ones with actual multi-gig hard drives are a great idea. And a US Quarter sized disc? No way, too small, imagine those getting dropped on the floor of your car - you probably wouldn't even notice it at first, and then it'd get stepped on and smashed, or find it's way to some inaccessible crevice in your car.
Bad idea - think of all the coins you find when you life up your couch cushion.
And what, they're going to shrink the cover art even more? That's the one thing I don't like about CDs as compared to vinyl records - the cover art is too small, it's just not as asthetically pleasing as the good old 12"x12" (I think) album covers. And you never see any way cool covers with moving parts and spinners like on the old Led Zeppelin albums. Sucks!
If you read this, you'll see that this is just another step in the social engineering process that the insurance companies have been playing since the early 1900's.
This part of the article I found rather interesting, as far as the possible potential of using the new wording in the 95 year copyright act. This could really cost Disney a lot of money if we could find the right people (descendants of the original authors) to sue them.
What am I talking about? Notice the words I bolded in the bottom section - "and applied retroactively". If this 95 year extension is applied retroactively, then aren't quite a few Disney movies now based on works that had fallen into the public domain, but now possibly (due to the retroactive wording) would be considered to now actually be under retroactive copyright at the time they were 'pirated' by Disney? Thus making Disney's claims to things like The Jungle Book, Pinocchio and others, completely void, as they were stolen from people who are now protected by this retroactive copyright? How far back does this retroactive thing go?
"Since 1960 the term of copyright -- originally 28 years -- has been extended 11 times, most recently from 75 to 95 years, and applied retroactively. It is ironic -- and deeply pertinent -- that when motion pictures themselves were fairly new, Hollywood dipped liberally into the public treasury it has since done so much to reduce. Many of Disney's classic children's movies were based on stories, like Pinocchio , on which any copyright claims had lapsed. Had the current law been in effect in 1939, David O. Selznick would have required permission from Emily Bronte's heirs to make his film of Wuthering Heights, a book written in 1847."
What's wrong with the kids today?
on
Coding Fair Use
·
· Score: 1
"I would have argued poverty, crime, the technology gap, drugs..."
Hmmm... That's not really scoped very well:
Poverty: Been around since day one - Unfortunately the HAVES don't really consider it a problem.
Crime: Been around since the beginning of civilization. Part of human nature, it's never going away as long as we're still human. Not just something "wrong with the US today"
Drugs: Been around since before civilization (Opium, pot, etc.) - Part of human nature, it's never going away as long as we're still human. Not just something "wrong with the US today" - Many, possibly a majority, would disagree that it's even a problem. Best way to get rid of that is to just open the floodgates, evolution in action, those that can't handle it are removed from the gene pool.
Technology Gap: Hmmm... For 99 out of 100 cases, it's a laziness gap. If you are too poor, and you really want one, then use two of the above to obtain a computer - steal a computer, or sell drugs until you have enough money to buy one. Your choice.
Decline, right on time. What happened to the dream sublime? They're building empires... (Queensryche, Empire)
So THAT'S where my pipe went! Come to think of it, it did come up missing right after he taught the Apache class in Omaha. Jeez, take him to lunch and he steals my pipe.:)
Not good Karma, Ryan: Remember my wife is half Apache, she can pull down some ancient Apache curse on you.:)
Slashdot Mirror
What's the deal with the AOL graph on Sheet 2? AOL wasn't around in 1972, so is this a fake, or does AOL refer to something else besides "It's so lame and slow, no wonder it's #1"?
Whore of bloody hell
Yah, but on Linux? I've got the same printer, and the only way to print to it from Linux was to throw Win95 on an old 386 and connect the printer to the 386, share the printer, then use SMB printing to send the print jobs to the share. Direct connecting the 400e to my Linux box always resulted in garbage, no matter how long I sat and tweaked the settings.
If you did figure it out, let me know how you set it up!
Hmmm... Maybe this is the real reason that schoolchildren are no longer allows the say "I pledge allegiance (TM M$) to the flag..."
:)
No more sending out Links (TM M$) to good sites to your friends. And I thought that BT said that IT had the patent on Links?
Uh oh, the Magic 8 Ball is out too, cannot say "Outlook (TM M$) not so good" anymore...
Outsmart... How can they really be beleived to be the originator of that term?
Windows - I thought it was already long ago decided that Windows is a generic term?
NT - Microsoft already was successfully sued by Northern Telecom over the NT thing... (Look on an NT 4.0 box - it says "NT is a trademark of Northern Telecom" even...)
Being many years removed from the educational industry, I've no idea what they actually need...
Can someone come up with a good list of whats missing and what we need to come up with?
How about they at least go back to playing videos instead of all these stupid "breasts on the beach" lane things that seem to be on all the time."
Fuck, even if they play N'Sync videos I could understand. I wouldn't like it, but I'd understand. But it's supposed to be MUSIC TV, not goofy bimbo pseudo-reality beach TV. Where's the music?
Uhhh...
:)
The sentence: "Any information uniquely pertaining to an individual should be that unique individual"
should have read:
"Any information uniquely pertaining to an individual should be CONSIDERED PERSONAL PROPERTY OF that unique individual"
That should make a bit more sense
YOUR address ...
:)
YOUR income
YOUR favorite color
YOUR
I'd say you pretty much defined it right there - any of YOUR own personal information. Any information uniquely pertaining to an individual should be that unique individual. An easy test to see what falls into that category would be "If speaking to a person directly, the word YOUR would be used in speaking about a thing that should be considered personal information".
Now it just depends on avoiding idiots that don't know the difference between YOUR and YOU'RE.
Heh, that ain't shit... I've got Apache with reverse lookups on running on a 386/25 at http://klomdark.servebeer.com:8081/ :)
Sure, in theory... but having control of the money would sure be better. Regardless of who is in charge, I can say "my money is going to go to 'this'". Sounds like more granular control to me.
When I vote is kind of a joke. Hmmm... Well, I'll either pick this moron or that moron. I don't have a bunch of money, so you wont see me running as well, it'd be a waste of time.
I'd rather just have more control over my life than hope some stuffed shirt will have my interests in mind.
a change to the tax process where we can at least specify what a small percentage (I'd be happy with even 1%, but more would be better) of our income tax goes directly towards.
I don't think that's too much to ask. You'd be forced to still give up 99% of your income tax to whatever 'they' decide, typically wasteful crap. It's OUR damn tax money, we should be able to at least specify where a tiny amount goes. We should be able to specify ALL of it, directly, but that ain't gonna happen.
Just think of other ramifications this kind of a change could have. I think it would be great.
And maybe with another 1% of it you can say "This 1% of my money will definitely NOT be spent on X" That'd be cool.
Possible, but highly unlikely, I admit. But does anyone see any bad coming of this, except slightly higher tax administration/distribution costs since they don't just throw it all in a pile.
I, like most people, am totally against these new draconian methods being proposed to keep people from ripping and sharing digital music.
I don't think laws of this nature are the answer to this problem, and I don't think laws should be created simply to preserve a dinosaur business model.
I also don't think that the music companies are in any way fairly reimbursing the actual artists for their creations. I think the music companies are raking in far too much money for what they do, but that's debatable.
What I'd like to see is: What IS the alternative proposal from the technical people? Not saying that we have to keep the music publishers afloat. A new business model could simply be that the musicians directly distribute their music over the internet - you buy your music directly from them.
But, what keeps someone (besides personal honesty) from giving a copy to all their friends? I don't see a way. But it would really suck if even the actual musicians don't get paid for their work.
I don't have any ideas, does anyone else?
It's a 1.6 gigahertz box with 640 megs RAM and an 80 gig HD. I had a couple old 1.2 megabyte 5 1/2 floppy drives sitting around, so I put one in the box, just more to get strange looks that to actually use it. :)
But, it runs Linux, never NEVER will I put XP on anything, I cannot agree with the licensing restrictions, plus the only way to actually USE XP is to get in and tweak all the settings so that it acts like Win2K, which in my opinion is the best OS M$ has ever released, but Linux is still far better!
Anyway...
This'll probably seem embarrassingly obvious once someone expands the acronym for me, but what is SD? That's a new one for me. Or did you mistype MD (minidisc)?
:)
Somebody please, beat me with a clue stick!
I haven't actually heard one yet, but the 5.1 channel DVD Audio sounds very cool. Imagine some Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon or Led Zeppelin Physical Graffiti remastered into 5.1!
That's something I could see myself buying, but these dumb little discs are totally uninteresting to me.
I'd like to hear the point of view of someone who'd rather have a bunch of these little discs instead of a 40+ gig portable MP3 player. (Seriously, I'd like to know (1) if anybody actually does and (2) if so, WHY?
" Portability and price will draw in the 18-34 age group first, predicts Bob Higgins, chairman and CEO of Albany, N.Y.-based Trans World Entertainment. The company invested in DataPlay last year, and Higgins sits on its board of directors.
"I just know by being in the business, there's definitely a need for a portable format," he said. "Portable CD players are too big and too bulky."
OK, in my opinion, I wouldn't put much trust in any of this guys "predictions". The younger market is already solidly behind MP3, they aren't going to go for this any more than people went for the MiniDiscs. MP3 players are both cheaper, and I'd say more portable, especially since you don't have to carry around discs for them. I still am not convinced on the lame memory chip-based (128 megs of flash memory is not enough for a long outing, at least not for me) ones, but the ones with actual multi-gig hard drives are a great idea. And a US Quarter sized disc? No way, too small, imagine those getting dropped on the floor of your car - you probably wouldn't even notice it at first, and then it'd get stepped on and smashed, or find it's way to some inaccessible crevice in your car.
Bad idea - think of all the coins you find when you life up your couch cushion.
And what, they're going to shrink the cover art even more? That's the one thing I don't like about CDs as compared to vinyl records - the cover art is too small, it's just not as asthetically pleasing as the good old 12"x12" (I think) album covers. And you never see any way cool covers with moving parts and spinners like on the old Led Zeppelin albums. Sucks!
If you read this, you'll see that this is just another step in the social engineering process that the insurance companies have been playing since the early 1900's.
Also known as the Insurance Scam.
"PayPal has been one of the few Internet initial public offerings in recent years."
Say WHAT???? Are these people stoned, or did they forget to put something like "successful" between 'few' and 'Internet'?
This part of the article I found rather interesting, as far as the possible potential of using the new wording in the 95 year copyright act. This could really cost Disney a lot of money if we could find the right people (descendants of the original authors) to sue them.
What am I talking about? Notice the words I bolded in the bottom section - "and applied retroactively". If this 95 year extension is applied retroactively, then aren't quite a few Disney movies now based on works that had fallen into the public domain, but now possibly (due to the retroactive wording) would be considered to now actually be under retroactive copyright at the time they were 'pirated' by Disney? Thus making Disney's claims to things like The Jungle Book, Pinocchio and others, completely void, as they were stolen from people who are now protected by this retroactive copyright? How far back does this retroactive thing go?
"Since 1960 the term of copyright -- originally 28 years -- has been extended 11 times, most recently from 75 to 95 years, and applied retroactively. It is ironic -- and deeply pertinent -- that when motion pictures themselves were fairly new, Hollywood dipped liberally into the public treasury it has since done so much to reduce. Many of Disney's classic children's movies were based on stories, like Pinocchio , on which any copyright claims had lapsed. Had the current law been in effect in 1939, David O. Selznick would have required permission from Emily Bronte's heirs to make his film of Wuthering Heights, a book written in 1847."
"I would have argued poverty, crime, the technology gap, drugs..."
Hmmm... That's not really scoped very well:
Poverty: Been around since day one - Unfortunately the HAVES don't really consider it a problem.
Crime: Been around since the beginning of civilization. Part of human nature, it's never going away as long as we're still human. Not just something "wrong with the US today"
Drugs: Been around since before civilization (Opium, pot, etc.) - Part of human nature, it's never going away as long as we're still human. Not just something "wrong with the US today" - Many, possibly a majority, would disagree that it's even a problem. Best way to get rid of that is to just open the floodgates, evolution in action, those that can't handle it are removed from the gene pool.
Technology Gap: Hmmm... For 99 out of 100 cases, it's a laziness gap. If you are too poor, and you really want one, then use two of the above to obtain a computer - steal a computer, or sell drugs until you have enough money to buy one. Your choice.
Decline, right on time. What happened to the dream sublime? They're building empires... (Queensryche, Empire)
So THAT'S where my pipe went! Come to think of it, it did come up missing right after he taught the Apache class in Omaha. Jeez, take him to lunch and he steals my pipe. :)
:)
Not good Karma, Ryan: Remember my wife is half Apache, she can pull down some ancient Apache curse on you.
So they can remote control it from their LINUX box, that's why! :)
Still under development, but seems to work well. Sometimes it even finds what you are looking for before you ask!
Even better, try Half-Empty where anyone can post a story, and (so far) haven't tried any lame AFJ's.
Ooh, replied to by a postbot. How lame.