If ripping a CD is not even slightly complicated, then what is your complaint? Just buy the CD's and rip them yourself to a format/bit rate you want.
Why would you want the labels to dictate what format/bit rate, unless you are looking for convenience?
AllofMP3 is not legal (at least in this country).
Let me explain...
You need a DRM to access a subscription content (otherwise, it would not be much of a subscription service).
iPod only supports its own Apple-proprietary DRM, that so far Apple has refused to license to anyone outside.
So what are you supposed to do if you are Yahoo when Apple won't let you play?
Trust me, iPod's market share is significant. If it was an option, Yahoo would be supporting it.
I don't know why people are getting so hung up on DRM thing. Listen up people!!! You have CHOICES!!!
There are 3 primary (legal) ways to get your music now.
1. Buy a CD
Pro: This is the most flexible option. You can burn as many times as you want, get the highest quality sound, nice storage format (CD's are nice and thin and you can fit thousands on a bookshelf), etc.
Con: This is also the most expensive method, especially when you count all the bad tracks on a typical album.
2. Buy a permanent download license for a digital track
Pro: You can burn to a CD (which you can turn into MP3). Your license does not go away as long as your PC does not go away. Download to select portable devices.
Con: Not as high fidelity as CD. Per song price is not better than a CD, if you lose your license somehow, it is good as dead.
3. Get a subscriptioni license for a digital track
Pro: Cheapest by FAR (per song)! Can download to select WMA portable devices.
Con: Not as high fidelity as CD. Your license goes away if you end your service.
Just choose whatever fits you best. What is wrong with that?
Dude, get over yourself. I was kidding around (well, only half joking).
Voting for a president who lies (why did we go to war again?), takes away your freedom, AND more secretive than Nixon, to me, is a good an intelligence test as any that I can think of.
And, YES, when the super majority of your state fails that test, I am going to lump all of you in the same boat.
Is fair? No. Do I care? Fuck No.
I am sick of this crap from the south (AND YES MIDWEST TOO) that makes me embarrased to be an American.
Enough of this SHIT!!!
Most southern states gave Bush a super majority in the election (~60%). Sure, many mid-western states did that as well, but let's face it, nobody says you have to be a from upper mid-west to win the election.
I am proud to say that in the King County, where I live, George Bush got around 30%. Sure, the rednecks in the otherside of the mountain (same type as in Montana and Dakotas) raised the number for the entire state, but I hold them in the same disregard.
I never stated that Democrats are any smarter than Republicans. However, when a guy lies about almost every aspect of his administration, starts a war in a false pretense, tramples rights of free citizens, holds the most secretive US government in anyone's rememberance and you STILL vote for that guy in the election (????), you are dumb, idiotic, moron - no if's and or but's.
And yes, the south as much more of those than where I live. And yes, I am making a very bad stereotype, but I don't care.
If you continue to perpetuate the myth that living in the South automatically and without significant exception indicates that that person is uneducated, superstitious/religious, or inherently unintelligent, then you are showing even less capability for logical, rational thought than those dipshits in Kansas about whom this story was written.
The percentage of votes casted for Bush in the south (Kansas included), say otherwise... (I mean, it wasn't even close!!!)
Discovering, investigating, organizing, and reporting news is neither easy nor free
I totally agree. Except that most mainstream newspapers don't do any of that. Most of the times, they are doing nothing more than repeating the press releases from the White House, both parties, corporations, etc. How expensive is that?
Don't believe me? How much "Discovering, investigating, organizing, and reporting" did they do before publishing series of stories by Judith Miller that claimed Iraq had WMD?
Please, don't kid yourself. Most mass-media purveyors (including NY Times) are nothing more than the mouth pieces for the powers-that-be. And the powers-that-be can afford to pay for this propaganda themselves.
I will allow late Prof. Gould to answer your distortions (a man who I greatly admired and saw several of his lectures and read his books).
Quote:
Second, the theory became an issue (quite coincidentally) just when creationism reached its acme of thankfully temporary influence. Creationists, with their usual skill in the art of phony rhetoric, cynically distorted punctuated equilibrium for their own ends, claiming that we had virtually thrown in the towel and admitted that the fossil record contains no intermediate forms. (Punctuated equilibrium, on the other hand, is a different theory of intermediacy for evolutionary trends--pushing a ball up an inclined plane for gradualism, climbing a staircase for punctuated equilibrium.) Some of our colleagues, in an all too common and literally perverse reaction, blamed us for this mayhem upon our theory. At least we were able to fight back effectively. Most of my testimony at the Arkansas creationism trial in 1980 centered upon the creationists' distortion of punctuated equilibrium.
I don't disrespect your disagreement. I disrespect your lack of knowledge.
I AM a liberal, but I GREATLY admire Antonin Scalia, because although I disagree with him on almost every decision he makes, you cannot argue about how brilliant the guy is. His arguments are succinct, well reasoned (if somewhat flawed), and impeccably presented.
Your arguments on the other hand is mostly consisted of repeating bits and parts of what others have said in a way that exposes how much knowledge you lack.
That is what I disrespect.
For example:
And the evidence isn't there. That's the whole reason you guys came up with the "punctuated equillibrium" *theory* if I remember correctly.
Do you even know what a punctuated equilibrium is??? May be you should read the book that Prof Gould wrote about it (I DID). Punctuated Equilibrium is a theory that earth goes through periods of intense evolutionary changes. And he makes this claim on FOSSIL EVIDENCE!!!
That's assuming that oceanic levels/land masses/land bridges haven't moved... which earth science tells us they have.
Again, you extrapolate what little you know about geology into stating something so obviously dumb. Land and oceanic bridges happen over tens, hundreds thousands or even millions of years. There are periods in which a land mass is sufficiently isolated (say, New Zealand, Australia) for long enough period time for unique species to develop (do you see kangaroos in SE asia?). And there are ample fossil record to show HOW they developed in that isolation.
No, actually it doesn't. Not nearly clearly enough and most certainly not in a way that shows us how to repeat such theoretical phenomena in a controlled, repeatable manner.
Says who? You? The guy with absolutely no scientific training? The guy who doesn't read anything that isn't related to the bible? I think I'll just go with the opinions of the professionals (i.e. people who eat, drink, and live this stuff every day of their lives), over yours - call me crazy.
If I am a troll because I don't buy off on Evolution...fine. If I am a troll or am a bad person because I am an American who tollerates differences of opinion, culture and religion, fine.
You are a troll, not because you "tollerate" differences of opinion, but because you have don't refuse to recognize what is an belief (ID) and what is a fact (evolution).
And no, that does not make you a bad person, it just make you an ignorant one and unlearned one.
Seriously, open your mind. There are other books than just bible. Read, learn, explore, why would you want to waste a beautiful gift from God like your brain?
Do you READ? How could you read this entire thread and speak gibberish like this?
Scientific Method, which you seem to have NO CLUE about, demands tests for falisibility and repeatability. If it is not falsifiable or repeatable, then it is not even a conjecture let alone a THEORY!!! Theory is a scientific reasoning that has been test for both and has passed, thus accepted as general truth.
You CANNOT have "multiple theories" to explain the same phenomena. You can have THE theory and several conjectures, but you cannot have a multiple theories because that means that theory has not been tested.
ID is not even a FREAKIN scientific conjecture because it has NO TESTS!!! It is at best an amusing, at worst just a subversive straw man devised by the religious wingnuts.
HOW THE HELL (yes, I said it), is CREATIONISM A SCIENTIFIC THEORY??????? Did you even go to a school (other than the Sunday school)??? Did you have ANY scientific training??? Are you really that stupid??? I am amaze that you can even connect to the Internet considering all the "bogieman" and "voodoo" that is required to make PC's work...
I have no idea what theory you are talking about, but let me see I can bring some light to the dark dungeon that is your mind.
It is easy to test for the validity of evolution. Even if that test cannot be done in a lab.
How do you test for falsifiability of generation of a new specie? Just look at history: i.e. fossils.
If it was impossible for a specie to evolve to a completely different specie, then you should be able to find a geographically isolated area (let say an island) where through out history, all species on the island is completely stable.
Oooh, guess what? No such place exists (thus evolution has not been proven false yet). Every corner of the earth shows fossil history that is dramatic in its changes (over a long time - at least in human scales). And when the fossil records are good, it show step by step evolution of a specific specie (let's say an early elephant) into another (walrus). It is repeated (there's that word again) again and again, everywhere you look.
There you go, an easy falsibility and repeatability test for evolution.
Too bad for you (and other religious nuts who have not idea how science works - but yet yell about it at the top of your lungs), it passes the test with flying colors every time.
You guys really need to go out and do something other than watch old SW over and over again...
WHETHER OR NOT I used an analogy of an unpublished book makes NO difference in my argument!!!
Numerous artists such as DaVinci, Beethoven, Mozart, Mahler, Pollack, etc. (too many to name) regularly modified their work AFTER they were published/exhibited.
Why should DaVinci care that you liked the old background over Mona Lisa's left shoulder instead of the new one? Should you be able to force him to change back? Or make him create another version of the old layout even though DaVinci CLEARLY prefers the new version?
Mahler, like most composers continued to tweak his symphonies, AFTER they debuted in concert halls. Should he be forced to direct his old version, although he only wants to perform the new, better (for himself) version?
This is art. George Lucas created it. He has all the right in the world to change it as he sees fit. It is too bad that some fans don't appreciate it, but so what? If you don't like it go create something of your own.
This is his art. He should be able to create/modify whatever he pleases. This is how he expresses himself (how much money he makes off of it should not matter).
Let's say you wrote a novel. After your friend reads the draft, you decide that the ending sucked and changed it, which you like MUCH better. However, then your friend comes back and says the old ending was better and you should produce that novel instead of the new version that YOU, the author, like better.
What business is of your friend to dictate what your novel should be? It is not a collaborative effort (unless YOU wanted it to be). Most artist would demand the same.
If the public likes the new version, great. If they don't, that's fine too. At least you published what YOU, the artist, wanted.
Why is that so hard to understand?
Re:Discarding too many people
on
Defining Google
·
· Score: 1
This is a terrible technique to use for hiring a programmer.
If you haven't noticed, geeks are not the most peronable group of people around. Many brilliant programmers have absolutely no people skills at all.
In many interviews that I have conducted, I had to work extremely hard to draw the answers from the candidates. But it was worth it as it was obvious (once they started talking) that they were brilliant (but very very shy).
Your technique may be great for marketing type of folks, but not necessarily for IT.
Q: If he's not saying your odds of dying in a commercial plane crash are 1 in 4550 (and again, I'm not saying I agree with this statistic), then what is he saying?
A: Simple, he is saying "I am a washed up astronaut and need some PR to make me feel better. And I know that wilder my claims are, more press coverage I am likely to get."
I don't think Young is saying that your odds of dying on one particular flight are 1 in 4550. He's saying those are the odds your life will end in a plane crash, most likely assuming you fly an average amount, maybe a couple times a year.
Bzzzzt! Try again.
Following your logic, over 50,000 US citizens living today will die via commercial airline crash.
Even if you add up EVERYBODY who has been killed in commercial airline crash since the beginning, they do not add up to 50,000.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, clumsy fingers. I meant you cannnot get DRM'ed song out of an iPod... without a hack.
That is amazing. And just to think, I've been paying $50/month on HBO, ESPN, Comedy Central, etc. subscription.
I better tell my cable company that their model does not work since they can charge me $1000/month next month.
Brilliant!
If ripping a CD is not even slightly complicated, then what is your complaint? Just buy the CD's and rip them yourself to a format/bit rate you want. Why would you want the labels to dictate what format/bit rate, unless you are looking for convenience? AllofMP3 is not legal (at least in this country).
That is a DRM capability in my book.
True, it does not have sophisticated DRM support (like secure clock), but that is coming...
Let me explain... You need a DRM to access a subscription content (otherwise, it would not be much of a subscription service). iPod only supports its own Apple-proprietary DRM, that so far Apple has refused to license to anyone outside. So what are you supposed to do if you are Yahoo when Apple won't let you play? Trust me, iPod's market share is significant. If it was an option, Yahoo would be supporting it.
NEWS FLASH!!! A guy with a Mac says he "probably" will buy an iPod . Amazing...
There are 3 primary (legal) ways to get your music now.
1. Buy a CD
Pro: This is the most flexible option. You can burn as many times as you want, get the highest quality sound, nice storage format (CD's are nice and thin and you can fit thousands on a bookshelf), etc.
Con: This is also the most expensive method, especially when you count all the bad tracks on a typical album.
2. Buy a permanent download license for a digital track
Pro: You can burn to a CD (which you can turn into MP3). Your license does not go away as long as your PC does not go away. Download to select portable devices.
Con: Not as high fidelity as CD. Per song price is not better than a CD, if you lose your license somehow, it is good as dead.
3. Get a subscriptioni license for a digital track
Pro: Cheapest by FAR (per song)! Can download to select WMA portable devices.
Con: Not as high fidelity as CD. Your license goes away if you end your service.
Just choose whatever fits you best. What is wrong with that?
Dude, get over yourself. I was kidding around (well, only half joking). Voting for a president who lies (why did we go to war again?), takes away your freedom, AND more secretive than Nixon, to me, is a good an intelligence test as any that I can think of. And, YES, when the super majority of your state fails that test, I am going to lump all of you in the same boat. Is fair? No. Do I care? Fuck No. I am sick of this crap from the south (AND YES MIDWEST TOO) that makes me embarrased to be an American. Enough of this SHIT!!!
Whoa, you are taking my post WAY TOO seriously.
HOWEVER, a couple of nitpicks.
Most southern states gave Bush a super majority in the election (~60%). Sure, many mid-western states did that as well, but let's face it, nobody says you have to be a from upper mid-west to win the election.
I am proud to say that in the King County, where I live, George Bush got around 30%. Sure, the rednecks in the otherside of the mountain (same type as in Montana and Dakotas) raised the number for the entire state, but I hold them in the same disregard.
I never stated that Democrats are any smarter than Republicans. However, when a guy lies about almost every aspect of his administration, starts a war in a false pretense, tramples rights of free citizens, holds the most secretive US government in anyone's rememberance and you STILL vote for that guy in the election (????), you are dumb, idiotic, moron - no if's and or but's.
And yes, the south as much more of those than where I live. And yes, I am making a very bad stereotype, but I don't care.
It's okay, just makes it easy for me to automatically dump resumes from Kansas. I am only half kidding...
If you continue to perpetuate the myth that living in the South automatically and without significant exception indicates that that person is uneducated, superstitious/religious, or inherently unintelligent, then you are showing even less capability for logical, rational thought than those dipshits in Kansas about whom this story was written.
The percentage of votes casted for Bush in the south (Kansas included), say otherwise... (I mean, it wasn't even close!!!)
Discovering, investigating, organizing, and reporting news is neither easy nor free
I totally agree. Except that most mainstream newspapers don't do any of that. Most of the times, they are doing nothing more than repeating the press releases from the White House, both parties, corporations, etc. How expensive is that?
Don't believe me? How much "Discovering, investigating, organizing, and reporting" did they do before publishing series of stories by Judith Miller that claimed Iraq had WMD?
Please, don't kid yourself. Most mass-media purveyors (including NY Times) are nothing more than the mouth pieces for the powers-that-be. And the powers-that-be can afford to pay for this propaganda themselves.
I will allow late Prof. Gould to answer your distortions (a man who I greatly admired and saw several of his lectures and read his books).
Quote:
Second, the theory became an issue (quite coincidentally) just when creationism reached its acme of thankfully temporary influence. Creationists, with their usual skill in the art of phony rhetoric, cynically distorted punctuated equilibrium for their own ends, claiming that we had virtually thrown in the towel and admitted that the fossil record contains no intermediate forms. (Punctuated equilibrium, on the other hand, is a different theory of intermediacy for evolutionary trends--pushing a ball up an inclined plane for gradualism, climbing a staircase for punctuated equilibrium.) Some of our colleagues, in an all too common and literally perverse reaction, blamed us for this mayhem upon our theory. At least we were able to fight back effectively. Most of my testimony at the Arkansas creationism trial in 1980 centered upon the creationists' distortion of punctuated equilibrium.
I don't disrespect your disagreement. I disrespect your lack of knowledge.
I AM a liberal, but I GREATLY admire Antonin Scalia, because although I disagree with him on almost every decision he makes, you cannot argue about how brilliant the guy is. His arguments are succinct, well reasoned (if somewhat flawed), and impeccably presented.
Your arguments on the other hand is mostly consisted of repeating bits and parts of what others have said in a way that exposes how much knowledge you lack.
That is what I disrespect.
For example:
And the evidence isn't there. That's the whole reason you guys came up with the "punctuated equillibrium" *theory* if I remember correctly.
Do you even know what a punctuated equilibrium is??? May be you should read the book that Prof Gould wrote about it (I DID). Punctuated Equilibrium is a theory that earth goes through periods of intense evolutionary changes. And he makes this claim on FOSSIL EVIDENCE!!!
That's assuming that oceanic levels/land masses/land bridges haven't moved... which earth science tells us they have.
Again, you extrapolate what little you know about geology into stating something so obviously dumb. Land and oceanic bridges happen over tens, hundreds thousands or even millions of years. There are periods in which a land mass is sufficiently isolated (say, New Zealand, Australia) for long enough period time for unique species to develop (do you see kangaroos in SE asia?). And there are ample fossil record to show HOW they developed in that isolation.
No, actually it doesn't. Not nearly clearly enough and most certainly not in a way that shows us how to repeat such theoretical phenomena in a controlled, repeatable manner.
Says who? You? The guy with absolutely no scientific training? The guy who doesn't read anything that isn't related to the bible? I think I'll just go with the opinions of the professionals (i.e. people who eat, drink, and live this stuff every day of their lives), over yours - call me crazy.
You are a troll, not because you "tollerate" differences of opinion, but because you have don't refuse to recognize what is an belief (ID) and what is a fact (evolution). And no, that does not make you a bad person, it just make you an ignorant one and unlearned one. Seriously, open your mind. There are other books than just bible. Read, learn, explore, why would you want to waste a beautiful gift from God like your brain?
Do you READ? How could you read this entire thread and speak gibberish like this? Scientific Method, which you seem to have NO CLUE about, demands tests for falisibility and repeatability. If it is not falsifiable or repeatable, then it is not even a conjecture let alone a THEORY!!! Theory is a scientific reasoning that has been test for both and has passed, thus accepted as general truth. You CANNOT have "multiple theories" to explain the same phenomena. You can have THE theory and several conjectures, but you cannot have a multiple theories because that means that theory has not been tested. ID is not even a FREAKIN scientific conjecture because it has NO TESTS!!! It is at best an amusing, at worst just a subversive straw man devised by the religious wingnuts. HOW THE HELL (yes, I said it), is CREATIONISM A SCIENTIFIC THEORY??????? Did you even go to a school (other than the Sunday school)??? Did you have ANY scientific training??? Are you really that stupid??? I am amaze that you can even connect to the Internet considering all the "bogieman" and "voodoo" that is required to make PC's work...
I have no idea what theory you are talking about, but let me see I can bring some light to the dark dungeon that is your mind.
It is easy to test for the validity of evolution. Even if that test cannot be done in a lab.
How do you test for falsifiability of generation of a new specie? Just look at history: i.e. fossils.
If it was impossible for a specie to evolve to a completely different specie, then you should be able to find a geographically isolated area (let say an island) where through out history, all species on the island is completely stable.
Oooh, guess what? No such place exists (thus evolution has not been proven false yet). Every corner of the earth shows fossil history that is dramatic in its changes (over a long time - at least in human scales). And when the fossil records are good, it show step by step evolution of a specific specie (let's say an early elephant) into another (walrus). It is repeated (there's that word again) again and again, everywhere you look.
There you go, an easy falsibility and repeatability test for evolution.
Too bad for you (and other religious nuts who have not idea how science works - but yet yell about it at the top of your lungs), it passes the test with flying colors every time.
Want more?
So, basically your reasoning for why people should adopt to open source is because you believe the world should revolve around you and your choices.
Brilliant!
I thought Open Source was about generating good karma, not selfish ones...
What's the number?
It really is a shame when the prevailing "geek" attitude towards agencies like the FBI is mistrust and fear, not confidence and respect.
Shame... but well earned. Just read the history of FBI.
You guys really need to go out and do something other than watch old SW over and over again...
WHETHER OR NOT I used an analogy of an unpublished book makes NO difference in my argument!!!
Numerous artists such as DaVinci, Beethoven, Mozart, Mahler, Pollack, etc. (too many to name) regularly modified their work AFTER they were published/exhibited.
Why should DaVinci care that you liked the old background over Mona Lisa's left shoulder instead of the new one? Should you be able to force him to change back? Or make him create another version of the old layout even though DaVinci CLEARLY prefers the new version?
Mahler, like most composers continued to tweak his symphonies, AFTER they debuted in concert halls. Should he be forced to direct his old version, although he only wants to perform the new, better (for himself) version?
This is art. George Lucas created it. He has all the right in the world to change it as he sees fit. It is too bad that some fans don't appreciate it, but so what? If you don't like it go create something of your own.
Why should he care???
This is his art. He should be able to create/modify whatever he pleases. This is how he expresses himself (how much money he makes off of it should not matter).
Let's say you wrote a novel. After your friend reads the draft, you decide that the ending sucked and changed it, which you like MUCH better. However, then your friend comes back and says the old ending was better and you should produce that novel instead of the new version that YOU, the author, like better.
What business is of your friend to dictate what your novel should be? It is not a collaborative effort (unless YOU wanted it to be). Most artist would demand the same.
If the public likes the new version, great. If they don't, that's fine too. At least you published what YOU, the artist, wanted.
Why is that so hard to understand?
This is a terrible technique to use for hiring a programmer.
If you haven't noticed, geeks are not the most peronable group of people around. Many brilliant programmers have absolutely no people skills at all.
In many interviews that I have conducted, I had to work extremely hard to draw the answers from the candidates. But it was worth it as it was obvious (once they started talking) that they were brilliant (but very very shy).
Your technique may be great for marketing type of folks, but not necessarily for IT.
Q: If he's not saying your odds of dying in a commercial plane crash are 1 in 4550 (and again, I'm not saying I agree with this statistic), then what is he saying? A: Simple, he is saying "I am a washed up astronaut and need some PR to make me feel better. And I know that wilder my claims are, more press coverage I am likely to get."
I don't think Young is saying that your odds of dying on one particular flight are 1 in 4550. He's saying those are the odds your life will end in a plane crash, most likely assuming you fly an average amount, maybe a couple times a year.
Bzzzzt! Try again.
Following your logic, over 50,000 US citizens living today will die via commercial airline crash.
Even if you add up EVERYBODY who has been killed in commercial airline crash since the beginning, they do not add up to 50,000.