I'm really not seeing a difference. Either way, you're forcing the manufacturer to be responsible for the disposal of an item they sell, which will increase their prices.
That's different, I think in a subtle but significant way. The law says that oil must be disposed of properly. That's not at all the same as saying that (say) Penzoil is responsible for all the oil they sell.
Whether you're getting your oil changed at the same garage you bought it or a different one, the law applies to whoever is disposing of oil. If you changed it yourself, then you would have to dispose of it properly.
I'd say this is a much better law than one that makes producers responsible for their product after they've sold them.
If I sell something, it then belongs to you: you are responsible for its maintenance, use, and disposal, unless otherwise specified in a contract.
When the law starts saying I'm responsible for anything happens to an object I've sold in the future, where does it end? How about people being responsible for their own property?
Your "insightful" comment betrays a lack of economic understanding. There will be no discontinuity, no moment in the future when we run out of oil and everything grinds to a halt.
We will never run out of oil.
As supply decreases, the price will increase, and at some point something else will reach the cost/benefit ratio of oil. Rising prices will speed that along.
But even giving you the benefit of "as supply decreases" is not borne out by history. Enviro-types have been telling us for decades that supply is dwindling, yet it increases every year.
So on balance, I have no trouble with society using as much oil as it's worth for us to pay for.
Prepared statements aren't there to guarantee that every datum you insert is the "correct" type for what you're trying to do. What they do is guarantee that nothing in your variables will be interpreted as part of the SQL command.
If I have "10; <naughty stuff>" in $numeric_var, it will attempt to insert (or select, or whatever) exactly that string, without interpreting it. The data may be useless, but it will not be executed.
I would say that defending consumers' statutory rights is nice, but not sufficient. I don't believe any of the fair use rights are statutory. Fair use isn't a set of rights that we have, it is a defense against infringment.
WGA should not exist. It causes hassle for paying customers, that's all. Pirates find their way around. If it worked perfectly, it would be bad enough, but if even one legitimate person is locked out of his computer, MS has some serious explaining to do.
Net Neutrality, while a wonderful principle, is a poor reason to invite the Feds to regulate the Internet. That always leads to preservation of the status quo, at any cost.
When the article in Rolling Stone written by RFK Jr was posted, the Slashbot mantra was: "What difference does it make what the source is? Consider the facts presented!"
Right back at'cha.
While the warp drives avoid time dilation by virtue of the impulse engines
Well that was really my point. The GP's linked page discusses how long it takes a ship to get different places, assuming that it's never really exceeding the speed of light, and that thousands of years in "real time" pass in the meantime. That's not what happens on the show.
I disagree with your raison d'etre of the Constitution. It does at all not exist to protect individual rights uniformly. It exists to specify exactly what the federal government has the power to do.
The basic unit of government is the state. That's where most everything should be done.
Extending your concept further, why not have one worldwide government, run by African dictators, former communists, and other "do-gooders" for example, which "exists to protect rights uniformly" across the world? Why should the United States not simply fold and defer to that power?
Well that's fine, but the original question was how to convert MP3 to Ogg. That's this script with a few tweaks. If I decide to switch my "low-bandwidth" version to Ogg, though, I'll keep that in mind. Thanks!
No, I'm going from lossless to lossy: FLAC to MP3.
I almost exclusively listen to the FLAC version, but if I need to stick a few songs on a portable or make an MP3 CD for a trip or stream from a remote location, it's nice to have the smaller MP3 version available.
By the way, I do have all the music on physical CDs I bought; this is entirely fair use. (That's pretty much the only way to get FLACs anyway.)
I whipped one up to mirror my FLAC collection in MP3. I'm sure this can be done better, but it works. It would be fairly trivial to modify it to convert MP3s to ogg.
Slash is messing up the indenting but it still appears to be readable.
#!/usr/bin/perl
use strict;
my $flac_dir = $ARGV[0]; my $mp3_dir = $ARGV[1];
unless(-e $flac_dir && -e $mp3_dir) { print STDERR "This program accepts two arguments: the FLAC directory and the MP3 directory.\n"; exit; }
my @files = `cd $flac_dir; find.|sort|grep "\.flac\$"`;
Slashdot Mirror
I'm really not seeing a difference. Either way, you're forcing the manufacturer to be responsible for the disposal of an item they sell, which will increase their prices.
Actually yes, that is a much better law. You'll still have to prove that the environmental consequences are worth it.
That's different, I think in a subtle but significant way. The law says that oil must be disposed of properly. That's not at all the same as saying that (say) Penzoil is responsible for all the oil they sell.
Whether you're getting your oil changed at the same garage you bought it or a different one, the law applies to whoever is disposing of oil. If you changed it yourself, then you would have to dispose of it properly.
I'd say this is a much better law than one that makes producers responsible for their product after they've sold them.
If I sell something, it then belongs to you: you are responsible for its maintenance, use, and disposal, unless otherwise specified in a contract.
When the law starts saying I'm responsible for anything happens to an object I've sold in the future, where does it end? How about people being responsible for their own property?
Debian's goals are to quickly patch security problems, and to backport fixes to versions declared stable for the benefit of their users.
Both these goals a) good, useful, helpful, and worthwhile, and b) in conflict with the wishes of the Mozilla Corporation.
Perhaps Mozilla could give a little here, instead of Debian. Hmm?
Your "insightful" comment betrays a lack of economic understanding. There will be no discontinuity, no moment in the future when we run out of oil and everything grinds to a halt.
We will never run out of oil.
As supply decreases, the price will increase, and at some point something else will reach the cost/benefit ratio of oil. Rising prices will speed that along.
But even giving you the benefit of "as supply decreases" is not borne out by history. Enviro-types have been telling us for decades that supply is dwindling, yet it increases every year.
So on balance, I have no trouble with society using as much oil as it's worth for us to pay for.
Finally, everybody is starting to realize we only have a few years' worth of oil left. Duh! It's been that way for DECADES!
Prepared statements aren't there to guarantee that every datum you insert is the "correct" type for what you're trying to do. What they do is guarantee that nothing in your variables will be interpreted as part of the SQL command.
If I have "10; <naughty stuff>" in $numeric_var, it will attempt to insert (or select, or whatever) exactly that string, without interpreting it. The data may be useless, but it will not be executed.
I would say that defending consumers' statutory rights is nice, but not sufficient. I don't believe any of the fair use rights are statutory. Fair use isn't a set of rights that we have, it is a defense against infringment.
WGA should not exist. It causes hassle for paying customers, that's all. Pirates find their way around. If it worked perfectly, it would be bad enough, but if even one legitimate person is locked out of his computer, MS has some serious explaining to do.
Net Neutrality, while a wonderful principle, is a poor reason to invite the Feds to regulate the Internet. That always leads to preservation of the status quo, at any cost.
Why bother? Get out the guns! This story pretty well illustrates that mindset.
It's 27574.2 kbps for goodness sake!!
When the article in Rolling Stone written by RFK Jr was posted, the Slashbot mantra was: "What difference does it make what the source is? Consider the facts presented!"
Right back at'cha.
Given how cheap electricity is compared to many things, I suppose most people will just look at what they're paying at the pump, though.
We're talking about a lot of electricity.
Did you hear that Louisiana sold its old set of voting machines to Mexico?
They had an election down there, and Edwin Edwards got 50% of the vote!
While the warp drives avoid time dilation by virtue of the impulse engines
Well that was really my point. The GP's linked page discusses how long it takes a ship to get different places, assuming that it's never really exceeding the speed of light, and that thousands of years in "real time" pass in the meantime. That's not what happens on the show.
But I think their understanding of Trek warp theory is way off. Enterprise zips around the galaxy without time dilation effects.
I think you mean impetus. Editors?
WHOOSH
I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding of what sites like Facebook are.
That's public information, folks!
Yes, actually I would.
I disagree with your raison d'etre of the Constitution. It does at all not exist to protect individual rights uniformly. It exists to specify exactly what the federal government has the power to do.
The basic unit of government is the state. That's where most everything should be done.
Extending your concept further, why not have one worldwide government, run by African dictators, former communists, and other "do-gooders" for example, which "exists to protect rights uniformly" across the world? Why should the United States not simply fold and defer to that power?
Well that's fine, but the original question was how to convert MP3 to Ogg. That's this script with a few tweaks. If I decide to switch my "low-bandwidth" version to Ogg, though, I'll keep that in mind. Thanks!
No, I'm going from lossless to lossy: FLAC to MP3.
I almost exclusively listen to the FLAC version, but if I need to stick a few songs on a portable or make an MP3 CD for a trip or stream from a remote location, it's nice to have the smaller MP3 version available.
By the way, I do have all the music on physical CDs I bought; this is entirely fair use. (That's pretty much the only way to get FLACs anyway.)
I'd go in and change it, but that's not possible on Slash.