Baptist Death Ray says that they've got probably 50 to 100 fans per town.
Well, if people freely trade MP3 files, and some of the existing 50-100 fans give BDR mp3 files to friends with the same musical tastes, that could double the number of fans, now 100-200 in each town. And some portion of those will buy the CD. So if you increase your audience, you increase your sales.
How much advertising would it take make 50-100 new fans in each town? I'd bet that's a lot of marketing, which an Indie artist can't pay for. So, let napster spread your music around, and find new fans for you. Yes, many will just download. But it's the true fans that will buy each CD you release. And you will be able to find more of those true fans due to napster.
Major labels don't need the napster free advertising. The larger artists already have tons of fans. And they get radio airplay, and flashy advertising, and tons of other exposure.
I just finished watching a MPEG4 (Divx) rip of South Park BLU. I am stunned by the quality. It's not DVD, but most scenes were VHS quality. The entire file was 431 megs. The picture quality is way better than real-video files.
I can't stop thinking : Oh my god, the MPAA is going to freak out over this.
Now, is it possible to make a VCD using a regular CD-R, or is some special hardware needed?
Katz slaps the face of Gulf War Veterans?
on
Virtual War
·
· Score: 1
> Can any country like the U.S. muster the determination and will -- evident in all > of its previous wars up until Vietnam -- to do whatever it takes to win even as our > leaders concede the conflict --thus the principle -- isn't worth any any > substantial material or human cost to us?
That same determination and will was VERY evident in the Gulf War. This wasn't a small military operation. It was a massive war campaign. Yes, it was fought quickly and the outcome was very one-sided. But it was an amazing achievement, accomplished because of just the determination and will you mention. The military did whatever it took to win.
I laugh now at people who talk about how easy the Gulf War was for us to win, about how weak and pathetic Iraq's military was, when in the months leading up to Desert Storm, every one of those "journalists" were talking about how the US reliance on technology would cause problems, how the US equipment would fail in the desert conditions, how the US military hadn't been faced with such a well equipped opponent, how the US airpower would be unable to deal with Iraq's intense air defenses. But since the US Military proved it was up to the challenge, those same journalists now talk about how weak iraq was, determined not to credit the US military with any true success.
Re:Lives are all that Matter
on
Virtual War
·
· Score: 1
> ession with a lossless, painless war is deep wounds that still linger from Vietnam.
No. The US Military learned a valuable lesson in Vietnam. If you fight a war with someone, bring everything you've got. You can't win a war that is fought with your hands tied by politicians. In the case of the Gulf War, the politicians set the objective, and told the military to make it happen. The results were successful.
> But, as the Bosnia episode shows, Operation Desert Shield, later Desert Storm was an isolated and *rare* event.
In Bosnia, like in Vietnam, the "war" run by politicians, not by the military. The politicians were directing each part, never giving the military a clear objective, and never giving them military complete control of the war. Sound familar? Sounds like Vietnam to me.
Consider the differences in leadership: Bush trusted his military. He gave them a mission, and trusted them to accomplish it. Clinton has nothing but contempt for the military. He openly uses them as nothing more than a diversion from his own personal scandals. Military operations during his presidency have been a disgrace.
I love my K7-700mhz. I'm running the ASUS K7M motherboard. After updating bios and drivers, it's a rock solid performer. I run Win2000 for development work, and Win98 for games. It's got a TNT2 Ultra video card, and other than problems with the nvidia drivers, it's performed perfectly.
> Finally, if you really believe searching for "schoolgirl.jpg" or "littlegirls.jpg" > is not an indication of pedophilia, you are either a fool, or totally disingenuous. > What the hell else could it be?
Ever heard of stock photos? Look thru some common everyday magazines (like in Women's Day, etc) and see if you can find any photos of girls. The people putting together articles and ads don't always take the pictures. The net is VERY useful for finding good stock photography.
How about maybe a film/tv agent who is looking for a new child star?
It doesn't matter if those are the most likely people searching. Those are completely possible scenarios, and those users would be slandered by suggesting that they are pedos. I know I'd sue.
> NO. CDnow is licensed to distribute those files, > you are not licensed to distribute them. Kinda > sucks, huh?
Well, I searched all over their site, and didn't find a single reference to any type of license. So they'd be hard pressed to make a case against me for distributing them.
if the metallica laywers or consultants only went by file names, did they account for the number of people that have their max uploads set to zero? It's pretty annoying when you find some rare track, only to find out you can't get it because the user has their max count set to zero.
> What they are saying is those 330,000 people are > offering their music for download to people who > don't have a right
Did Metallica or their lawyers actually download 330,000 files, or did they just go by filenames?
I've got 10 "samples" of metallica crap that I downloaded from cdnow.com. It's 30 seconds of each song. Are their lawyers sure that these 330,00 are offering the actually tracks? I better not be on that list, cause other than those samples, I wouldn't let anything metallica in my house!
Actually, I bought a BR5-49 tape from them directly at a concert. It was far less than it would have been at a record store (if it was commercially distributed).
It doesn't happen often, because the music isn't available that way.
How about this case: I downloaded several.mp3 clips for metallica songs off CDNOW. These are apparently legal files. They are available in my.MP3 directory. If I'm blocked from Napster, will I have a right to challenge the bad detective work of Metallica's hired guns?
Another case: When the previous story about Dr. Dre was on/. I downloaded a few seconds of a Dr. Dre file. I listened to the first few seconds, and quickly terminated the download (total crap!). If that file is still on my hard-drive, am I illegally distributing Dr. Dre's song?
Re:Don't worry about it, Napster's a different iss
on
MP3.com Loses In Court
·
· Score: 1
No, it won't work that way. Me and a friend tried it.
He logged into my account. He started playing one of my discs.
Then I logged into my account. When he tried to go to the next track, or to another disc, a recorded audio message came up instead says (paraphrased): "we're sorry, you are trying to access your music from a machine that is no longer logged in".
He re-logged in. Then I got the message on going to the next track.
So unless you don't plan on using them, it's not very effective to give your friends your account info. So in effect, I can "LEND" my collection to someone, which would be legal but...
I've still got the original CDs. So now he's got the my.mp3.com copy of my discs, and I've got the real things!
So, here's a piracy scheme for you: I create an account with a username "For Bob". I upload all my disks to that account, and give the username/password to Bob. Now he has a complete copy of my collection. I can now make another account for Sue, and Joe, and Dave...........
And that's actually easier than emailing hundreds or thousands of MP3 files all over the place.
I love my.mp3.com. It's a cool idea. But there are plenty of possible abuses of it. Does that make it illegal? I wouldn't think so. The technology, used as intended doesn't violate the idea that I have a right to use that IP where ever I go.
Re:Don't worry about it, Napster's a different iss
on
MP3.com Loses In Court
·
· Score: 1
I just signed up for My.mp3.com, and first of all, it's pretty cool. Took about 5 minutes to add 20 discs to my "online" collection.
To access my newly stored music, I just log into my.mp3.com, enter my username and password, and then I can get to my music.
What if I give my friend my username and password. He can then access my music. But is that legal?
Note that is does attempt to prevent an account from being logged in from two places at once.
No, I haven't copied an entire book. But I have copied the one article I wanted out of a magazine.
Much like I've downloaded the one song off a CD that I wanted.
And the fact that I pay for the photocopy doesn't really count, since the library makes the money, not the copyright holder! That might be like Napster charging for the songs you download.
No, actually, it's easy to look at other people's collections. I often see some unknown song, and start dl'ing it. I listen to the first 10-15 seconds of it. If I like it, I'll let the download finish. If I don't I'll stop the download. Works great for unknown artists. I've found some interesting stuff that way. But don't worry Dr. Dre, I haven't ever dl'd any of your stuff....
ATI's biggest problem is (and has always been) drivers. They are slow to release updated drivers, so their cards never perform up to their potential. Eventually, after a year or two, they finally get their drivers right, but by then, the card is the slowest thing around.
I'm sure I've got one, as will anyone who has obtained a military security clearance. A highschool buddy's dad is an FBI agent. He (the dad) did most of the background check for my clearance. I got the clearance, so he must not have found anything good. I got to see a little of the file during one of my final security clearance interviews. They had stuff back to when I was 10 years old.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, the VCD format is supported by most DVD players.
But you run into problems because many DVD players can't read CD-R discs. This is due to differences in the laser wavelengths.
The higher-end players often mention "dual laser" or "dual head", where they have two different lasers, one for DVD, and one for CD/CD-R.
I've heard it said that good access security should be based on "Something you have AND something you know".
Baptist Death Ray says that they've got probably 50 to 100 fans per town.
Well, if people freely trade MP3 files, and some of the existing 50-100 fans give BDR mp3 files to friends with the same musical tastes, that could double the number of fans, now 100-200 in each town. And some portion of those will buy the CD. So if you increase your audience, you increase your sales.
How much advertising would it take make 50-100 new fans in each town? I'd bet that's a lot of marketing, which an Indie artist can't pay for. So, let napster spread your music around, and find new fans for you. Yes, many will just download. But it's the true fans that will buy each CD you release. And you will be able to find more of those true fans due to napster.
Major labels don't need the napster free advertising. The larger artists already have tons of fans. And they get radio airplay, and flashy advertising, and tons of other exposure.
I just finished watching a MPEG4 (Divx) rip of South Park BLU. I am stunned by the quality. It's not DVD, but most scenes were VHS quality. The entire file was 431 megs. The picture quality is way better than real-video files.
I can't stop thinking : Oh my god, the MPAA is going to freak out over this.
Now, is it possible to make a VCD using a regular CD-R, or is some special hardware needed?
> Can any country like the U.S. muster the determination and will -- evident in all
> of its previous wars up until Vietnam -- to do whatever it takes to win even as our
> leaders concede the conflict --thus the principle -- isn't worth any any
> substantial material or human cost to us?
That same determination and will was VERY evident in the Gulf War. This wasn't a small military operation. It was a massive war campaign. Yes, it was fought quickly and the outcome was very one-sided. But it was an amazing achievement, accomplished because of just the determination and will you mention. The military did whatever it took to win.
I laugh now at people who talk about how easy the Gulf War was for us to win, about how weak and pathetic Iraq's military was, when in the months leading up to Desert Storm, every one of those "journalists" were talking about how the US reliance on technology would cause problems, how the US equipment would fail in the desert conditions, how the US military hadn't been faced with such a well equipped opponent, how the US airpower would be unable to deal with Iraq's intense air defenses. But since the US Military proved it was up to the challenge, those same journalists now talk about how weak iraq was, determined not to credit the US military with any true success.
> ession with a lossless, painless war is deep wounds that still linger from Vietnam.
No. The US Military learned a valuable lesson in Vietnam. If you fight a war with someone, bring everything you've got. You can't win a war that is fought with your hands tied by politicians. In the case of the Gulf War, the politicians set the objective, and told the military to make it happen. The results were successful.
> But, as the Bosnia episode shows, Operation Desert Shield, later Desert Storm was an isolated and *rare* event.
In Bosnia, like in Vietnam, the "war" run by politicians, not by the military. The politicians were directing each part, never giving the military a clear objective, and never giving them military complete control of the war. Sound familar? Sounds like Vietnam to me.
Consider the differences in leadership: Bush trusted his military. He gave them a mission, and trusted them to accomplish it. Clinton has nothing but contempt for the military. He openly uses them as nothing more than a diversion from his own personal scandals. Military operations during his presidency have been a disgrace.
I love my K7-700mhz. I'm running the ASUS K7M motherboard. After updating bios and drivers, it's a rock solid performer. I run Win2000 for development work, and Win98 for games. It's got a TNT2 Ultra video card, and other than problems with the nvidia drivers, it's performed perfectly.
Check this link!
http://www.csd.net/~cgadd/the_cleaner.gif
Based on the IP addresses, it appears that users from:
www.zeropaid.com
www.microsoft.com
www.whitehouse.gov
have accessed and downloaded "fake" kiddie pron!
Yes, it's BS. But no more so than the ones that the "wall of shame" posted. It's all unprovable claims.
> Finally, if you really believe searching for "schoolgirl.jpg" or "littlegirls.jpg"
> is not an indication of pedophilia, you are either a fool, or totally disingenuous.
> What the hell else could it be?
Ever heard of stock photos? Look thru some common everyday magazines (like in Women's Day, etc) and see if you can find any photos of girls. The people putting together articles and ads don't always take the pictures. The net is VERY useful for finding good stock photography.
How about maybe a film/tv agent who is looking for a new child star?
It doesn't matter if those are the most likely people searching. Those are completely possible scenarios, and those users would be slandered by suggesting that they are pedos. I know I'd sue.
> NO. CDnow is licensed to distribute those files,
> you are not licensed to distribute them. Kinda
> sucks, huh?
Well, I searched all over their site, and didn't find a single reference to any type of license. So they'd be hard pressed to make a case against me for distributing them.
regarding those 330,000,
if the metallica laywers or consultants only went by file names, did they account for the number of people that have their max uploads set to zero? It's pretty annoying when you find some rare track, only to find out you can't get it because the user has their max count set to zero.
> What they are saying is those 330,000 people are
> offering their music for download to people who
> don't have a right
Did Metallica or their lawyers actually download 330,000 files, or did they just go by filenames?
I've got 10 "samples" of metallica crap that I downloaded from cdnow.com. It's 30 seconds of each song. Are their lawyers sure that these 330,00 are offering the actually tracks? I better not be on that list, cause other than those samples, I wouldn't let anything metallica in my house!
WHAT THE HELL WAS INTERESTING ABOUT THAT POST?
All it did was bitch about people that aren't discussing the issues, which is what that idiot was doing!
Please note: This one isn't intersting either!
Actually, I bought a BR5-49 tape from them directly at a concert. It was far less than it would have been at a record store (if it was commercially distributed).
It doesn't happen often, because the music isn't available that way.
How about this case: .mp3 clips for metallica songs off CDNOW. These are apparently legal files. They are available in my .MP3 directory. If I'm blocked from Napster, will I have a right to challenge the bad detective work of Metallica's hired guns?
/. I downloaded a few seconds of a Dr. Dre file. I listened to the first few seconds, and quickly terminated the download (total crap!). If that file is still on my hard-drive, am I illegally distributing Dr. Dre's song?
I downloaded several
Another case:
When the previous story about Dr. Dre was on
No, it won't work that way. Me and a friend tried it.
He logged into my account. He started playing one of my discs.
Then I logged into my account. When he tried to go to the next track, or to another disc, a recorded audio message came up instead says (paraphrased):
"we're sorry, you are trying to access your music from a machine that is no longer logged in".
He re-logged in. Then I got the message on going to the next track.
So unless you don't plan on using them, it's not very effective to give your friends your account info. So in effect, I can "LEND" my collection to someone, which would be legal but...
I've still got the original CDs. So now he's got the my.mp3.com copy of my discs, and I've got the real things!
So, here's a piracy scheme for you:
I create an account with a username "For Bob". I upload all my disks to that account, and give the username/password to Bob. Now he has a complete copy of my collection. I can now make another account for Sue, and Joe, and Dave...........
And that's actually easier than emailing hundreds or thousands of MP3 files all over the place.
I love my.mp3.com. It's a cool idea. But there are plenty of possible abuses of it. Does that make it illegal? I wouldn't think so. The technology, used as intended doesn't violate the idea that I have a right to use that IP where ever I go.
I just signed up for My.mp3.com, and first of all, it's pretty cool. Took about 5 minutes to add 20 discs to my "online" collection.
To access my newly stored music, I just log into my.mp3.com, enter my username and password, and then I can get to my music.
What if I give my friend my username and password. He can then access my music. But is that legal?
Note that is does attempt to prevent an account from being logged in from two places at once.
No, I haven't copied an entire book. But I have copied the one article I wanted out of a magazine.
Much like I've downloaded the one song off a CD that I wanted.
And the fact that I pay for the photocopy doesn't really count, since the library makes the money, not the copyright holder! That might be like Napster charging for the songs you download.
> Once again demonstrating what we all already knew, namely that the labels are useless middlemen.
Doesn't Dr. Dre now own his own label? If so, is this lawsuit on behalf of the Dr. Dre the "Artist" (used loosely!), or Dr. Dre the useless middleman?
>Libraries don't make copies of books. Copiers do.
>Napster, by combining the archival and copying functions into one easy-to-use package
Well, my local library has books, AND a copier! Yes, they have the little sign up about copyright. And so does napster every time you start it up!
Where's the difference?
> you are paying for the MUSIC and that music happens to be on a CD.
Then why does a CD cost so much more than a tape? Same content, right? But they figure they can squeeze people for a few extra bucks....
No, actually, it's easy to look at other people's collections. I often see some unknown song, and start dl'ing it. I listen to the first 10-15 seconds of it. If I like it, I'll let the download finish. If I don't I'll stop the download. Works great for unknown artists. I've found some interesting stuff that way. But don't worry Dr. Dre, I haven't ever dl'd any of your stuff....
I don't know about a link between the Charisma engine and the Emotion engine, but the Emotion engine is PSX2, not dreamcast.
ATI's biggest problem is (and has always been) drivers. They are slow to release updated drivers, so their cards never perform up to their potential. Eventually, after a year or two, they finally get their drivers right, but by then, the card is the slowest thing around.
I'm sure I've got one, as will anyone who has obtained a military security clearance. A highschool buddy's dad is an FBI agent. He (the dad) did most of the background check for my clearance. I got the clearance, so he must not have found anything good. I got to see a little of the file during one of my final security clearance interviews. They had stuff back to when I was 10 years old.