You can go from Mac to iPod, but not the other way around, I'm afraid. So I was mistaken. But, if you mount the iPod, you can view the hidden music folder from the terminal. I think it's in [Your iPod Name]/.iPod_Control/Music. In there, there are several directories starting with the letter "F." In each of those is your music.
Triumph the Comic Insult Dog did a number on him, if you happened to see his performance at the MTV Video Music Awards. Something to the effect of, "Hey, Eminem, my mom was a bitch too, but I don't go writing songs about it." That's one brutal little puppet.
This does not apply to the entertainment industry, obviously, where prices have remained steady or increased, even though physical production costs have decreased. Welcome to economic Upside-Down Land.
Some rips are from the master tapes; some are from the CD. I don't know if there's any way to tell. As for the clipping problem with CD's, that is not inherently a problem with the CD format itself. It is a problem called the "loudness wars." Basically. record companies want their CD's mastered to be extremely loud on the radio with the reasoning that the louder the song is on the radio, the more the listener will pay attention to it.
CD's do have a limited range, but it's not that limited. The problem is incompetent engineers mastering a CD so that the maximum volume is reached almost constantly, creating the clipping effect and taking away dynamic range. CD's from the early 90's are a lot quieter, but you can really feel the loud parts and make out a lot more dynamic in the signal. Think of reading something in all caps and no punctuation vs. reading that same thing with proper punctuation and capitalization. In the former case, your brain receives no queues as to when it should "pause" or take a breath. Everything is the same, so it's more difficult to tell one part from the other. Same deal with music levels. Since the loudness wars have broken out, that dynamic range has disappeared and the only time a song isn't playing at peak volume is when it's fading out. It's really unfortunate.
Insightful my ass. This "If you don't like it, leave" bullshit from the neo-conservative right wing-nuts is growing tiresome. This is America, and if you don't like something you are free to speak out against it and try to get it changed. If you don't like that, then you can leave. Try picking a state that shares your bullshit nationalist views about the government being the final arbiter of all that is good and correct. I hear that Saudi Arabia is nice this time of year.
No, it's kind of like finding out that a company uses the best tools for the jobs it needs to do. Apple doesn't run on all Mac OS X boxes, either. And I'll bet that SGI workstations aren't powering the SGI website, either. Oh the horrors and hypocrisy!
This fucking sucks.
on
WB Cancels Angel
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Regardless of past sins (like last season), I think that this season of Angel has really turned out well. I was skeptical about the idea of them taking over W&H, but it looks like Joss actually knew what he was doing with this one (unlike Season 7 of Buffy). The 100th episode was awesome, I thought, especially the ending, which was well done.
Right now, the characters are all going through a lot, and they're all changing. I think it makes the show interesting. I want to see more of where these new characters go. 8 episodes doesn't seem like a whole lot of time left to explore that.
Hell, there's a veritable conflict brewing between Buffy's Slayer Corp and Angel's W&H. I want to see more interaction between those two camps! Damage was a fucking great episode.
But no. The WB needs to make room for yet another shitty comedy or Charmed reruns. Buffy's gone (after a rather sub-par showing in its last season), Angel is gone after this season... the number of non-Simpsons shows on TV that I'm willing to watch is rapidly dwindling in number. Next thing you know, Fox is going to cancel 24 in favor of "Afghani Idol" or something.
i know for sure i'd be running mac os if it worked on intel
No, you wouldn't be. If Apple suddenly switched architectures, they really would die. Let's ignore the issue that Apple would lose revenue from people just building their own white box Macs, for now. Let's list the other problems with releasing an x86 OS X port or just dropping PPC altogether.
What motivation does Apple have to do it? They are consistently turning a profit, and their hardware is no longer pathetic in comparison to the x86 world's offerings. By all accounts, the 970FX is shaping up to be a killer portable processor with high speeds and lower power consumption, and the G5 has been well-received by Apple's existing customers. It's at least on par with Intel's offerings and has an architectural base built for shuttling massive amounts of data, and is being developed by IBM, who have no intention of letting it flounder like Motorola did the G4. The move makes no sense. Apple have an awesome chip with a killer architecture that's built to scale well. What have they got to gain by switching architectures? A couple of hardware enthusiasts running OS X?
They'd piss off developers. They've just completed a transition to a new operating system and made their developers port their projects over to that. Now they're supposed to rewrite all that PowerPC code to run under x86? Sure, you can run Mac OS X on x86, but what would you do with it? Say, "It looks purty"? 'Cause the bigtime software developers aren't going to take kindly to the massive reengineering of their products that would be required to turn fast PowerPC code into fast x86 code, not to mention dropping AltiVec completely in favor of inferior SIMD implementations.
They'd piss off customers by shooting themselves in the foot.
The demand for this move just is not that high. The current Mac userbase doesn't care. They're going to buy from Apple regardless of whether it's x86 or PowerPC because of positive experiences. Who are the people we've got clamoring for OS X on x86? That would be the people who build their own machines, which would be a very small percentage of the market. And even if Apple granted them their wish, they'd install OS X on their custom-built PC's and quickly realize that they can't do anything with it and that OS X on x86 is completely useless. Then they'd complain about how slow it is compared to Linux and Windows.
So could someone please explain how this move could possibly go over well? If IBM and the G5 hadn't "come along" (Apple and IBM had been collaborating for a while on it before it was announced), Apple might very well have moved to x86 out of pure necessity. When the G4 was making pitiful showing after pitiful showing in benchmarks and cost efficiency, Apple had a reason to switch to Intel. Their chip supplier was apathetic to their needs as a personal computer maker, their architecture sucked, their bus was old in 2000 and their machines were too expensive for the performance they offered. Even then, a move to x86 would have the accompanied problem of developers making the transition in a timely fashion.
Now, with the G5, the performance necessity to switch doesn't exist. Apple aren't losing any money at the moment, and they have a healthy $4.5 billion in the bank, so there's no real monetary need for it. And to top it off, Apple have recognized that their marketshare is small and will probably stay that way, so they're diversifying their revenue sources with consumer electronics (iPod) and legal music downloads. They're not just about computers anymore. They cater to a niche, and that niche just happens to have money. By making their products stylish, they establish themselves as a "upper class" of computers and gadgets. Same with BMW, same with Ferrari. Small marketshare, but they just happen to be turning a profit based on their perceived status.
Assigning two values to two qualifiers and then saying "Pick a number between these two values" is not quantitative in any objective sense. It's pseudo-quantitative qualification.
Microsoft does break laws, cooking the books, fraud, and a slough of others. However accusing them of being a monopoly is simply false.
You're playing semantics games with the term "monopoly," and then arguing that the legal definition is wrong. Microsoft was convicted of abusing monopolistic power, and that's exactly what they did and continue to do.
The legal definition of a monopoly is completly erroenous and allows consumers who 'think' they have no control over the products they buy to blame it on some corporation. As I was saying, they were convicted under a vague law. Even rich people have rights, as unfortunate as that may seem.
Ah, so all those corporations that want to be able to interoperate with others aren't really forced into buying Microsoft Office licenses? They just imagined it? If I want seamless access to my university's resources, I need a PC because Microsoft keeps the open source community 1 step behind. Am I imagining that too and blaming my inability to fully access resources of Microsoft?
A monopoly is the sole provider of a good or service. Microsoft does not fall under this category, at least so long as other desktops and office suites exist.
By that definition, Bell wasn't a monopoly as long as I tied two Dixie cups together and charged people to use it. When the competition is minuscule, it's irrelevant. You're drawing a false dilemma. Either a company must have complete, utter and total control of the market to be a monopoly, or it's nothing even resembling a monopoly. That's bullshit. 95% market domination makes them an effective monopoly, or at least a very good approximation of one.
Are you done hairsplitting yet? The courts don't use the economic definition of "monopoly"; they use the legal one. So Microsoft is a(n) (il)legal monopoly. There, happy? This isn't "propaganda"; it's a simple statement of fact.
It was a shoddily-written piece of shit that shamelessly copied from other, better Trek films. The plot made absolutely no sense. Go here for a nice, pictorial plot analysis.
As a Mac user, I'd be extremely interested to see what third-party system utilities, if any, he has installed on his machine, especially given the apparent hostility Apple has to user-interface modifications.
They broke laws that were vague and unjust to begin with.
No, the law is quite clear. You cannot leverage dominant marketshare in one sector to attain dominant marketshare in another. This is what Microsoft did and continues to do.
I could go on a rant about how a monopoly has nothing to do with how much market share one has or any tactics used to gain said market share, but just take my word for it: They're not an economic monopoly under any circumstances.
Uh huh, sure. Real legal scholar we've got here. Then pray tell, what is a monopoly, if not a single company controlling an entire sector of the market? I think I'll trust the three courts that heard that case over your word.
Slashdot Mirror
You can go from Mac to iPod, but not the other way around, I'm afraid. So I was mistaken. But, if you mount the iPod, you can view the hidden music folder from the terminal. I think it's in [Your iPod Name]/.iPod_Control/Music. In there, there are several directories starting with the letter "F." In each of those is your music.
Triumph the Comic Insult Dog did a number on him, if you happened to see his performance at the MTV Video Music Awards. Something to the effect of, "Hey, Eminem, my mom was a bitch too, but I don't go writing songs about it." That's one brutal little puppet.
If you have it set to manual syncing, this will not happen.
That's the point of the iPod. If you have one, your collection will automatically be synced.
This does not apply to the entertainment industry, obviously, where prices have remained steady or increased, even though physical production costs have decreased. Welcome to economic Upside-Down Land.
Some rips are from the master tapes; some are from the CD. I don't know if there's any way to tell. As for the clipping problem with CD's, that is not inherently a problem with the CD format itself. It is a problem called the "loudness wars." Basically. record companies want their CD's mastered to be extremely loud on the radio with the reasoning that the louder the song is on the radio, the more the listener will pay attention to it.
CD's do have a limited range, but it's not that limited. The problem is incompetent engineers mastering a CD so that the maximum volume is reached almost constantly, creating the clipping effect and taking away dynamic range. CD's from the early 90's are a lot quieter, but you can really feel the loud parts and make out a lot more dynamic in the signal. Think of reading something in all caps and no punctuation vs. reading that same thing with proper punctuation and capitalization. In the former case, your brain receives no queues as to when it should "pause" or take a breath. Everything is the same, so it's more difficult to tell one part from the other. Same deal with music levels. Since the loudness wars have broken out, that dynamic range has disappeared and the only time a song isn't playing at peak volume is when it's fading out. It's really unfortunate.
No one's forgotten that, because they never knew about it in the first place. People do know about the iPod. See the difference?
Insightful my ass. This "If you don't like it, leave" bullshit from the neo-conservative right wing-nuts is growing tiresome. This is America, and if you don't like something you are free to speak out against it and try to get it changed. If you don't like that, then you can leave. Try picking a state that shares your bullshit nationalist views about the government being the final arbiter of all that is good and correct. I hear that Saudi Arabia is nice this time of year.
Gee, no shit, Sherlock. I'll inform Ripley's.
No, it's kind of like finding out that a company uses the best tools for the jobs it needs to do. Apple doesn't run on all Mac OS X boxes, either. And I'll bet that SGI workstations aren't powering the SGI website, either. Oh the horrors and hypocrisy!
Regardless of past sins (like last season), I think that this season of Angel has really turned out well. I was skeptical about the idea of them taking over W&H, but it looks like Joss actually knew what he was doing with this one (unlike Season 7 of Buffy). The 100th episode was awesome, I thought, especially the ending, which was well done. Right now, the characters are all going through a lot, and they're all changing. I think it makes the show interesting. I want to see more of where these new characters go. 8 episodes doesn't seem like a whole lot of time left to explore that. Hell, there's a veritable conflict brewing between Buffy's Slayer Corp and Angel's W&H. I want to see more interaction between those two camps! Damage was a fucking great episode. But no. The WB needs to make room for yet another shitty comedy or Charmed reruns. Buffy's gone (after a rather sub-par showing in its last season), Angel is gone after this season ... the number of non-Simpsons shows on TV that I'm willing to watch is rapidly dwindling in number. Next thing you know, Fox is going to cancel 24 in favor of "Afghani Idol" or something.
-
What motivation does Apple have to do it? They are consistently turning a profit, and their hardware is no longer pathetic in comparison to the x86 world's offerings. By all accounts, the 970FX is shaping up to be a killer portable processor with high speeds and lower power consumption, and the G5 has been well-received by Apple's existing customers. It's at least on par with Intel's offerings and has an architectural base built for shuttling massive amounts of data, and is being developed by IBM, who have no intention of letting it flounder like Motorola did the G4. The move makes no sense. Apple have an awesome chip with a killer architecture that's built to scale well. What have they got to gain by switching architectures? A couple of hardware enthusiasts running OS X?
-
They'd piss off developers. They've just completed a transition to a new operating system and made their developers port their projects over to that. Now they're supposed to rewrite all that PowerPC code to run under x86? Sure, you can run Mac OS X on x86, but what would you do with it? Say, "It looks purty"? 'Cause the bigtime software developers aren't going to take kindly to the massive reengineering of their products that would be required to turn fast PowerPC code into fast x86 code, not to mention dropping AltiVec completely in favor of inferior SIMD implementations.
-
They'd piss off customers by shooting themselves in the foot.
-
The demand for this move just is not that high. The current Mac userbase doesn't care. They're going to buy from Apple regardless of whether it's x86 or PowerPC because of positive experiences. Who are the people we've got clamoring for OS X on x86? That would be the people who build their own machines, which would be a very small percentage of the market. And even if Apple granted them their wish, they'd install OS X on their custom-built PC's and quickly realize that they can't do anything with it and that OS X on x86 is completely useless. Then they'd complain about how slow it is compared to Linux and Windows.
So could someone please explain how this move could possibly go over well? If IBM and the G5 hadn't "come along" (Apple and IBM had been collaborating for a while on it before it was announced), Apple might very well have moved to x86 out of pure necessity. When the G4 was making pitiful showing after pitiful showing in benchmarks and cost efficiency, Apple had a reason to switch to Intel. Their chip supplier was apathetic to their needs as a personal computer maker, their architecture sucked, their bus was old in 2000 and their machines were too expensive for the performance they offered. Even then, a move to x86 would have the accompanied problem of developers making the transition in a timely fashion.Now, with the G5, the performance necessity to switch doesn't exist. Apple aren't losing any money at the moment, and they have a healthy $4.5 billion in the bank, so there's no real monetary need for it. And to top it off, Apple have recognized that their marketshare is small and will probably stay that way, so they're diversifying their revenue sources with consumer electronics (iPod) and legal music downloads. They're not just about computers anymore. They cater to a niche, and that niche just happens to have money. By making their products stylish, they establish themselves as a "upper class" of computers and gadgets. Same with BMW, same with Ferrari. Small marketshare, but they just happen to be turning a profit based on their perceived status.
You can thank CounterStrike for that.
Stem cell technology has the potential to save millions of lives. Clearly, we need to issue bans on it.
Say what you will about Apple's mice, but not even die-hard PC users think their monitors are garbage.
The last time we asked for public input, George W. Bush became the president. Maybe we should just leave the public out.
Assigning two values to two qualifiers and then saying "Pick a number between these two values" is not quantitative in any objective sense. It's pseudo-quantitative qualification.
Then write it in LaTeX and put a PDF online, along with the source .tex file.
Are you done hairsplitting yet? The courts don't use the economic definition of "monopoly"; they use the legal one. So Microsoft is a(n) (il)legal monopoly. There, happy? This isn't "propaganda"; it's a simple statement of fact.
It was a shoddily-written piece of shit that shamelessly copied from other, better Trek films. The plot made absolutely no sense. Go here for a nice, pictorial plot analysis.
As a Mac user, I'd be extremely interested to see what third-party system utilities, if any, he has installed on his machine, especially given the apparent hostility Apple has to user-interface modifications.
It's OS 9. He doesn't count as a Mac user as of Jobs' declaration that the transition is over.
The French have decided to knight a Penguin, just to stick it to the English.