I can honestly tell you right now that almost every application that is memory bandwidth limited is going to perform better on an AMD K8 chip than Core2/conroe.
For one thing, you don't know an artist's contract details. Two, artists willingly sign their contracts. Three, that still doesn't justify not paying the artists the "little" that they deserve. Four, you mean to tell me you're aware of an artist who makes very little in their contract, and you're actively making sure they don't even get paid THAT much?
As for going to see them live, I'm willing to bet you never go to see ANY of the aritsts you pirate. The modus operandi amongst pirates is to assume someone else will buy all the t-shirts and concert tickets to make up for the money lost from piracy. It's like littering. "I'm not hurting anyone, I'm just one person."
What "real artists" are these? The 'secret' ones who are so talented that they don't DARE to release any of their wonderful music in case it's illegally copied? Never hear of live concerts?
Ah, the classic Slashdot "live concert" canard, as if artists make all their money playing shitty club gigs. The justification exists in your mind solely to justify not paying for an artist's music. "Well, they make their money on live shows anyway!" Never mind that it's not true.
As for which real artists I'm referring to, I'm talking about the innovative artists making new music today that don't get signed to major labels anymore because the risk isn't worth the revenue due to piracy and the need to make back expenses. If you're wondering why popular music is so homogenized, it's due to major labels relying more and more on safe bets rather than risky acts, because safe bets are guaranteed sales in the age of piracy.
Can you prove this at all? Tours are EXPENSIVE. They're essentially advertisements intended to drive album sales in a particular region.
I love when people who have never asked a touring artist or been one decide to claim that artists make all their money from merchandise and touring as some weird justification for not paying the artist for the MP3s you downloaded. Just pay them, for Christ's sake.
I have no problem with iTunes DRM because I never even notice it's there. I'm perfectly okay with a basic form of DRM that simply makes sure you're authorized to play the music that you just bought, so that you can't go distributing it on P2P networks and raping the rights of the artist. Microsoft DRM is weirdly restricting. Why can't I copy to another machine? If I authenticate myself, then WMP should know I can legally play the files. It works in iTunes quite easily--up to 5 machines, in fact.
Well, as piracy goes up, popular music does seem to be getting crappier...maybe the real artists are afraid to release anything because they know it will be pirated to hell and they won't see a dime? It always intrigued me that pirates rattle on and on about the RIAA and never say a word about the artist they're not paying.
Which leads to the question of why you would want Vista in the first place if you're not going to be using its ugly "Glass" theme. Just run XP in a non-admin account.
I'm the guy who's pulled up at the lights beside a car whose passenger has their arm hanging out the window with a cigarette right next to my face.
You poor martyr, I'll contact Jesus and let him know you'll need his cross a little while longer.
This part of my reply got left out for some reason...
Apparently, you drive with your face mere inches away from other cars and with non-functioning windows. Guess what? If you drive, you have to deal with loud stereo systems, bright lights, and people cutting you off. Are you going to embark on a self-righteous crusade to ban everything in the world so that we all make your life less annoying for you, you poor soul?
Here's a reality check--life will never be 100% satisfactory for you, and there will always be annoying things you have to tolerate in the world. You can't just run off and ban everything you don't like. If you do, enjoy the fascist government that follows.
I'm the guy working just inside the building who's copping lungfulls of their foul smoke.
So move, or have them move. Are you going to ban everything that makes you uncomfortable? That's like trying to ban fire itself.
I'm the guy whose meal at the restaurant just lost a lot of its flavour because the smokers at the next table just lit up.
Then move to the non-smoking section! Or go to a restaurant that has no smokers. It's up to business owners to decide such things, and I'm sure they'll appreciate your business. See how a free market works?
I'm the guy who's stuck walking down the street behind a smoker.
You're stuck? You mean the smoker is holding you at ashpoint, forcing you to walk right behind them?
I'm the guy who's pulled up at the lights beside a car whose passenger has their arm hanging out the window with a cigarette right next to my face.
I can tell someone they can't slip out the back door and relax with a cigarette because we've gone decades with smokers being the most inconsiderate jerks on the face of the planet, and that includes cyclists. Fuck them all, it's time the law stepped in to force consideration on them.
Reading your post, it's clear that whiney non-smokers have become the inconsiderate jerks! "Fuck them all?" If you want the law to step in on them, the law will step on everybody and tell you what's good to put in your body. They'll tell you heavy music is bad because it causes violent behavior, and they'll ban it. Violent movies? Gone. Cheeseburgers? Gone. Every self-righteous group will form lobby groups and get their laws passed to have the government regulate your life for you, 'lest you make the horrible mistake of acting on your own. Good luck with that fascism.
In addition, expect Vista's virginal network stack and 1.0 APIs to get run through the ringer by hackers looking for exploits. I actually fear for Vista users next year.
I don't know how many here have downloaded and installed RC1, but the basic gist of Vista is this:
If buying a new PC, you'd want to get Vista. But if you run an existing PC with XP in a non-admin account, fully patched and firewalled, you're not missing much. The initial novelty of Vista wears off once you realize how complicated and inconsistent the interface has become. Some dialogs are in a new Vista style, but then you'll come across old dialogs ripped straight out of XP, such as Display Properties. The Network dialog actually has two Properties buttons on it, each leading to a different dialog. It's something of a mess. I also do not enjoy the new Start menu at all, which is more difficult to navigate. Aero Glass gets tiresome after an hour, and you end up turning off the translucency because it tends to create ugly, blurry window borders that become distracting.
The system-wide search is nice, but it's a little slower than OS X Tiger's, and it's far slower than Leopard's. Anyone using the Leopard WWDC preview has seen how fast Spotlight is. Apparently, the index is now pre-cached in some way, as results now appear instantly as you type in real-time just like iTunes, and there is no longer any hard drive grinding. Leopard's Spotlight will make Vista's search seem poorer in comparison.
I was playing with Cocoa today and rotated a text view by 15 degrees. The text system continues working correctly, including mouse selections, but all slightly rotated, which was hilarious. But it just reminded me that OS X has had a vector-based system going back to 2000, and Microsoft is just now getting around to it.
It's sad that they ended up being three years late with this stuff. That's the perfect way to describe Vista; it feels like it should have been out since 2003.
No, I did not say that. I disputed the claim that it was one of the most addictive chemicals that humans consume.
Premise: OK, tobacco is addictive, and dangerous.
Sorry friend, you can't have it both ways.
I already addressed the first point which automatically disputes this second one. I'm not having it both ways.
I just believe that one product that has been proven to be both highly addictive and highly dangerous ought not be a profit center for corporations with no apparent scruples about slowly killing their customers.
Why don't you believe people should be allowed to make the choice over whether they want to smoke or not? You're ignoring the rights issue and turning it into another big business rant, which is irrelevant to the rights issue. The fact it's a profit center has no bearing on whether they should be allowed to sell it. All products are supposed to be profit centers.
They get off the legal hook by printing warnings on the side of the boxes, but it's obvious that the warnings are much less effective that the addictive properties of their product, or they wouldn't have been so gracious and downright public service oriented about printing them on the side of every box of cigarettes for the past 36 years.
It means people weighted the consequences and started smoking anyway. It is their right if they want to do it.
Oh, and oh yeah, all the while concealing their own studies about the addictive and harmful nature of their own products.
Though valid as a criticism against the industry (and all industries should be held accountable for deception), it is irrelevant to the rights issue I'm discussing now.
Now we could continue to argue about whether tobacco is highly addictive or highly dangerous, but the scientific concensus seems to be clear...which is a lot like the case for global warming...which is where this whole argument started.
Now this is interesting. You're apparently pretending that the debate was about the health consequences of cigarettes, which was never in dispute. My point was that if people are going to fight against cigarettes through ad campaigns, they should abolish the double-standard and go after the much more destructive alcohol industry or fast-food industry. The truth is that most of the college kids you see in the Truth.com commercials probably drink and smoke weed on the weekends like a lot of other young people in college. If their goal is to attack an unhealthy product that is sold to people who continue to use it, they should go after all the more destructive things in our society. Cigarettes never broke up families like alcohol did, nor have they caused late-night car accidents from impaired perception the way alcohol or marijuana has.
I don't smoke. But it's my body, and damn anyone who revokes my right to purchase an unhealthy product and use it, of which there are millions in the world that Truth.com doesn't go after. Do you want a bigger government with the power to regulate what you're allowed to put in your body according to lobby groups? Should the government start regulating cheeseburgers? Should Grand Theft Auto be banned for causing violent behavior in desensitized young people?
Perhaps more importantly, do you believe the war on drugs has been a successful venture?
The article doesn't even get iPod sales correct. It gets the peak month wrong, and it's off by several millions. How can we accurately discuss the results if it doesn't even get public iPod number correct?
Treating smoking as a civil rights issue ignores the fact that tabacco is one of the most addictive chemicals humans consume.
That's not true, but it would have no relevance anyway. Who are you to tell someone they can't slip out the back door and relax with a cigarette?
Essentially all tabacco companies have to do is to entice new smokers to try their product and then biology takes over.
This is true of alcohol as well, and many other products. Also, there are surgeon's general warnings on every pack of cigarettes informing people of the consequences.
Considering that besides being very addictive, it's also very deadly; it's obvious to me that there is sufficient reason for society to regulate both it's use and it's marketing. No reasonable person would demand that any other highly addictive substance should not only be sold, but should also be advertised, allowed to be used in public places, and marketed to children.
From alcohol to chocolate to fast food, what you describe covers a wide range of products that you apparently feel should also be regulated. Aside from the fact that the government proves time and time again that it's inefficient at regulating anything, you're actually arguing for the government to "regulate" your life and your free will, putting the judgements of what is good and what is bad in the hands of politicans and legislators rather than the individual. If you don't like smoking, fantastic! Don't smoke, and avoid places that allow it. It's a very simple solution that doesn't involve imposing your decision on everyone else.
If the government gets a hold of a study proving a link between angry music and violent behavior, can the government start telling you not to get tattoos or listen to heavy metal for the good of society? Can they start banning other influences they deem negative to your health, such as controversial books and movies?
"I'll smoke, I'll get the cancer, I'll die. Deal? Thanks, AMERICA." - Bill Hicks
No, I'm not. In fact, I've never smoke a cigarette or drank a beer in my life. I just hate double standards. If there's going to be a massive left-wing campaign against cigarettes, there should be an even bigger one against the even more damaging alcohol industry. And if there's nothing spoken against smoking marijuana, how can they reconcile that with being against smoking cigarettes?
I just hate annoying people trying to dictate their beliefs on everyone else. I don't care if you don't like cigarettes, because I don't like them either. But I'm not going to lecture anyone else who exercises their free will and dares commit the ultimage sin against humankind by--horror--lighting a cigarette.
I guess this is technically off-topic, but I hate, HATE those Truth.com commercials and their idiotic tirades against "big tobacco" (and what a goofy phrase that is).
People have the right to smoke if they want to. To see a bunch of snotty college kids in commercials going around telling everyone how evil cigarettes are, when you know these same kids get drunk and smoke weed on the weekends without saying a word about it (particularly alcohol, which is far more damaging statistically than cigarette smoking), just annoys me to no end. These whiny irritants love imposing their feelings about smoking on business owners and everyone else. Sometimes, they even dupe local governments into complying and forming a nice little pseudo-fascist state where you can be arrested for daring let a smoker into your club or restaurant (but remember, drunks and stoners are a-okay!).
Sorry...it's Tuesday and I didn't get enough sleep.
Since the review so heavily criticized Soapbox, what did the reviewer think Microsoft should have added to put it ahead of the competition?
How about releasing something first instead of following what everyone else is doing? All this company does now is follow "Web 2.0" companies in the online market and Apple in the desktop and digital media markets.
The songs I've bought from the iTS have such liberal DRM that I always forget that iTunes employs any. Still the most liberal, user-friendly digital rights scheme on the market...
Journal written by jZnat (793348) and posted by kdawson on Sunday September 17, @03:40PM
Uh...who is jZnat, who is kdawson, and why is Slashdot now posting journals to the front page? How does one get their journal posted? Does jZnat know kdawson in some way?
Exactly. The article was written by ROBERT KENNEDY, JR. It's like trusting a reporting a global warming written by Dick Cheney.If there had been a massive voter fraud conspiracy in 2004, we'd have known about it by now. Articles like this love to paint the GOP as the bad guys and conveniently forget that Democrats were, for instance, slashing the tires of GOP voter vans on election morning and registering dead people to vote. A bunch of stuff happened from both sides, but for some reason, magaines and newspapers only remember one side doing it, as if the poor, innocent Democrats just never do anything wrong. If the GOP had been registering dead people and paying homeless folks with drugs to go into voting booths, it'd be in Rolling Stone, but because the magazine leans left (as does most of the media, proven by a UCLA-Standford study on the subject), we don't hear about it.
I call dupe! Slashdot just reported on an IE exploit, and before that, had another IE exploit post. They do this every month, in fact. Why don't these editors do their jobs and stop reporting the same story repeatedly?!
Slashdot Mirror
"Apple quietly released..."
It's in Security Update where every other update goes, and a spokesperson even talked with MacWorld about it. What's quiet about the release?
Okay, let's see your performance benchmark.
For one thing, you don't know an artist's contract details. Two, artists willingly sign their contracts. Three, that still doesn't justify not paying the artists the "little" that they deserve. Four, you mean to tell me you're aware of an artist who makes very little in their contract, and you're actively making sure they don't even get paid THAT much?
As for going to see them live, I'm willing to bet you never go to see ANY of the aritsts you pirate. The modus operandi amongst pirates is to assume someone else will buy all the t-shirts and concert tickets to make up for the money lost from piracy. It's like littering. "I'm not hurting anyone, I'm just one person."
I acknowledge your inability to present a counterargument to my valid point.
Next.
Ah, the classic Slashdot "live concert" canard, as if artists make all their money playing shitty club gigs. The justification exists in your mind solely to justify not paying for an artist's music. "Well, they make their money on live shows anyway!" Never mind that it's not true.
As for which real artists I'm referring to, I'm talking about the innovative artists making new music today that don't get signed to major labels anymore because the risk isn't worth the revenue due to piracy and the need to make back expenses. If you're wondering why popular music is so homogenized, it's due to major labels relying more and more on safe bets rather than risky acts, because safe bets are guaranteed sales in the age of piracy.
Can you prove this at all? Tours are EXPENSIVE. They're essentially advertisements intended to drive album sales in a particular region.
I love when people who have never asked a touring artist or been one decide to claim that artists make all their money from merchandise and touring as some weird justification for not paying the artist for the MP3s you downloaded. Just pay them, for Christ's sake.
Or use iTunes insread of WMP.
I have no problem with iTunes DRM because I never even notice it's there. I'm perfectly okay with a basic form of DRM that simply makes sure you're authorized to play the music that you just bought, so that you can't go distributing it on P2P networks and raping the rights of the artist. Microsoft DRM is weirdly restricting. Why can't I copy to another machine? If I authenticate myself, then WMP should know I can legally play the files. It works in iTunes quite easily--up to 5 machines, in fact.
Well, as piracy goes up, popular music does seem to be getting crappier...maybe the real artists are afraid to release anything because they know it will be pirated to hell and they won't see a dime? It always intrigued me that pirates rattle on and on about the RIAA and never say a word about the artist they're not paying.
Which leads to the question of why you would want Vista in the first place if you're not going to be using its ugly "Glass" theme. Just run XP in a non-admin account.
You poor martyr, I'll contact Jesus and let him know you'll need his cross a little while longer.
This part of my reply got left out for some reason...
Apparently, you drive with your face mere inches away from other cars and with non-functioning windows. Guess what? If you drive, you have to deal with loud stereo systems, bright lights, and people cutting you off. Are you going to embark on a self-righteous crusade to ban everything in the world so that we all make your life less annoying for you, you poor soul?
Here's a reality check--life will never be 100% satisfactory for you, and there will always be annoying things you have to tolerate in the world. You can't just run off and ban everything you don't like. If you do, enjoy the fascist government that follows.
So move, or have them move. Are you going to ban everything that makes you uncomfortable? That's like trying to ban fire itself.
Then move to the non-smoking section! Or go to a restaurant that has no smokers. It's up to business owners to decide such things, and I'm sure they'll appreciate your business. See how a free market works?
You're stuck? You mean the smoker is holding you at ashpoint, forcing you to walk right behind them?
I can tell someone they can't slip out the back door and relax with a cigarette because we've gone decades with smokers being the most inconsiderate jerks on the face of the planet, and that includes cyclists. Fuck them all, it's time the law stepped in to force consideration on them.
Reading your post, it's clear that whiney non-smokers have become the inconsiderate jerks! "Fuck them all?" If you want the law to step in on them, the law will step on everybody and tell you what's good to put in your body. They'll tell you heavy music is bad because it causes violent behavior, and they'll ban it. Violent movies? Gone. Cheeseburgers? Gone. Every self-righteous group will form lobby groups and get their laws passed to have the government regulate your life for you, 'lest you make the horrible mistake of acting on your own. Good luck with that fascism.
Over ten years after the fact!
In addition, expect Vista's virginal network stack and 1.0 APIs to get run through the ringer by hackers looking for exploits. I actually fear for Vista users next year.
I don't know how many here have downloaded and installed RC1, but the basic gist of Vista is this:
If buying a new PC, you'd want to get Vista. But if you run an existing PC with XP in a non-admin account, fully patched and firewalled, you're not missing much. The initial novelty of Vista wears off once you realize how complicated and inconsistent the interface has become. Some dialogs are in a new Vista style, but then you'll come across old dialogs ripped straight out of XP, such as Display Properties. The Network dialog actually has two Properties buttons on it, each leading to a different dialog. It's something of a mess. I also do not enjoy the new Start menu at all, which is more difficult to navigate. Aero Glass gets tiresome after an hour, and you end up turning off the translucency because it tends to create ugly, blurry window borders that become distracting.
The system-wide search is nice, but it's a little slower than OS X Tiger's, and it's far slower than Leopard's. Anyone using the Leopard WWDC preview has seen how fast Spotlight is. Apparently, the index is now pre-cached in some way, as results now appear instantly as you type in real-time just like iTunes, and there is no longer any hard drive grinding. Leopard's Spotlight will make Vista's search seem poorer in comparison.
I was playing with Cocoa today and rotated a text view by 15 degrees. The text system continues working correctly, including mouse selections, but all slightly rotated, which was hilarious. But it just reminded me that OS X has had a vector-based system going back to 2000, and Microsoft is just now getting around to it.
It's sad that they ended up being three years late with this stuff. That's the perfect way to describe Vista; it feels like it should have been out since 2003.
No, I did not say that. I disputed the claim that it was one of the most addictive chemicals that humans consume.
I already addressed the first point which automatically disputes this second one. I'm not having it both ways.
Why don't you believe people should be allowed to make the choice over whether they want to smoke or not? You're ignoring the rights issue and turning it into another big business rant, which is irrelevant to the rights issue. The fact it's a profit center has no bearing on whether they should be allowed to sell it. All products are supposed to be profit centers.
It means people weighted the consequences and started smoking anyway. It is their right if they want to do it.
Though valid as a criticism against the industry (and all industries should be held accountable for deception), it is irrelevant to the rights issue I'm discussing now.
Now this is interesting. You're apparently pretending that the debate was about the health consequences of cigarettes, which was never in dispute. My point was that if people are going to fight against cigarettes through ad campaigns, they should abolish the double-standard and go after the much more destructive alcohol industry or fast-food industry. The truth is that most of the college kids you see in the Truth.com commercials probably drink and smoke weed on the weekends like a lot of other young people in college. If their goal is to attack an unhealthy product that is sold to people who continue to use it, they should go after all the more destructive things in our society. Cigarettes never broke up families like alcohol did, nor have they caused late-night car accidents from impaired perception the way alcohol or marijuana has.
I don't smoke. But it's my body, and damn anyone who revokes my right to purchase an unhealthy product and use it, of which there are millions in the world that Truth.com doesn't go after. Do you want a bigger government with the power to regulate what you're allowed to put in your body according to lobby groups? Should the government start regulating cheeseburgers? Should Grand Theft Auto be banned for causing violent behavior in desensitized young people?
Perhaps more importantly, do you believe the war on drugs has been a successful venture?
The article doesn't even get iPod sales correct. It gets the peak month wrong, and it's off by several millions. How can we accurately discuss the results if it doesn't even get public iPod number correct?
That's not true, but it would have no relevance anyway. Who are you to tell someone they can't slip out the back door and relax with a cigarette?
This is true of alcohol as well, and many other products. Also, there are surgeon's general warnings on every pack of cigarettes informing people of the consequences.
From alcohol to chocolate to fast food, what you describe covers a wide range of products that you apparently feel should also be regulated. Aside from the fact that the government proves time and time again that it's inefficient at regulating anything, you're actually arguing for the government to "regulate" your life and your free will, putting the judgements of what is good and what is bad in the hands of politicans and legislators rather than the individual. If you don't like smoking, fantastic! Don't smoke, and avoid places that allow it. It's a very simple solution that doesn't involve imposing your decision on everyone else.
If the government gets a hold of a study proving a link between angry music and violent behavior, can the government start telling you not to get tattoos or listen to heavy metal for the good of society? Can they start banning other influences they deem negative to your health, such as controversial books and movies?
"I'll smoke, I'll get the cancer, I'll die. Deal? Thanks, AMERICA." - Bill Hicks
No, I'm not. In fact, I've never smoke a cigarette or drank a beer in my life. I just hate double standards. If there's going to be a massive left-wing campaign against cigarettes, there should be an even bigger one against the even more damaging alcohol industry. And if there's nothing spoken against smoking marijuana, how can they reconcile that with being against smoking cigarettes?
I just hate annoying people trying to dictate their beliefs on everyone else. I don't care if you don't like cigarettes, because I don't like them either. But I'm not going to lecture anyone else who exercises their free will and dares commit the ultimage sin against humankind by--horror--lighting a cigarette.
I guess this is technically off-topic, but I hate, HATE those Truth.com commercials and their idiotic tirades against "big tobacco" (and what a goofy phrase that is).
People have the right to smoke if they want to. To see a bunch of snotty college kids in commercials going around telling everyone how evil cigarettes are, when you know these same kids get drunk and smoke weed on the weekends without saying a word about it (particularly alcohol, which is far more damaging statistically than cigarette smoking), just annoys me to no end. These whiny irritants love imposing their feelings about smoking on business owners and everyone else. Sometimes, they even dupe local governments into complying and forming a nice little pseudo-fascist state where you can be arrested for daring let a smoker into your club or restaurant (but remember, drunks and stoners are a-okay!).
Sorry...it's Tuesday and I didn't get enough sleep.
I can do all that with music purchased from iTunes.
How about releasing something first instead of following what everyone else is doing? All this company does now is follow "Web 2.0" companies in the online market and Apple in the desktop and digital media markets.
The songs I've bought from the iTS have such liberal DRM that I always forget that iTunes employs any. Still the most liberal, user-friendly digital rights scheme on the market...
Journal written by jZnat (793348) and posted by kdawson on Sunday September 17, @03:40PM
Uh...who is jZnat, who is kdawson, and why is Slashdot now posting journals to the front page? How does one get their journal posted? Does jZnat know kdawson in some way?
What's going on?
Exactly. The article was written by ROBERT KENNEDY, JR. It's like trusting a reporting a global warming written by Dick Cheney.If there had been a massive voter fraud conspiracy in 2004, we'd have known about it by now. Articles like this love to paint the GOP as the bad guys and conveniently forget that Democrats were, for instance, slashing the tires of GOP voter vans on election morning and registering dead people to vote. A bunch of stuff happened from both sides, but for some reason, magaines and newspapers only remember one side doing it, as if the poor, innocent Democrats just never do anything wrong. If the GOP had been registering dead people and paying homeless folks with drugs to go into voting booths, it'd be in Rolling Stone, but because the magazine leans left (as does most of the media, proven by a UCLA-Standford study on the subject), we don't hear about it.
I call dupe! Slashdot just reported on an IE exploit, and before that, had another IE exploit post. They do this every month, in fact. Why don't these editors do their jobs and stop reporting the same story repeatedly?!