Even if it works it won't catch on. Wine is like exotic stereo equipment: people are paying for expensiveness.
So, this is essentially the Bose of wine. When those little bookshelf speakers with the hidden subwoofer first came out, they sounded moderatlely better than other equipment at the same price range, and Bose marketed those tiny speakers like crazy. They weren't (and aren't) the best speakers on the block, but they're good enough that the hype will fool most people into thinking that they're buying the best stereo equipment that money can buy.
At our company, we are trying to figure out how to use cable over telephone pole (business class cable) as a backup in case we get "dug up", which would provide a new level of reliability, but I am sure somewhere out there there is still some unavoidable single point of failure that no amount of money can overcome.
A backhoe driver that accidentally digs up your cable, and then backs into the telephone pole?
Can you actually name any form of media that requires "cracking a header code" to rip? I have never heard of it...
The article never says anything about a form of media, or ripping, it says "copyrighted materials". That would include a track that you downloaded off of, say, iTunes, which has DRM to prevent you from making as many copies as you want. It's reasonable to assume that this DRM is implemented in the header portion of the file.
DVD's have nothing to prevent copying. They have CSS to prevent extraction and Fair Use.
Well, many DVDs have Macrovision copy protection, so while that wouldn't affect a bit-by-bit copy from one DVD to another, it is still a copy protection scheme, and would affect an attempt to make an analog copy of a DVD on non-professional equipment.
Anyone know what the "crack the headers" bit refers to for CDs?
It means "I'm a journalist and really have no clue what I'm talking about, so I'll make up words that sound dramatic".
Actually, the author of the article never refers to "cracking" the headers of CDs. The article states "software 'commonly used to crack header codes on copyrighted materials such as movies and music to allow duplication,' Schafer's memo said.". Regular redbook audio CDs don't have any sort of DRM to crack, but many DVDs do, and so do DRM'd music tracks downloaded from services such as iTunes or Napster. So, while it may certainly be true that many journalists don't know what they're talking about, this journalist has said nothing incorrect with respect to cracking.
Kids today barely read at all, and their writing is awful.
That's just not fair. People have been using the "kids today" argument since the beginning of time. Your parents complained about "kids today" when you were a kid, and your grandparents complained about "kids today" when they were a kid. Kids today are the same as kids have always been. Some read plenty, some write well, and many are just plain stupid. I'm 27, and I remember wondering why so few of my classmates enjoyed reading. I also remember wondering why my teachers always picked the most boring books they could find. Nobody should have to read Dandelion Wine...and why we never got to read Slaughterhouse V in school is a mystery....but anyway, if kids today don't read, how do you explain the ridiculously popular Harry Potter series? How do you explain the bustling kids section at pretty much every bookstore? How about complaining that parents today don't spend enough time reading to their kids so that they're interested in reading at a young age? That's certainly true in plenty of cases...I have to say that if I had to choose between my child spending an hour playing an educational game on their computer or spending an hour watching TV, I'd go for the computer every time. Not to mention the tremendous resources the web has to offer a curious child. I don't think the computer is ever going to replace a good teacher, but it certainly is a better supplement than nothing.
80 years ago people were expected to read Shakespear in the 4th grade, now we (MAYBE) get into it by high school.
heck, the first Shakespeare I read was in college...
What's the point? I can already type "slashdot" into any browser I can think of, and I get redirected to slashdot.org. I guess it takes an extra second or so for it to look up the correct site, but it's still pretty much the same thing from a user's perspective...
Perhaps a columnist for a magazine wouldn't list all citations, but I've read several hundred articles from peer-reviewed journals, and I can say that they are almost always overflowing with citations, sometimes to the point where you can skip most of a paragraph. There's generally an entire section that discusses prior published research that relates to the study at hand, and the list of references at the end of an article is usually quite extensive. I don't think it's possible to get an article published in a respected journal without a long list of citations.
Perhaps not, but you supported the statement of someone who improperly used the term "embryonic stem cells". There is a distinction, and to ignore that distinction is to attempt to blur a line that is in fact quite solid.
Wrong. To be against 'discarding' fertilized embryos and is not to be against in-vitro fertilization.
Do you know of any doctor practicing in-vitro fertilization without creating extra embryos that have no chance of ever being grown? Even if they aren't destroyed, they can only legally be used by the people who created them. If they aren't going to use them, they're essentially in limbo. Or they're destroyed. I suppose you could theoretically support some hypothetical in-vitro procedure where only one embryo is created at a time, and then implanted, but the fact is that that's not how it's done.
Here's some help:
"FDA granting approval to the first ever transplant of fetal stem cells into..."
Okay, then say "fetal stem cells", not "embryonic stem cells".
The distinction between embryo and fetus is an arbitrary one - at both stages, it is a human being, distinct from the mother and father.
Except that to be against the destruction of a fetus is to be against abortion, but to be against the destruction of an embryo is to be against in vitro fertilization. If you're against in vitro, then fine, but if you're okay with in vitro, and if the process neccessitates the creation of extra embryos that are going to get destroyed anyway, and the owners of those embryos are okay with them being used for scientific purposes instead of being destroyed, then why shouldn't they be able to be used for scientific purposes? What gives you the right to dictate what someone else can do? If you don't want to destroy your embryos, then fine. Nobody's going to force you to. Frankly, I wouldn't want to either.
They won't extend the same protection to other fetuses, that they themselves had enjoyed.
But embryonic stem cells don't come from fetuses. Is it really that much to ask for people to learn a little bit about something before voicing an opinion?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryonic_stem_cells
I am against embryonic stem cells. Now I'll admit that I am not dead set on this. On the one hand, as long as you have murdered someone (make no mistake, that is how I see abortion) then perhaps we should take what good we can from that to make the best of the terrible situation.
Not that I would want to complicate things with the facts or anything, but there's a difference between an embryo and a fetus. Leftover embryos come from the in vitro fertilization process. When a couple goes to a doctor for in vitro, a number of eggs are harvested along with sperm. A bunch of embryos are created in the laboratory, some are implanted into the woman, and the rest are put on ice, in case they're needed. If all goes well, the couple gets pregnant, and the rest of the embryos can either be kept on ice or destroyed. A fair amount are destroyed. If you don't want any more kids, there's not much reason to keep them. The strange thing about being against the scientific use of embryonic stem cells is that they're being destroyed anyway. But then, to understand that means taking a bit of time to look up what the term "embryonic stem cells" means, instead of just believing whatever some blowhard conservative on the radio/tv tells you. To hell with facts, bring us misguided emotions!
I do audio professionally and I'm also a programmer. In my home, I have 2 Windows machines, a Linux server, and an iBook. I do use Audacity from time to time because it does a few things better than even the high-priced editors. As I've told many people, Audacity will open damn near anything...I also frequently use Supercollider, which is a stellar synthesis/dsp programming language that runs natively on OSX, but has been ported to Linux and Windows. However, most of the Linux audio projects are not stable enough to get real work done. I try them from time to time, and some things are getting better, but it's just really not there yet. There's nothing that really stacks up to any of the big 3 sequencers or to Pro Tools. That, combined with the fact that it's very difficult to find professional-grade audio cards that even work with Linux currently make it a lackluster platform for doing any sort of serious audio work. You can make write the best audio software, but if I have to use a shitty soundblaster, I'm not even going to consider it...
I don't know how Creative is doing it, but one way is to upsample to 96kHz from 44kHz with interpolation. It's the same basic idea as is used with image interpollation, only, you know, with audio (http://www.interpolatethis.com/).
Then, you step the bit depth up from 16 to 24, run the signal through a dynamic expander, and dither it to cover up any quantization noize.
Will it sound better than the original CD? Probably not, but you can make it sound better than the mp3, and Creative can claim that it's better than the CD because most people have no idea what sample rate or bit depth means.
Where exactly would the average 12 year old (or younger) get the $50-60 to buy the game, and the transportation to get to a retailer? I'm not saying that there aren't any 12 year olds with more money laying around than I do, and obviously some people live close enough to a game store that a child could walk/bike there, but is it really that common that kids that young are purchasing violent video games without an adult being there too?
Slashdot Mirror
Even if it works it won't catch on. Wine is like exotic stereo equipment: people are paying for expensiveness.
So, this is essentially the Bose of wine. When those little bookshelf speakers with the hidden subwoofer first came out, they sounded moderatlely better than other equipment at the same price range, and Bose marketed those tiny speakers like crazy. They weren't (and aren't) the best speakers on the block, but they're good enough that the hype will fool most people into thinking that they're buying the best stereo equipment that money can buy.
At our company, we are trying to figure out how to use cable over telephone pole (business class cable) as a backup in case we get "dug up", which would provide a new level of reliability, but I am sure somewhere out there there is still some unavoidable single point of failure that no amount of money can overcome.
A backhoe driver that accidentally digs up your cable, and then backs into the telephone pole?
Can you actually name any form of media that requires "cracking a header code" to rip? I have never heard of it...
The article never says anything about a form of media, or ripping, it says "copyrighted materials". That would include a track that you downloaded off of, say, iTunes, which has DRM to prevent you from making as many copies as you want. It's reasonable to assume that this DRM is implemented in the header portion of the file.
DVD's have nothing to prevent copying. They have CSS to prevent extraction and Fair Use.
Well, many DVDs have Macrovision copy protection, so while that wouldn't affect a bit-by-bit copy from one DVD to another, it is still a copy protection scheme, and would affect an attempt to make an analog copy of a DVD on non-professional equipment.
Anyone know what the "crack the headers" bit refers to for CDs?
It means "I'm a journalist and really have no clue what I'm talking about, so I'll make up words that sound dramatic".
Actually, the author of the article never refers to "cracking" the headers of CDs. The article states "software 'commonly used to crack header codes on copyrighted materials such as movies and music to allow duplication,' Schafer's memo said.". Regular redbook audio CDs don't have any sort of DRM to crack, but many DVDs do, and so do DRM'd music tracks downloaded from services such as iTunes or Napster. So, while it may certainly be true that many journalists don't know what they're talking about, this journalist has said nothing incorrect with respect to cracking.
Strong Bad Emails: 1 Not Strong Bad Emails: 0
Kids today barely read at all, and their writing is awful.
That's just not fair. People have been using the "kids today" argument since the beginning of time. Your parents complained about "kids today" when you were a kid, and your grandparents complained about "kids today" when they were a kid. Kids today are the same as kids have always been. Some read plenty, some write well, and many are just plain stupid. I'm 27, and I remember wondering why so few of my classmates enjoyed reading. I also remember wondering why my teachers always picked the most boring books they could find. Nobody should have to read Dandelion Wine...and why we never got to read Slaughterhouse V in school is a mystery....but anyway, if kids today don't read, how do you explain the ridiculously popular Harry Potter series? How do you explain the bustling kids section at pretty much every bookstore? How about complaining that parents today don't spend enough time reading to their kids so that they're interested in reading at a young age? That's certainly true in plenty of cases...I have to say that if I had to choose between my child spending an hour playing an educational game on their computer or spending an hour watching TV, I'd go for the computer every time. Not to mention the tremendous resources the web has to offer a curious child. I don't think the computer is ever going to replace a good teacher, but it certainly is a better supplement than nothing.
80 years ago people were expected to read Shakespear in the 4th grade, now we (MAYBE) get into it by high school. heck, the first Shakespeare I read was in college...
The next article down the page says: "Find out how Internet Explorer 5 for Mac can show you the Internet in new, exciting ways." ???
Still, what with this being December 2005, I don't think they're going to get it done by January 2005
. Back in 2003 they mandated that their top 100 suppliers all need to using RFID by January 2005. While it looks like many won't make that date,
I should think not.
Konqueror is one that doesn't, and by extention, Safari might not eather.
Safari definitely does, but I don't have KDE installed anywhere, so I'll just have to take your word for it about Konqueror.
What's the point? I can already type "slashdot" into any browser I can think of, and I get redirected to slashdot.org. I guess it takes an extra second or so for it to look up the correct site, but it's still pretty much the same thing from a user's perspective...
Apparently the USCO has some older, less silent, black helicopters...
Sadly enough, that's actually true, isn't it? Even this /. story violates the DMCA...
Perhaps a columnist for a magazine wouldn't list all citations, but I've read several hundred articles from peer-reviewed journals, and I can say that they are almost always overflowing with citations, sometimes to the point where you can skip most of a paragraph. There's generally an entire section that discusses prior published research that relates to the study at hand, and the list of references at the end of an article is usually quite extensive. I don't think it's possible to get an article published in a respected journal without a long list of citations.
Wrong. I didn't use either term.
Perhaps not, but you supported the statement of someone who improperly used the term "embryonic stem cells". There is a distinction, and to ignore that distinction is to attempt to blur a line that is in fact quite solid.
Wrong. To be against 'discarding' fertilized embryos and is not to be against in-vitro fertilization.
Do you know of any doctor practicing in-vitro fertilization without creating extra embryos that have no chance of ever being grown? Even if they aren't destroyed, they can only legally be used by the people who created them. If they aren't going to use them, they're essentially in limbo. Or they're destroyed. I suppose you could theoretically support some hypothetical in-vitro procedure where only one embryo is created at a time, and then implanted, but the fact is that that's not how it's done.
Here's some help: "FDA granting approval to the first ever transplant of fetal stem cells into..."
Okay, then say "fetal stem cells", not "embryonic stem cells".
The distinction between embryo and fetus is an arbitrary one - at both stages, it is a human being, distinct from the mother and father.
Except that to be against the destruction of a fetus is to be against abortion, but to be against the destruction of an embryo is to be against in vitro fertilization. If you're against in vitro, then fine, but if you're okay with in vitro, and if the process neccessitates the creation of extra embryos that are going to get destroyed anyway, and the owners of those embryos are okay with them being used for scientific purposes instead of being destroyed, then why shouldn't they be able to be used for scientific purposes? What gives you the right to dictate what someone else can do? If you don't want to destroy your embryos, then fine. Nobody's going to force you to. Frankly, I wouldn't want to either.
They won't extend the same protection to other fetuses, that they themselves had enjoyed. But embryonic stem cells don't come from fetuses. Is it really that much to ask for people to learn a little bit about something before voicing an opinion? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryonic_stem_cells
I am against embryonic stem cells. Now I'll admit that I am not dead set on this. On the one hand, as long as you have murdered someone (make no mistake, that is how I see abortion) then perhaps we should take what good we can from that to make the best of the terrible situation.
Not that I would want to complicate things with the facts or anything, but there's a difference between an embryo and a fetus. Leftover embryos come from the in vitro fertilization process. When a couple goes to a doctor for in vitro, a number of eggs are harvested along with sperm. A bunch of embryos are created in the laboratory, some are implanted into the woman, and the rest are put on ice, in case they're needed. If all goes well, the couple gets pregnant, and the rest of the embryos can either be kept on ice or destroyed. A fair amount are destroyed. If you don't want any more kids, there's not much reason to keep them. The strange thing about being against the scientific use of embryonic stem cells is that they're being destroyed anyway. But then, to understand that means taking a bit of time to look up what the term "embryonic stem cells" means, instead of just believing whatever some blowhard conservative on the radio/tv tells you. To hell with facts, bring us misguided emotions!
if she ever does need some kind of treatment that someone objects to on religious grounds, that someone had better stay the hell out of my way.
Amen!
"The unit was strapped in."
;-)
You've also ended a sentence with a preposition, which you're not supposed to do...
I do audio professionally and I'm also a programmer. In my home, I have 2 Windows machines, a Linux server, and an iBook. I do use Audacity from time to time because it does a few things better than even the high-priced editors. As I've told many people, Audacity will open damn near anything...I also frequently use Supercollider, which is a stellar synthesis/dsp programming language that runs natively on OSX, but has been ported to Linux and Windows. However, most of the Linux audio projects are not stable enough to get real work done. I try them from time to time, and some things are getting better, but it's just really not there yet. There's nothing that really stacks up to any of the big 3 sequencers or to Pro Tools. That, combined with the fact that it's very difficult to find professional-grade audio cards that even work with Linux currently make it a lackluster platform for doing any sort of serious audio work. You can make write the best audio software, but if I have to use a shitty soundblaster, I'm not even going to consider it...
How can make an mp3 sound BETTER than the CD?
I don't know how Creative is doing it, but one way is to upsample to 96kHz from 44kHz with interpolation. It's the same basic idea as is used with image interpollation, only, you know, with audio (http://www.interpolatethis.com/).
Then, you step the bit depth up from 16 to 24, run the signal through a dynamic expander, and dither it to cover up any quantization noize.
Will it sound better than the original CD? Probably not, but you can make it sound better than the mp3, and Creative can claim that it's better than the CD because most people have no idea what sample rate or bit depth means.
Where exactly would the average 12 year old (or younger) get the $50-60 to buy the game, and the transportation to get to a retailer? I'm not saying that there aren't any 12 year olds with more money laying around than I do, and obviously some people live close enough to a game store that a child could walk/bike there, but is it really that common that kids that young are purchasing violent video games without an adult being there too?