Can it upgrade my TV to run in 1024x768 with antialiasing?
Re:We should not paid musicians for there music
on
Kazaa-lite Shut Down
·
· Score: 1
No.
Musicians NEED to be paid. Would you rather that they're happy in the knowledge that you are happy with their music while they're homeless and on the street?
When you make someone laugh or have a good time, it's ENTIRELY different from a musician spending weeks in a recording studio trying to perfect an album. How do you expect the musician to pay for that time spent doing that if the music is free? Why shouldn't they just get a normal job and leave music altogether if they aren't going to receive any financial compensation for it? Do you think that creating music is free or doesn't take up valuable time?
Back to reality with you.
That said, I'm not willing to pay the exorbitant amounts that the RIAA wants us to, nor am I willing to support them with my money so that they can quelch P2P and filesharing. Thus, I'm very interested in places like Magnatune that are totally unrelated to the RIAA, let us choose the price (within reason), and let us hear the entire album before buying the full CD-quality non-compressed version.
What we need (I've mentioned this before) is a P2P service that charges a monthly fee, not based on per-download, that reasonably supports the artists. That is something I'd be willing to pay for.
All the images (with the exception of the Greenwich Village... look them up directly on the Google cache if you want) load correctly (they're on a different server than the pages, oddly enough).
I think that might be the point that Microsoft is trying to make manufacturers use... Basically, force people to use Windows, otherwise they won't be able to format the memory in question.
"Now, just so you know, Ad-Aware is third party software and I am providing it only as a convenience to you. ****** neither endorses nor supports this software."
As for the issue with Dell techs being told not to give out links to spyware removal tools, WAKE UP, all large corporations tell their techs not to suggest third party tools to end users. HP / Compaq, Dell, and probably any other large PC manufacturer you can think of. The point is that if we recommend third party tools, it sounds, from a legal standpoint, like we as representatives of the company are endorsing it, so if something goes wrong, we're to blame.
It's PHB psychology. Basically, we *can* fix it without third party tools and only using regedit. It would take several hours per call when using HijackThis would take maybe 20, but they think if we can fix it without them, the company shouldn't be taking the legal risk that they're really evil programs in disguise that will format the user's hard drive after redirecting them to Goatse.
Not that I, nor any other decent techs, listen to this sort of management blather. And my supervisor probably couldn't care less. Basically, if I use HijackThis, I have a much better chance of fixing the customer's issue without a Quick Restore. Usually this is a good thing in customer satisfaction surveys;^)
Congrats to the both of you for being part of the problem and not of the solution.
If you've read any of the other, non-humour remarks I usually post here (and elsewhere), I rarely write in l33tspeak of any type. It's really up to the person posting whether they want to post in complete english sentences or not, and usually I get the feeling that anyone who *seriously* posts something in l33tspeak is probably making up for the fact that what they're posting proably has little substance to it. That said, you'd be hard-pressed to find me using complete sentences on something like IRC, where I usually find it's easier to express myself in shorter, quick comments.
Whole generation unable to effectively read, write, think, and work... 2050
Y do u h8 me?
Re:Nice, but dangerous.
on
Javascrypt
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Uh, it's Javascript. The entire point is that processing is done client-side. No information is submitted to the site. There's no HTTPS or SSL because nothing is transmitted.
The article talke about how customers can now simply go out and find their own music on the net, rather than rely on a brand to determine what is good music so they can sign them. Does anyone else think that that basically says it all? Labels are obsolete in their current form. What services do they provide, exactly?
CD stamping? Cost has become so cheap that it's hardly part of the equation.
Promotion? I suppose, but at the cost of an artist's livelihood. In effect, the artist is paying for it anyway, so they could just hire an advertising firm and be done with it.
Talent selection? OK, if this were the case, would we not all be listening to at least a portion of the top 50 most of the time? Why is it then that many artists that aren't signed to a major label become cult phenomenons on the internet?
Places like Magnatune try to advance the definition of the record label to something more useful, and I sincerely hope they succeed. But to the rest of the labels, my message would be simply evolve or die. Because if you don't evolve, you're simply not going to get my money one way or the other.
So basically, since the ISPs do have several non-infringing uses, they don't fit any of the above definitions... as with P2P networks.
I don't know how it would fit with the ISP actually hosting the files though... One would suppose that that would make that site the "server" and would make the ISP liable. *shrugs* IANAL.
I'm currently programming forum software. If this succeeds somehow, it's basically saying that as a provider of a service, even indirectly, I am responsible for all use of that service.
Users should be responsible for THEIR OWN use of the service. If you're going to punish something (and sorry about agreeing with the RIAA here, if only in theory), punish the act of breaking the law, not the catalyst that allows it.
My code doesn't tell between good and evil, sorry.
Here's a nice example of a commercial guarantee. See if you can determine where it's from:
11. LIMITED WARRANTY FOR PRODUCT ACQUIRED IN THE US AND CANADA.
Microsoft warrants that the Product will perform substantially in accordance with the accompanying materials for a period of ninety days from the date of receipt.
...
YOUR EXCLUSIVE REMEDY. Microsoft's and its suppliers' entire liability and your exclusive remedy shall be, at Microsoft's option from time to time exercised subject to applicable law, (a) return of the price paid (if any) for the Product, or (b) repair or replacement of the uct, that does not meet this Limited Warranty and that is returned to Microsoft with a copy of your receipt.
Note that a) no updates or fixes are guaranteed, b) your only remedy is media replacement or a refund, and c) this choice of remedy is up to Microsoft.
I love it when people claim that you're taking a huge risk with open source software without guarantees. Microsoft says their software will work, but isn't saying that if their software doesn't work, they have to fix it.
Interesting how everyone who thinks there should be a tax on email thinks that the money should go to their organization or government.
"Leave it alone," [Norquist] said. "If the government gets involved, they will mess it up."
Agreed. The point is that if "little" things like this are allow, then it's basically saying "Look, Verisign, commercializing the internet is the solution like you said!"
How bout this... Music buying per-song BAD Music service subscription per-month unlimited download GOOD
See, here's the thing. We have Kazaa. It lets us download free high quality digital music. Now, why would we want to degrade ourselves to paying for music *per track* again? It's my opinion that few people would actually want to do that if they weren't scared into it by the RIAA (which is the wrong approach, anyway).
However, if music were offered in some sort of lossless format digitally in a subscription service (read: pay per month for unlimited access) that benefitted artists (and wasn't high-cost), I'd probably be interested. The key here is that the music couldn't be DRM'd though, because as I said above, DRM will never work.
So what's to prevent people from giving the music to their friends instead of actually downloading it? Nothing, I suppose. But if the service were low-cost, subscription-model, and benefitted artists, I suspect more people would be willing to use it.
Slashdot Mirror
Can it upgrade my TV to run in 1024x768 with antialiasing?
No.
Musicians NEED to be paid. Would you rather that they're happy in the knowledge that you are happy with their music while they're homeless and on the street?
When you make someone laugh or have a good time, it's ENTIRELY different from a musician spending weeks in a recording studio trying to perfect an album. How do you expect the musician to pay for that time spent doing that if the music is free? Why shouldn't they just get a normal job and leave music altogether if they aren't going to receive any financial compensation for it? Do you think that creating music is free or doesn't take up valuable time?
Back to reality with you.
That said, I'm not willing to pay the exorbitant amounts that the RIAA wants us to, nor am I willing to support them with my money so that they can quelch P2P and filesharing. Thus, I'm very interested in places like Magnatune that are totally unrelated to the RIAA, let us choose the price (within reason), and let us hear the entire album before buying the full CD-quality non-compressed version.
What we need (I've mentioned this before) is a P2P service that charges a monthly fee, not based on per-download, that reasonably supports the artists. That is something I'd be willing to pay for.
Wait... it's not free. Never mind.
You, sir, kick ass.
Someone mirror the Kazaa Lite binary somewhere, how else am I supposed to tell people through tech support to download it?
All the images (with the exception of the Greenwich Village... look them up directly on the Google cache if you want) load correctly (they're on a different server than the pages, oddly enough).
I think that might be the point that Microsoft is trying to make manufacturers use... Basically, force people to use Windows, otherwise they won't be able to format the memory in question.
Litigation: The Business Model of the Future!(TM)
(Disclaimer: The above statement is the intellectual property of Uberm00 Corp. and may not be used without prior written permission.)
"Now, just so you know, Ad-Aware is third party software and I am providing it only as a convenience to you. ****** neither endorses nor supports this software."
IMHO Dell's been pretty good to me.
;^)
As for the issue with Dell techs being told not to give out links to spyware removal tools, WAKE UP, all large corporations tell their techs not to suggest third party tools to end users. HP / Compaq, Dell, and probably any other large PC manufacturer you can think of. The point is that if we recommend third party tools, it sounds, from a legal standpoint, like we as representatives of the company are endorsing it, so if something goes wrong, we're to blame.
It's PHB psychology. Basically, we *can* fix it without third party tools and only using regedit. It would take several hours per call when using HijackThis would take maybe 20, but they think if we can fix it without them, the company shouldn't be taking the legal risk that they're really evil programs in disguise that will format the user's hard drive after redirecting them to Goatse.
Not that I, nor any other decent techs, listen to this sort of management blather. And my supervisor probably couldn't care less. Basically, if I use HijackThis, I have a much better chance of fixing the customer's issue without a Quick Restore. Usually this is a good thing in customer satisfaction surveys
Uh... It was sposed to be modded funny. I promise. ;^)
But yeah, the thing was entirely in jest. I don't really speak like that.
Congrats to the both of you for being part of the problem and not of the solution.
;^)
If you've read any of the other, non-humour remarks I usually post here (and elsewhere), I rarely write in l33tspeak of any type. It's really up to the person posting whether they want to post in complete english sentences or not, and usually I get the feeling that anyone who *seriously* posts something in l33tspeak is probably making up for the fact that what they're posting proably has little substance to it. That said, you'd be hard-pressed to find me using complete sentences on something like IRC, where I usually find it's easier to express myself in shorter, quick comments.
Geez, don't take things so seriously
Whole generation unable to effectively read, write, think, and work ... 2050
Y do u h8 me?
Uh, it's Javascript. The entire point is that processing is done client-side. No information is submitted to the site. There's no HTTPS or SSL because nothing is transmitted.
The article talke about how customers can now simply go out and find their own music on the net, rather than rely on a brand to determine what is good music so they can sign them. Does anyone else think that that basically says it all? Labels are obsolete in their current form. What services do they provide, exactly?
CD stamping? Cost has become so cheap that it's hardly part of the equation.
Promotion? I suppose, but at the cost of an artist's livelihood. In effect, the artist is paying for it anyway, so they could just hire an advertising firm and be done with it.
Talent selection? OK, if this were the case, would we not all be listening to at least a portion of the top 50 most of the time? Why is it then that many artists that aren't signed to a major label become cult phenomenons on the internet?
Places like Magnatune try to advance the definition of the record label to something more useful, and I sincerely hope they succeed. But to the rest of the labels, my message would be simply evolve or die. Because if you don't evolve, you're simply not going to get my money one way or the other.
So basically, since the ISPs do have several non-infringing uses, they don't fit any of the above definitions... as with P2P networks.
I don't know how it would fit with the ISP actually hosting the files though... One would suppose that that would make that site the "server" and would make the ISP liable. *shrugs* IANAL.
I'm currently programming forum software. If this succeeds somehow, it's basically saying that as a provider of a service, even indirectly, I am responsible for all use of that service.
Users should be responsible for THEIR OWN use of the service. If you're going to punish something (and sorry about agreeing with the RIAA here, if only in theory), punish the act of breaking the law, not the catalyst that allows it.
My code doesn't tell between good and evil, sorry.
Here's a nice example of a commercial guarantee. See if you can determine where it's from:
...
11. LIMITED WARRANTY FOR PRODUCT ACQUIRED IN THE US AND CANADA.
Microsoft warrants that the Product will perform substantially in accordance with the accompanying materials for a period of ninety days from the date of receipt.
YOUR EXCLUSIVE REMEDY. Microsoft's and its suppliers' entire liability and your exclusive remedy shall be, at Microsoft's option from time to time exercised subject to applicable law, (a) return of the price paid (if any) for the Product, or (b) repair or replacement of the uct, that does not meet this Limited Warranty and that is returned to Microsoft with a copy of your receipt.
Note that a) no updates or fixes are guaranteed, b) your only remedy is media replacement or a refund, and c) this choice of remedy is up to Microsoft.
I love it when people claim that you're taking a huge risk with open source software without guarantees. Microsoft says their software will work, but isn't saying that if their software doesn't work, they have to fix it.
HP makes us techs use PeopleSoft :^(
Hahaha ;^D
I thought that was obvious. ;^)
Ah, but then, you see, the government could have a monopoly on email spamming!
"FROM:MR. GW BUSH
DEAR FRIEND,
I AM MR. GW BUSH SON OF FORMER PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH OF USA..."
(lameness filter my ass)
Interesting how everyone who thinks there should be a tax on email thinks that the money should go to their organization or government.
;^)
"Leave it alone," [Norquist] said. "If the government gets involved, they will mess it up."
Agreed. The point is that if "little" things like this are allow, then it's basically saying "Look, Verisign, commercializing the internet is the solution like you said!"
I likes my SpamAssassin, thanks
Music sharing BAD
Music buying GOOD
Are we clear on this?
No?
How bout this...
Music buying per-song BAD
Music service subscription per-month unlimited download GOOD
See, here's the thing. We have Kazaa. It lets us download free high quality digital music. Now, why would we want to degrade ourselves to paying for music *per track* again? It's my opinion that few people would actually want to do that if they weren't scared into it by the RIAA (which is the wrong approach, anyway).
However, if music were offered in some sort of lossless format digitally in a subscription service (read: pay per month for unlimited access) that benefitted artists (and wasn't high-cost), I'd probably be interested. The key here is that the music couldn't be DRM'd though, because as I said above, DRM will never work.
So what's to prevent people from giving the music to their friends instead of actually downloading it? Nothing, I suppose. But if the service were low-cost, subscription-model, and benefitted artists, I suspect more people would be willing to use it.
DRM = protection of the music files.
But the player then decodes the audio stream and then plays it through sound card.
Most sound cards have line out.
DRM *will not* work for audio in this way.