Have a look for SharpMusique / pymusique. It has a glitch with purchasing entire albums (though I read that this has been fixed). but otherwise it works fine for purchasing music from iTunes on Linux. It's fairly easy to install and use. There are rpms and.debs available if you need them.
Converting your old.m4p files is more complicated if you don't have an iPod, but it's doable. Google is your friend.
I'm not aware of any spyware or virus that would download random.mp3's onto your computer. Of course if any virus writer with an axe to grind out there chose to write a virus that connected to a P2P network and did this, then it would really cock-up any RIAA prosecution efforts.
A fair point, but it is still a judge making a decision about whether he agrees something is acceptable science or not, and this decision negatively impacts on that being taught.
The judge has made a legal ruling on what is and isn't science. You may agree with this one, but a few years down the line when the next scientific heresy (as Evolution once was) is ruled illegal and banned from being taught? It's the same principle after all.
Yes, successful artists can make ends meat, even become rich, but really fabulous wealth comes from industrialists or conquest of neighboring countries.
I have stressed each time I referred to Art as being the predominent means of acquiring wealth, that I am referring to a means of doing so through as based on individual ability rather than through power over others. Re-read my posts - it is there. This is to contrast it with Science because my case was that it has taken a knock from Science, not that it had taken a knock from conquest of neighbouring countries.
Additionally, I have never based my statement on the ability of a few individuals to achieve fabulous wealth. It is you who has focused on this minority. My case has been that Art was the path available for many people to make a living, whilst science was not for much more of history. That this is true is all the point I need to make.
Great thinkers, by definition, aren't hampered by an "education system".
Great thinkers are defined as those not hampered by an education system? Very well, then how many more great thinkers would there be if fewer people were hampered by their education system. The logical answer is more, I think. I learnt partly for the love of learning at school. The fact remains that my choice of who I learnt from was limited because I wished to bridge this cultural gap between Arts and Science. I will take my personal experience over another's abstract principle.
Sure, there are scientists who might not understand or appreciate certain forms of art... but lots of artists think that science as a whole is bad.
You seem to be agreeing with me again. I'm okay with that, but I'm worried it means you haven't got what I'm saying. I have said that Art has taken a knock from the [historically] sudden surge in Science as a means to success. Hence there has been a backlash of resentment on the part of "Artists" who claim that Science is somehow less valid.
Ah, I'm not actually after anything - that might be the source of confusion. I just found this conversation interesting and I hope that we're not having an argument. The only part I think I posted that ought be taken that way is my reference to the number of scientists you know. And I think from someone I do not know who declares themself several times to be a scientist, that it's not unreasonable to think they might associate more with other scientists than they do with artists. Most scientists do.
Most of what you have said, I've agreed with in general. In the spirit of/. however, I will find something to argue about.;)
I think that's madness. Only very recently have artists (actors specifically) had the ability to amass wealth.
I may be a poor historian, but mad I am not. I can trace you a history of wealthy artists tracing back from modern movie stars and Damien Hirsts, back through Henry Irving (highly successful stage actor in 1870s), Gilbert and Sullivan, Beethoven, Moliere, Goethe and Wycherly. We can go back through composer after composer or stick to playrights and poets if you like. How far back would you like to go? Tacitus, Homer (not that one), Euripedes? Throughout recorded history, Art has been the path for those who want to succeed based on their ability to create and perform, rather than lead, and many have found great wealth doing so, whilst numerous ones whose names we don't remember nevetheless made successful livings for themselves. You ruled, you served, or you entertained. Those were the broad paths available to most people throughout history. And of course, If you include engineering and mathematics under "science" then we can find you some Christopher Wrens (who was also an artist) and Keplers, but the numbers are dwarfed by the Artists. So I'll repeat that it is only recently that science became a common route for people to achieve success through individual ability. We can point out individual cases here and there, but the simple evidence of a slow pace of discovery shows how rare these people were.
And on a side note, I don't accept your dismissal of numerous painters success as "patronage". They were hardly paid in room and board.
Finally:
I'm REALLY not clear why athletes are currently on top of the heap.
Well aside from the natural talent and extreme dedication that it requires to reach the upper levels of national sport, compare the very top earners in sports with the very top earners in the acting business. The biggest movie stars earn more than the biggest athletes. And because I can also do simple arithmetic;) I'll also point out that there is a much quicker drop off in sports and athletics than there is the theatre and film industry. You can only earn a living wage as a proffesional athlete at the top levels of your game. But there are myriads of actors, writers and even painters out there whose name you don't know but still do quite nicely out of it. So in terms of being top of the heap, I'd say that Athletes aren't. Perhaps you meant in mass-appeal not in terms of financial recognition, but even there they're trounced by the girl-band of the day.:(
So yes - I think culturally, Art has taken a knock from Science over the last century, and I think this does account for much of the feeling on the part of "Artists" that Science is somehow opposed to Art. But I strongly think it's time that people got over that and decided that like Da Vinci himself, we are absolutely free to be both in whatever combination we choose. And if you're thinking about to post that we are free, well maybe, but the education system could have made it a little easier, thankyouverymuch.
Recently hippie groups have begun to call DU and WP "chemical" weapons on the grounds that DU is a toxic heavy metal and white phosphorus is a poison if injested.
Is that why people object to them both? I thought it was because depleted uranium is as toxic as lead and may well be having long-term health effects on the soldiers who have to use these munitions (as well as having scattered over 300 tonnes of it around kuwait. And the White Phosphorus less for the risk that it might poison someone if they ate it, but more for the fact that it burns the flesh right off your body, just like napalm.
Interestingly the US government defined White Phosphorus as an illegal weapon due to the hideous manner in which it kills people. Now you can call them hippies if you want, but I think many "hippies" would object. Sadly, it's now been proved that US forces have used White Phosphorus intentionally as a weapon. And you can bet that they would have been the first to decry its use if it had been used by Iraqis.
Let me put it to you this way. I know a lot more scientists and technical people who are also artists (frequently musicians) than I know artists who are also technically minded.
Let me put it to you that as someone who defined themself as a scientist earlier, you also know more more "scientists" than you do "artists". I do hope you took that statistic into account for the above statement.;)
Art is often also very technical. If you've ever pursued either playing an instrument or painting, then you know that this is true, though you were implying a certain cultural interpretation of "technical". My point is that it is mostly a cultural distinction. There is a lot of technical work behind, to pick an utterly random example, the Mona Lisa. I would like an end to this division between "Arts" and "Sciences". The truly great in many fields have been those who transcended boundaries. We've had time as a culture to accept the shock of Science knocking Art off it's perch as the most profitable solo path to wealth and glory. We should now no longer think in terms of Science Vs. Art, and yet I had a devil of a time at school studying both English Literature, Chemistry and Maths. Adding Art to the mix wasn't possible because the schedules weren't set up like that. Most pupils went into arts or sciences. And I can still see no a priori reason for that, so I put it down to culture.
And as a general rule, where historical weight limits someones choice of development, I think of that as a bad thing.
I don't much care if it goes to the police or the military, so long as they're still seperate. But have you seen the medieval armour illustration that goes with this? If the material is as light as they say, and as strong as they say, then what's the most logical styling for this stuff? I can see a renaissance in medieval style armours.:) Imagine the police walking along in ultra-light bullet-proof plate-mail. Adds a certain romance, doesn't it?
Of course, escalation means people quickly resort to gas / spray / sonic / blinding weapons. But personally, as soon as the Chinese start knocking off cheap versions of this (it sounds like most of the cost of this stuff will be patent monopoly), I'm going to look so good in my impact-resistant plate-mail.
The things that make us the same are far more important and interesting than the things that make us different
Two sides of a coin. I recognise what you are saying and accept it as a valid pet peeve. Mine is this artificial division between the Arts and the Sciences.
Nope - one last bit to demolish. He wants the electricity to power Air Conditioning. Well most A/C will work by running cooler air over/through hot parts of your vehicle and there is precious little cool air available in the mantle. The alternative would be to expell a compressed refrigerant gas. I have no idea how much you would need to keep cool down there, but I certain we're talking Hollywood physics.
Sorry GP, I don't think it's going to work. If you really want to get to the centre of the Earth, you're going to have to drain it. That's right. Drain it like an old swamp. We can use the pumped out and cooling magma to build a honeycomb structure to the Earth, making it something like a giant malteaser. We get a bigger surface area for the same gravity providing more living space and more solar energy collection area. And we can have a sort of reverse-Earth, low-g environment at the centre for extreme sports.
You describe humanity as one great unit. In reality, we are always struggling over which direction our society should take - philosophically, economically, technologically.
It is perfectly common for people to assign different degrees of validity to a viewpoint. Machines are built by some humans. Others don't even know how to rewire a plug. So you may well say that science is human, but it isn't everyone.
Whether it is appropriate to deal with humanity as a single unit or as factions depends on the discussion. And in the case of people's feelings about Art, the latter is often more useful.
Well it's a very quick and easy defence: "I already owned these CDs."
Now they have to prove that I don't, or didn't at the time. Of course, I'm speaking from the perspective of someone who hasn't downloaded music. I suppose it would be harder to use that defense if you hadn't got all of those CDs in your collection.
They're not trying to take the mystery out of it, they're trying to understand it in yet another way.
That's the truth, I think. Everyone sees Art in the way they choose. I think people often get upset when a new and scientific approach is taken to interpreting a piece of art however, because they often feel the scientist is implying their interpretation is somehow more valid than anothers. And to be fair, there is some truth to that.
But the painting remains the painting, before and after.
He's trying to reply to me. I mistakenly thought that the "weightlessness" in LEO was due to being remote from the Earth. I was sitting there afterwards, thinking... "is that right? I think I'd better look that up." I caught it before anyone else replied, but not before it had been modded up several times.
Well at least it backs up the point I was making earlier about how easy it is to fool people.;) And at least I caught it and 'fessed up before anyone else saw it and replied.
Actually, I'm very very wrong. Hopefully, I've managed to reply to my post before it gets modded up +5 Informative.
According to what I've just looked up (here), Low Earth Orbit isn't high enough to cause feelings of weightlessness. The sensation is caused by being in free-fall as I described - you are falling, but you keep overshooting due to your speed.
So basically, I'm wrong. On the plus side, I've just learnt something.:D
However, they did get an OK from their close family or friends before putting them on the show.
Well hopefully the contestants wont feel too bad afterwards. I genuinely hope they look back on it as a good thing, all in all.
As to why they didn't use real Russians for the training? Well, you wouldn't want it to be too convincing, or else the audience wouldn't be able to laugh at their gullibility too much.;)
You are correct. Both Newton's theory of gravity and Einstein's, don't have a limit on the range of gravity. It gets weaker the farther away you get from something, but it is always there (microgravity, as you said). The only way that you would find "zero" gravity is between two objects, say the Earth and the Moon, where the pull of gravity is the same in both directions. That's not the same, of course.
Yes - there is gravity in low earth orbit. If there weren't then you wouldn't be orbiting. Orbits happen when the gravity of an object is strong enough to bend the path of your 'flight' around it, but the momentum of your flight is powerful enough to stop you falling straight down. Essentially, you are moving sidways so quickly as you fall, that you wont hit the ground for a very long time because you keep over-shooting.
The catch as applies to the contestants "space station" is that for them to experience gravity of even close to normal Earth gravity, they would have to be at a very low altitude (compared to true low-earth orbit) and consequently moving at horribly horribly fast speeds (that's a technical term). Also they would be burning up in the atmosphere, scaring the Hell out of the Air Force, etc. I'm not sure how high you have to go before you start noticing a loss of weight, but it's definitely a lot lower than Low Earth Orbit.
On the other hand, as long as they don't work out the ruse, the participants will be awarded with a trip to the real Russian space training centre, and an experience of weightlessness in the vomit comet, so if they can stay stupid for another five days, they'll at least get the chance to do some of it for real.
You're kidding? You're telling me that the idea is to reward lack of curiousity and thought? Another reason why I dislike the idea of this programme, then.
Slashdot Mirror
I have mod points, but there's no option for +3 Guilt Trip. Really - it's fine. The World forgives you.
I wouldn't know... "Helix cannot play this format."
Ho hum.
Have a look for SharpMusique / pymusique. It has a glitch with purchasing entire albums (though I read that this has been fixed). but otherwise it works fine for purchasing music from iTunes on Linux. It's fairly easy to install and use. There are rpms and
Converting your old
It's been done... alledgedly. Try this.
I'm not aware of any spyware or virus that would download random
A fair point, but it is still a judge making a decision about whether he agrees something is acceptable science or not, and this decision negatively impacts on that being taught.
The judge has made a legal ruling on what is and isn't science. You may agree with this one, but a few years down the line when the next scientific heresy (as Evolution once was) is ruled illegal and banned from being taught? It's the same principle after all.
Yes, successful artists can make ends meat, even become rich, but really fabulous wealth comes from industrialists or conquest of neighboring countries.
I have stressed each time I referred to Art as being the predominent means of acquiring wealth, that I am referring to a means of doing so through as based on individual ability rather than through power over others. Re-read my posts - it is there. This is to contrast it with Science because my case was that it has taken a knock from Science, not that it had taken a knock from conquest of neighbouring countries.
Additionally, I have never based my statement on the ability of a few individuals to achieve fabulous wealth. It is you who has focused on this minority. My case has been that Art was the path available for many people to make a living, whilst science was not for much more of history. That this is true is all the point I need to make.
Great thinkers, by definition, aren't hampered by an "education system".
Great thinkers are defined as those not hampered by an education system? Very well, then how many more great thinkers would there be if fewer people were hampered by their education system. The logical answer is more, I think. I learnt partly for the love of learning at school. The fact remains that my choice of who I learnt from was limited because I wished to bridge this cultural gap between Arts and Science. I will take my personal experience over another's abstract principle.
Sure, there are scientists who might not understand or appreciate certain forms of art
You seem to be agreeing with me again. I'm okay with that, but I'm worried it means you haven't got what I'm saying. I have said that Art has taken a knock from the [historically] sudden surge in Science as a means to success. Hence there has been a backlash of resentment on the part of "Artists" who claim that Science is somehow less valid.
So, I'm not really sure what you're after.
Ah, I'm not actually after anything - that might be the source of confusion. I just found this conversation interesting and I hope that we're not having an argument. The only part I think I posted that ought be taken that way is my reference to the number of scientists you know. And I think from someone I do not know who declares themself several times to be a scientist, that it's not unreasonable to think they might associate more with other scientists than they do with artists. Most scientists do.
Most of what you have said, I've agreed with in general. In the spirit of
I think that's madness. Only very recently have artists (actors specifically) had the ability to amass wealth.
I may be a poor historian, but mad I am not. I can trace you a history of wealthy artists tracing back from modern movie stars and Damien Hirsts, back through Henry Irving (highly successful stage actor in 1870s), Gilbert and Sullivan, Beethoven, Moliere, Goethe and Wycherly. We can go back through composer after composer or stick to playrights and poets if you like. How far back would you like to go? Tacitus, Homer (not that one), Euripedes? Throughout recorded history, Art has been the path for those who want to succeed based on their ability to create and perform, rather than lead, and many have found great wealth doing so, whilst numerous ones whose names we don't remember nevetheless made successful livings for themselves. You ruled, you served, or you entertained. Those were the broad paths available to most people throughout history. And of course, If you include engineering and mathematics under "science" then we can find you some Christopher Wrens (who was also an artist) and Keplers, but the numbers are dwarfed by the Artists. So I'll repeat that it is only recently that science became a common route for people to achieve success through individual ability. We can point out individual cases here and there, but the simple evidence of a slow pace of discovery shows how rare these people were.
And on a side note, I don't accept your dismissal of numerous painters success as "patronage". They were hardly paid in room and board.
Finally: I'm REALLY not clear why athletes are currently on top of the heap.
Well aside from the natural talent and extreme dedication that it requires to reach the upper levels of national sport, compare the very top earners in sports with the very top earners in the acting business. The biggest movie stars earn more than the biggest athletes. And because I can also do simple arithmetic
So yes - I think culturally, Art has taken a knock from Science over the last century, and I think this does account for much of the feeling on the part of "Artists" that Science is somehow opposed to Art. But I strongly think it's time that people got over that and decided that like Da Vinci himself, we are absolutely free to be both in whatever combination we choose. And if you're thinking about to post that we are free, well maybe, but the education system could have made it a little easier, thankyouverymuch.
Recently hippie groups have begun to call DU and WP "chemical" weapons on the grounds that DU is a toxic heavy metal and white phosphorus is a poison if injested.
Is that why people object to them both? I thought it was because depleted uranium is as toxic as lead and may well be having long-term health effects on the soldiers who have to use these munitions (as well as having scattered over 300 tonnes of it around kuwait. And the White Phosphorus less for the risk that it might poison someone if they ate it, but more for the fact that it burns the flesh right off your body, just like napalm.
Interestingly the US government defined White Phosphorus as an illegal weapon due to the hideous manner in which it kills people. Now you can call them hippies if you want, but I think many "hippies" would object. Sadly, it's now been proved that US forces have used White Phosphorus intentionally as a weapon. And you can bet that they would have been the first to decry its use if it had been used by Iraqis.
Let me put it to you this way. I know a lot more scientists and technical people who are also artists (frequently musicians) than I know artists who are also technically minded.
Let me put it to you that as someone who defined themself as a scientist earlier, you also know more more "scientists" than you do "artists". I do hope you took that statistic into account for the above statement.
Art is often also very technical. If you've ever pursued either playing an instrument or painting, then you know that this is true, though you were implying a certain cultural interpretation of "technical". My point is that it is mostly a cultural distinction. There is a lot of technical work behind, to pick an utterly random example, the Mona Lisa. I would like an end to this division between "Arts" and "Sciences". The truly great in many fields have been those who transcended boundaries. We've had time as a culture to accept the shock of Science knocking Art off it's perch as the most profitable solo path to wealth and glory. We should now no longer think in terms of Science Vs. Art, and yet I had a devil of a time at school studying both English Literature, Chemistry and Maths. Adding Art to the mix wasn't possible because the schedules weren't set up like that. Most pupils went into arts or sciences. And I can still see no a priori reason for that, so I put it down to culture.
And as a general rule, where historical weight limits someones choice of development, I think of that as a bad thing.
I don't much care if it goes to the police or the military, so long as they're still seperate. But have you seen the medieval armour illustration that goes with this? If the material is as light as they say, and as strong as they say, then what's the most logical styling for this stuff? I can see a renaissance in medieval style armours.
Of course, escalation means people quickly resort to gas / spray / sonic / blinding weapons. But personally, as soon as the Chinese start knocking off cheap versions of this (it sounds like most of the cost of this stuff will be patent monopoly), I'm going to look so good in my impact-resistant plate-mail.
The things that make us the same are far more important and interesting than the things that make us different
Two sides of a coin. I recognise what you are saying and accept it as a valid pet peeve. Mine is this artificial division between the Arts and the Sciences.
Nope - one last bit to demolish. He wants the electricity to power Air Conditioning. Well most A/C will work by running cooler air over/through hot parts of your vehicle and there is precious little cool air available in the mantle. The alternative would be to expell a compressed refrigerant gas. I have no idea how much you would need to keep cool down there, but I certain we're talking Hollywood physics.
Sorry GP, I don't think it's going to work. If you really want to get to the centre of the Earth, you're going to have to drain it. That's right. Drain it like an old swamp. We can use the pumped out and cooling magma to build a honeycomb structure to the Earth, making it something like a giant malteaser. We get a bigger surface area for the same gravity providing more living space and more solar energy collection area. And we can have a sort of reverse-Earth, low-g environment at the centre for extreme sports.
Oh Yes! That's what I'd do!
Is that the one with the giant bird dictators and the man who says to them - "You can't brainwash me - I'm English!"
If it is then that is one wonderful line.
You describe humanity as one great unit. In reality, we are always struggling over which direction our society should take - philosophically, economically, technologically.
It is perfectly common for people to assign different degrees of validity to a viewpoint. Machines are built by some humans. Others don't even know how to rewire a plug. So you may well say that science is human, but it isn't everyone.
Whether it is appropriate to deal with humanity as a single unit or as factions depends on the discussion. And in the case of people's feelings about Art, the latter is often more useful.
Well it's a very quick and easy defence: "I already owned these CDs."
Now they have to prove that I don't, or didn't at the time. Of course, I'm speaking from the perspective of someone who hasn't downloaded music. I suppose it would be harder to use that defense if you hadn't got all of those CDs in your collection.
Don't they have to prove that you don't?
Reminds me of the magritte painting.
Ce n'est pas une peinture. C'est une photo d'une peinture
They're not trying to take the mystery out of it, they're trying to understand it in yet another way.
That's the truth, I think. Everyone sees Art in the way they choose. I think people often get upset when a new and scientific approach is taken to interpreting a piece of art however, because they often feel the scientist is implying their interpretation is somehow more valid than anothers. And to be fair, there is some truth to that.
But the painting remains the painting, before and after.
He's trying to reply to me. I mistakenly thought that the "weightlessness" in LEO was due to being remote from the Earth. I was sitting there afterwards, thinking... "is that right? I think I'd better look that up." I caught it before anyone else replied, but not before it had been modded up several times.
Well at least it backs up the point I was making earlier about how easy it is to fool people.
Actually, I'm very very wrong. Hopefully, I've managed to reply to my post before it gets modded up +5 Informative.
According to what I've just looked up (here), Low Earth Orbit isn't high enough to cause feelings of weightlessness. The sensation is caused by being in free-fall as I described - you are falling, but you keep overshooting due to your speed.
So basically, I'm wrong. On the plus side, I've just learnt something.
However, they did get an OK from their close family or friends before putting them on the show.
Well hopefully the contestants wont feel too bad afterwards. I genuinely hope they look back on it as a good thing, all in all.
As to why they didn't use real Russians for the training? Well, you wouldn't want it to be too convincing, or else the audience wouldn't be able to laugh at their gullibility too much.
You are correct. Both Newton's theory of gravity and Einstein's, don't have a limit on the range of gravity. It gets weaker the farther away you get from something, but it is always there (microgravity, as you said). The only way that you would find "zero" gravity is between two objects, say the Earth and the Moon, where the pull of gravity is the same in both directions. That's not the same, of course.
Yes - there is gravity in low earth orbit. If there weren't then you wouldn't be orbiting. Orbits happen when the gravity of an object is strong enough to bend the path of your 'flight' around it, but the momentum of your flight is powerful enough to stop you falling straight down. Essentially, you are moving sidways so quickly as you fall, that you wont hit the ground for a very long time because you keep over-shooting.
The catch as applies to the contestants "space station" is that for them to experience gravity of even close to normal Earth gravity, they would have to be at a very low altitude (compared to true low-earth orbit) and consequently moving at horribly horribly fast speeds (that's a technical term). Also they would be burning up in the atmosphere, scaring the Hell out of the Air Force, etc. I'm not sure how high you have to go before you start noticing a loss of weight, but it's definitely a lot lower than Low Earth Orbit.
On the other hand, as long as they don't work out the ruse, the participants will be awarded with a trip to the real Russian space training centre, and an experience of weightlessness in the vomit comet, so if they can stay stupid for another five days, they'll at least get the chance to do some of it for real.
You're kidding? You're telling me that the idea is to reward lack of curiousity and thought? Another reason why I dislike the idea of this programme, then.