This is such a personal thing, though. I would rather have every song come in some kind of lossless format, be it either AAC, FLAC or something else. This way, I'm actually getting precisely what I would have gotten if I had just bought the CD in the first place. What I'm getting now is a lossy source I can't really do anything with, and I don't get any album art or a physical copy of the song. It's what's keeping me from going over to digital distribution of music.
I don't want to buy a high-end stereo system some years ahead and realize that all the music I own sounds like crap. I want the maximum quality right away, which technically shouldn't cost me a penny more with all the money they save on digital distribution. It's a backwards situation, and I refuse to find myself in it just yet.
Why are we STILL paying for songs that aren't even CD quality? Why are we taking several steps BACKWARDS in the development of digital music?
There is literally nothing that prevents stores and labels from selling lossless songs and albums instead of compressed ones, at the exact same price. If nothing else, compressed songs are the ones that should cost more since if one wants more songs per gigabyte, they'd have to go to the trouble of converting them manually. Serving already compressed files should be the service one could pay a couple cents more for (theoretically).
This entire thing is so god damn backwards. This is why I still refuse to buy music digitally. As soon as I can get the same quality for less money (since there's no printing and distribution costs) or BETTER quality for slightly more (or, ideally, the same) money, THAT'S when I'll start buying music digitally.
Right now, there's exactly zero incentive for me to buy music digitally, and that's that.
First off: bitrate is bitrate. One song in 256kbps MP3 is almost exactly the size of another song in 256kbps AAC/OGG/WMA/Whatever. Slight differences are mostly due to overhead (ID3-tags and album art). The sound quality will most likely differ though, with 256kbps AAC sounding a lot better than its MP3 counterpart.
And yes, unless you have some pretty nice equipment with good range, you're not likely to hear any difference between 256kbps AAC and the CD you bought. You do, however, have the songs in a digital form that will last quite a while, quality-wise. That's why I encode all my CDs to V0 MP3 (variable bit rate, mostly ranging from 250+ up to 320 kbps). With disk space as cheap as it is, it's an assurance that I don't have to re-rip my albums in a very long while. I can buy pretty much any stereo I want, and it'll still sound completely indistinguishable from my store bought CDs.
So ultimately I agree with you. Now that DRM is moot, all I want is higher bitrates. Preferably FLAC or any other lossless format that I can transcode to whatever codec I want. If I'm going to pay close to the same amount as I would the original CD, at the very least supply the same quality.
Similarly, consumers who want to consume content on only a single device can pay less than those who want to use it across all of their entertainment areas.
Another thing that struck me is that even though they claim that "one device usage" would be cheaper with DRM, have we yet to have seen any proof of this? No!
Content that is usable on a single device, or is heavily restricted in usage, costs the same or more as older, DRM-free, content that is playable anywhere. Why isn't it cheaper? Why do I have to put up with MORE restrictions while prices continue to RISE? This is the exact opposite of what he's saying would be true.
This, of course, completely ignores the fact that most people, in most countries, have a legal right to use their legally acquired content anywhere, and in any way, they want to! All DRM tries to do is remove this right of mine, and try to make me forget that by offering "premium content" and what not. It makes me sick.
Try selling an apple, and then telling the customer they can't eat it on the bus, in their car, at anyone elses house or in any other country. Then tell them that for double the price of the first apple, they can buy a second apple that they get to eat anywhere at all! Of course, they're not allowed to return the first apple, since they had to eat it in order to be able to read the EULA stuck inside the pips, and if the ate it on the bus... Well then, they're already guilty of brekaing the license agreement.
(yes, I know what people think about analogies, but you get the point, right?)
My $60 in-ear headphones are quite sufficient to distinguish between 128kbps and 256kbps MP3. That's precisely why I've been using OGG for years now:)
But seriously, with a decent enough player and headphones like mine (Sennheiser CX-300, if you must know), you do hear a difference. Maybe not everyone, but my hearing is still near perfect and I have no problem hearing the difference between MP3 and OGG (especially in the lower frequencies, where MP3 really sucks).
64kbps MP3 sounded great? Were you on drugs, or did you just have 10 jackhammers running all around you while listening? 64kbps MP3 never sounds great, no matter what player or headphones you're using.
I, too, started re-ripping my CDs to AAC in iTunes. I did it because I'm planning on getting an iPod pretty soon anyway, and since I had previously encoded my music library in OGG, I would have had to re-rip them anyway. Also, AAC is supposedly on par, and in some cases even better, with the OGG format. Again, especially in the lower frequencies. And I'm actually thinking of buying the 80GB version, so that I can either continue to acquire music without ever having to worry about running out of disk space, or re-encode my music to a higher bitrate should I ever buy even better headphones (maybe one of those $200 ones you seem to be so fond of) that are capable of reproducing it fully.
So, no need to exaggerate. There IS a difference, even if you don't have the ears to hear it.
Well, I wasn't responding to you in particular as much as ranting about the bad kind of christians out there. Evidently, you're one of the good ones.
One thing I have to object to though, is your analogy to the scientific method. It doesn't count as science if you make your own interpretation of what is a positive and what is a negative result. If, say, you will take a sign from God to mean that God does, in fact, exist, then you'd first have to determine what sign that is. Just going on hoping to one day get said "sign" isn't really all that scientific. That's faith:)
I suppose it's technically possible to both be a scientist and have religious beliefs. I don't, however, think that they have anything what so ever in common. They are two very separate things, able to coexist in their own, separate spheres of reality. It does require you to be quite flexible in your scientific beliefs, though.
What you ended with, respect, is very true. The same way you believe that your God will respect the righteous, intelligent believers, I give respect to those who respect me. If a christian can't respect my non-belief, then why should I respect their belief?
Like me, he trusts in what he knows. That is a kind of faith just as believing in a god is faith.
When I say I believe in what I see, I'm expressing the faith I have in that my eyes see things the way they are, and that what my eyes see is the truth. You can't prove without a doubt that it is, since no human being on this earth has complete and utter knowledge of all and everything. We just have to trust in reason and logic, and THAT is our faith.
I really hate how bible-pushers can tell me to believe in God just because a book says he exists. Yes, of course that's faith, and sure, it might inspire hope in some people. But I can't see the point in believing in these fairytale stories 'just because'. It makes no sense to me, not when there's so much else in this world that has reason and logic on it's side.
I believe water is wet, because I can actually touch it. I believe fire is hot, because I actually burn myself if I get too close. I don't believe in God because there is no further proof to his existence than "the bible says so". And that's just not enough for me...
So christians, believe in whatever you want. I can't, and won't, stop you. But please, PLEASE, stop with your bullshit "because I say so" rhetoric and backwards logic. If you don't bother me, I won't other you.
Well, then. Why ARE you here? To argue a moot point against a majority of people who very obviously don't think the same way you do? And argue that point solely on the fact that ONE judge thinks the same way you do (And boy, do we know that judges NEVER make mistakes!), against the fact that simple logic dictates otherwise.
The only reason I can see for ANYONE to keep thinking that copyright infringement is "theft", is that theft sounds alot worse that "copyright infringement", and thus makes it more efficient to use as scare-tactics and propaganda towards the unknowing masses. Or that you're simply stupid. Your choice.
If I've made them up then you should have no problem refuting them. I eagerly wait your reply as I'm sure it will be as well thought out as your other arguments.
So you're right because you say he's wrong? He asked you to verify YOUR claims, not to have his own questioned as proof that you're right.
Backwards logic is still logic, but won't get you much respect in a discussion like this.
The USA has never been the "land of the free", or if it has it was a damn long time ago.
When I say "freedom", I'd much rather think that I'll be free to choose whatever it is that *I* want, and not the choices I'm given by someone else. Take the whole Democrat/Republican thing, for example. Two choices. Two parties telling you that unless you vote for one of them, your vote is wasted. Two parties that only want to be in control, and don't really care what they're in control of. Two parties that both much rather trash-talk the other one instead of telling you why you should vote for them.
The same things goes in this whole mess that is the music industry. They're telling you that unless you "vote" for them by buying your over-priced, DRM-infected CDs from them, you're wasting your vote and effectively killing the music scene. Bullshit! Every dollar I don't give to the record labels is an entire dollar I can give directly to the artist. What does the artist get by working for the record industry? A few pennies, at the most. So what do I, as a consumer, choose?
The trick question here is that I have plenty of choices, other than giving my money to a dying industry.
But the manufacturers rarely, if ever, create products to favor the consumers. The consumers are merely a method of transportation, if you will. They stand in between the manufacturer and it's revenue. That's why companies make crap products that just a tiny fraction of consumers will ever need or want and that probably break within a year or two, forcing the few people who actually like to product to buy it again.
Trust me, no successful company got to where they are simply because they put money, effort and time into a product that did absolutely nothing but favor the consumer.
Companies want money in return of their favors, and if a company can find a way to make more money out of less favors, they'll grab it by the balls the first chance they get!
This is what's happening with the music industry. They no longer have what consumers want, and they are hellbent on never providing it either. They're still sitting there with their over-priced CDs, riddled with DRM viruses, that aren't worth even close to what they're asking for them. Especially not when an artist can produce, promote AND sell music over the internet at several times their income working for a major record label while still selling their products at just a fraction of todays CD prices.
So... By your arguing, "copyright infringement" equals "theft", right?
Copyright infringement is illegal as it is, why continue these childish ways of making copyright infringement look like something completely different? Copyright infringement does not equal theft any more than 1 equals 2. They are two separate things, and to try obsessively to make the one thing into the other you're completely missing the point.
The term "copyright infringement" exists solely to define something that is not something else, i.e. not a dog, not an emotion and certainly not theft. If it were theft, it would simply have been called theft
Now, can we PLEASE go back to discussing how this whole "copyright" business has been taken waaay out of context and is now only hurting those it claims to protect?
What you're saying, though, is that removing that "exclusivity" from someone is theft, plain and simple.
Well, that's wrong. You cannot steal "exclusivity". You can deny ones right to it, yes, but you can not steal "exclusivity" itself. I don't even understand how you can go on and on claiming this. "Exclusivity" is just a word, and "having the right to exclusivity" is a sentence in which this word has a meaning. If you take away, or infringe upon, someones "right to exclusivity", the "exclusivity" is subsequently removed, right? Where did it go then? Who took it? Who has it now?
You can not steal a word, nor the meaning of the word. You steal property, and the last time I checked, no one owned neither the word nor the meaning of "exclusivity".
What you're doing is splitting fake hairs at a microscopic level. You're both wrong and way off course.
This statement may or may not be true. Please point me to research, survey, hell, even some BS article giving some proof that this conception is true.
I'm not the one attacking Windows, I'm defending Linux against all those unproven claims that Linux is "harder". So first show me the evidence that Linux is an essentially "harder" system to use, and should you find some I'll gladly look up some evidence to the contrary. But until everyone stops attacking Linux without even a shred of evidence, I don't feel I should have to prove myself to anyone.
You might as well put any commercial software application in place of "games" in that statement. Person goes to compusa or best buy or whatever, buys turbo tax, pops the cd in their drive and bam... nothing. Hell, some half installed version of wine that may or may not be in their particular distribution may act like it does something with with it. But that software is not going to install properly. You can't simply dismiss it out of hand, "Oh, that's hardly Linux's fault." Its reality.
So you're saying that software companies have no responsibility at all towards making products work on a Unix platform? It's Linux's fault for not being able to emulate Windows? That's absurd, and I hope you understand that yourself. If nothing happens when you put that CD in your Linux computer, it's because the programmers didn't write a Linux installer. Imagine if you buy a CD released by Sony BMG, and it ONLY plays in Sony branded stereos? Is that really the fault of every other brand of stereos, or is it Sony BMG being an asshole about it?
Linux is a fact, and pretty soon not something you can just ignore anymore. Ubuntu is a very potent alternative to Windows, and there's really no reason not to make modern software cross-platform. Yet, software companies keep making programs that only works on Windows, and everyone else has to jump through hoops to make it work for them.
And this is just for those very few programs that lack any real OSS alternatives. Need Office? Get Open Office! Need Photoshop? Get GIMP! Need MSN Messenger? Get Gaim/Kopete/any other client!
You really can't keep claiming that you can't stay productive in Linux, that argument has been blown to smithereens a long time ago.
And how is a newbie supposed to know to open a command prompt, and know that the magic command they need to type is "apt-get install"? That's far less discoverable or intuitive than downloading and running "setup.exe" (which, BTW, provides you with reasonable defaults for all options, and which has a EULA that most people don't give a shit about and just blindly click "Accept" on).
How is a newbie supposed to know that the little button-like thing at the bottom labeled "Start" holds all your programs? How is a newbie supposed to know what an icon is, and why it's more than just part if the desktop background? How is a newbie supposed to know what button to push to start the computer?
You're not talking about any general newbie. You're talking about someone who already KNOWS Windows, knows how to use a computer and who has already formed his or her definitions of "how it works". Put a complete newbie, someone with no experience in computers at all, in front of Linux and I guarantee you that he or she will learn Linux just as fast as Windows, maybe even faster.
Saying newbie, but really meaning someone with computer and Windows experience, is not really fair. Anyone that already knows Linux will have an equally hard time learning Windows as his or her second OS. It has nothing to do with Linux in particular.
And just so you know, downloading an "installer.deb" in any modern debian-based OS works just the same way as in Windows, only faster since there probably is no EULA and there's really nothing to accept since everything already has it's place in the system.
The fundamental problem with Linux isn't that it's difficult once you already know it. The problem is that it's unnecessarily difficult to learn and discover things, especially for non-techies. You have to hold a tremendous amount of memorized commands in your head and go to a command line to get most anything useful done. And you have to learn about the architectural innards of the system enough to carry around your own mental image of how all the pieces and subsystems fit together, otherwise you risk breaking something or you can't pull of things that ought to be simple like installing a device driver.
Oh really? Maybe you didn't know, but graphical interfaces in Linux have existed longer than Windows itself. Today one can use Linux and not ever have to use the CLI, but I guess it's easier for you to bash Linux if you just ignore to mention that, huh?
And last time I checked, installing drivers in Windows is just as hellish as in Linux. The only difference being that in Linux you actually get meaningful error messages, instead of a blue screen and a reboot:)
Tell me -- if you didn't already know all the common Linux commands, or understand what a "compiler" or a "kernal" was, or have the slightest clue about typical OS architecture, and your first instinct wasn't to go Google every time you ran into trouble, how in the world do you think you would discover how to do things in Linux? You certainly couldn't figure out how to do everything you wanted to do just by poking around in the GNOME or KDE GUI.
Tell me -- If you didn't already know Windows, would you really find it so hard to learn Linux? It's basic human behavior: If you already know how to do it one way, why bother to learn another? Of course Linux is hard for someone used to Windows, just as Windows is a pain for someone used to Linux.
And you don't seriously mean that I have to know about the kernel, architecture or compiling just to surf the web or listen to music in Linux? There have been binary kernel AND software packages for YEARS, and source releases or now only for the enthusiasts who love that extra feeling of being in control. And if you don't believe me, just look at Mac OS X. It's built right on top of old-school Unix, and is often quoted to be even EASIER than Windows to learn, making your arg
My family and all my non-techie friends do. All the time. Or they'll save something, and 10 seconds later they go 'Ehm... where the hell did that damn file go?". And no, they don't all have Alzheimer's:)
Hardware is an issue with Linux, but for different reasons. With windows, you get crappy drivers that companies churn out just because they have to, and when you get into driver-hell, you're not likely to get out so easily. With Linux, the issue is the non-existence of first-party drivers. Usually the third-party ones are just as good, or even better, but might be harder to find.
And if you want to discover how easy Linux can be, try Ubuntu. It's based off Debian, so it has one of the most stable and software-rich packaging systems out there.
I don't agree with the thought that typing a command is at all "harder" to learn than knowing how, what and where to click in a GUI. Once you learn a command, it sticks. Just like how you don't forget to click "Start" to open a piece of installed software. I fully understand that the CLI might be a tad intimidating for someone already used to The Windows Way, but as I've said before: It's not automatically "harder" just because you don't know how to use it. Besides, for those that absolutely cannot be arsed to learn something new, the ability to just save a.deb (equal to.exe in Windows) to the desktop and double click it is there, and has been for a while. I think people in general are just too comfortable whining about Linux being hard to actually find out if it still is:)
Cryptic names? If I want Xchat, I type "apt-get install xchat". Say I want Open Office, I just type in "apt-get install openoffice". And photo-editing is a simple "apt-get install gimp" away.
For the people used to The Windows Way, clicking an icon on the desktop might be the most familiar, but you simply can't argue that it's the easiest way.
Remember, just because you're not used to the CLI doesn't automatically translate to it being "harder". Windows is just as "hard" for someone who's familiar with the Unix way of doing things.
I'm going to tear those "facts" of yours apart a little, so bare with me.
If a user wants to install a program, all they have to do is download an installation program, open it up, and the GUI very nicely guides them through it. Your average user isn't going to have a clue about using a command line interface, and in fact would absolutely dread using one. "What do I have to type, now? What are dependencies??? I just want to run my program!"
First, the user has to FIND the program. He/she has to actively search the internet, find the official site, get to the download page, download it, try and remember where they saved it (since, as you yourself noted, they just click "ok" without thinking, really), start the installer and finish the installation. You can't seriously tell me that's easier than remembering ONE single command? It's not about a graphical UI, it's about getting used to the thought that the mouse isn't the ONLY way to control your computer. Windows has falsely taught people that it is, and that's why people are scared of the command line. It's not that it's harder, it's the fact that they're simply not used to it.
Your average user would rather use a GUI installation "wizard", will use the default locations (what informed decisions... the folder is clearly named "Program Files") and install the default components. Or, if they are slightly more savvy, they may realize that certain components are unnecessary. Either way, clicking "Next" a few times and "Finish" will always be more user-friendly than typing a handful of cryptic commands into a terminal. "Make? What am I making?".
As I already said, remembering ONE command (why the hell would anyone compile from source with "make", when everything a user would ever need is in either apt or packed in a binary package?). And with "apt-get install" they don't have to click "next" at all, it will just install by itself. Can you really claim that it's "harder" than accepting a EULA, confirming installation directory, choosing what parts to install and click finish? And sure, sometimes there are dependencies... But is that so much scarier than the legal mumbojumbo in the EULA? I don't think so. And again, it all boils down to habit. Nothing more, nothing less.
If Linux was able to implement the ability to run a nice little executable installation file that you could save to the desktop and double-click, Linux would become much more attractive to people. As soon as you introduce the Terminal, their eyes glaze over. Make useful alternatives to using the CLI, make WINE standard and transparent, ensure full Windows interoperability, and you've got yourself a winning OS.
Maybe you didn't know, but this is 2006, and clickable installers in Linux have existed for several years already, not to mention apt, yum, portage and all the other one-command-installers out there, all with their own graphical UIs if one feels the urge to use them. There's really no excuse anymore, just petty whining.
"full Windows interoperability"? What do you mean, that windows programs should run natively on a Linux platform? That has NOTHING to do with Linux at all, it's entirely up to Microsoft to deliver THEIR software in a way that would work on Linux. Until they do, there are a plethora of ways to get them to run at near native speeds on Linux, or simply use the free and just-as-good alternatives that work on Windows, Linux and Mac in perfect unison.
As I said, unless you're using some distro from 1995, there's really nothing Windows can do that Linux can't do just as well.
A "newbie" would be just as intimated trying to install software in Windows as in Linux.
Windows: - Download and open the installer ("where the heck did I save it?!") - Agree to a pretty creepy-looking EULA - Make informed choices of where to install it, what parts of the software to include and find the "finish"-button - Hope that the installer made sane shortcuts to the application, and that no further steps have to be taken. - Use!
Ubuntu: - Open terminal - Type "apt-get install " - Type Y if there are lots of dependencies (already marked as default) - Use!
Now tell me which is the simpler one. Windows is "simpler" because people are used to it, not because it's actually easier to use. This is a VERY common misconception. A person with no experience what so ever would probably learn to do the same tasks in Gnome or KDE faster than in Windows.
I agree that games might pose a problem, but that's hardly Linux fault.
Of course everyone is different, and can't be treated *exactly* the same. No one said that either.
Go watch 'American History X' for a perfect example of what's wrong with racism, and how it affects *everyone*.
What you're describing isn't racism. You're not actively going out telling people that everyone besides you and your family are bad. You probably don't even think so to yourself. It's a simple matter of helping those you care about, and has nothing to do with racism.
If I'd rather hang out with my friend than with a total stranger, that's not racism. No matter the skin color. But if I'd refuse to become friends with someone purely on the basis that their skin color is the wrong one, THEN it's racism.
And men and women using separate bathrooms... Again, this has absolutely nothing to do with racism or equality, it's a simple social preference. We just don't feel comfortable using the same bathrooms, so we don't. It's not hurting anyone, and I doubt there are people feeling put down because they can't use the opposite sex's bathroom.
Sorry, but you just completely missed the point here:)
I'll be staying with Dapper for a while, since I value stability and safety over new features. However, hopefully some new bling will make it into backports.
I'm really glad to see that the Ubuntu project is chugging along so nicely. It's really starting to make quite a name for itself:)
I think you're completely right, but there's another side to it.
With freedom of speech comes responsibility. Sure, you can say what you want, but don't be a coward and hide behind your "right" to do so. If you want to be a racist, stand up for yourself and take the responsibility that comes with carrying a message most people will abhor. I can't walk into a group of Yankee's fans, yell "Yankees suck!!" and not expect to get anything back in return.
The problem is neither free speech nor censorship. It's all the cowards who want to speak their mind, but don't want to take the consequences.
But please read what I mean, not just the very letters I use to convey my message.
Take advertising as an example instead. How about if half of all the ads around you when you're out of the house were racist? Is censorship ok then? What's worse, someone not being able to speak their mind, or hateful messages being fed to you from all around?
On a place like the Internet, that's totally true. But how about when racism is shown on TV? Is censorship ok then?
On the internet, it's very easy to only see what you want to see. There's enough content to satisfy anyone, without having to risk stumbling onto someones hate-site.
It's a tricky problem. Is censorship worse or better than racism and hate?
Slashdot Mirror
This is such a personal thing, though. I would rather have every song come in some kind of lossless format, be it either AAC, FLAC or something else. This way, I'm actually getting precisely what I would have gotten if I had just bought the CD in the first place. What I'm getting now is a lossy source I can't really do anything with, and I don't get any album art or a physical copy of the song. It's what's keeping me from going over to digital distribution of music.
I don't want to buy a high-end stereo system some years ahead and realize that all the music I own sounds like crap. I want the maximum quality right away, which technically shouldn't cost me a penny more with all the money they save on digital distribution. It's a backwards situation, and I refuse to find myself in it just yet.
I agree wholeheartedly!
Why are we STILL paying for songs that aren't even CD quality? Why are we taking several steps BACKWARDS in the development of digital music?
There is literally nothing that prevents stores and labels from selling lossless songs and albums instead of compressed ones, at the exact same price. If nothing else, compressed songs are the ones that should cost more since if one wants more songs per gigabyte, they'd have to go to the trouble of converting them manually. Serving already compressed files should be the service one could pay a couple cents more for (theoretically).
This entire thing is so god damn backwards. This is why I still refuse to buy music digitally. As soon as I can get the same quality for less money (since there's no printing and distribution costs) or BETTER quality for slightly more (or, ideally, the same) money, THAT'S when I'll start buying music digitally.
Right now, there's exactly zero incentive for me to buy music digitally, and that's that.
First off: bitrate is bitrate. One song in 256kbps MP3 is almost exactly the size of another song in 256kbps AAC/OGG/WMA/Whatever. Slight differences are mostly due to overhead (ID3-tags and album art). The sound quality will most likely differ though, with 256kbps AAC sounding a lot better than its MP3 counterpart.
And yes, unless you have some pretty nice equipment with good range, you're not likely to hear any difference between 256kbps AAC and the CD you bought. You do, however, have the songs in a digital form that will last quite a while, quality-wise. That's why I encode all my CDs to V0 MP3 (variable bit rate, mostly ranging from 250+ up to 320 kbps). With disk space as cheap as it is, it's an assurance that I don't have to re-rip my albums in a very long while. I can buy pretty much any stereo I want, and it'll still sound completely indistinguishable from my store bought CDs.
So ultimately I agree with you. Now that DRM is moot, all I want is higher bitrates. Preferably FLAC or any other lossless format that I can transcode to whatever codec I want. If I'm going to pay close to the same amount as I would the original CD, at the very least supply the same quality.
Another thing that struck me is that even though they claim that "one device usage" would be cheaper with DRM, have we yet to have seen any proof of this? No!
Content that is usable on a single device, or is heavily restricted in usage, costs the same or more as older, DRM-free, content that is playable anywhere. Why isn't it cheaper? Why do I have to put up with MORE restrictions while prices continue to RISE? This is the exact opposite of what he's saying would be true.
This, of course, completely ignores the fact that most people, in most countries, have a legal right to use their legally acquired content anywhere, and in any way, they want to! All DRM tries to do is remove this right of mine, and try to make me forget that by offering "premium content" and what not. It makes me sick.
Try selling an apple, and then telling the customer they can't eat it on the bus, in their car, at anyone elses house or in any other country. Then tell them that for double the price of the first apple, they can buy a second apple that they get to eat anywhere at all! Of course, they're not allowed to return the first apple, since they had to eat it in order to be able to read the EULA stuck inside the pips, and if the ate it on the bus... Well then, they're already guilty of brekaing the license agreement.
(yes, I know what people think about analogies, but you get the point, right?)
My $60 in-ear headphones are quite sufficient to distinguish between 128kbps and 256kbps MP3. That's precisely why I've been using OGG for years now :)
But seriously, with a decent enough player and headphones like mine (Sennheiser CX-300, if you must know), you do hear a difference. Maybe not everyone, but my hearing is still near perfect and I have no problem hearing the difference between MP3 and OGG (especially in the lower frequencies, where MP3 really sucks).
64kbps MP3 sounded great? Were you on drugs, or did you just have 10 jackhammers running all around you while listening? 64kbps MP3 never sounds great, no matter what player or headphones you're using.
I, too, started re-ripping my CDs to AAC in iTunes. I did it because I'm planning on getting an iPod pretty soon anyway, and since I had previously encoded my music library in OGG, I would have had to re-rip them anyway. Also, AAC is supposedly on par, and in some cases even better, with the OGG format. Again, especially in the lower frequencies. And I'm actually thinking of buying the 80GB version, so that I can either continue to acquire music without ever having to worry about running out of disk space, or re-encode my music to a higher bitrate should I ever buy even better headphones (maybe one of those $200 ones you seem to be so fond of) that are capable of reproducing it fully.
So, no need to exaggerate. There IS a difference, even if you don't have the ears to hear it.
Well, I wasn't responding to you in particular as much as ranting about the bad kind of christians out there. Evidently, you're one of the good ones.
:)
One thing I have to object to though, is your analogy to the scientific method. It doesn't count as science if you make your own interpretation of what is a positive and what is a negative result. If, say, you will take a sign from God to mean that God does, in fact, exist, then you'd first have to determine what sign that is. Just going on hoping to one day get said "sign" isn't really all that scientific. That's faith
I suppose it's technically possible to both be a scientist and have religious beliefs. I don't, however, think that they have anything what so ever in common. They are two very separate things, able to coexist in their own, separate spheres of reality. It does require you to be quite flexible in your scientific beliefs, though.
What you ended with, respect, is very true. The same way you believe that your God will respect the righteous, intelligent believers, I give respect to those who respect me. If a christian can't respect my non-belief, then why should I respect their belief?
Nice way to completely misunderstand his point.
Like me, he trusts in what he knows. That is a kind of faith just as believing in a god is faith.
When I say I believe in what I see, I'm expressing the faith I have in that my eyes see things the way they are, and that what my eyes see is the truth. You can't prove without a doubt that it is, since no human being on this earth has complete and utter knowledge of all and everything. We just have to trust in reason and logic, and THAT is our faith.
I really hate how bible-pushers can tell me to believe in God just because a book says he exists. Yes, of course that's faith, and sure, it might inspire hope in some people. But I can't see the point in believing in these fairytale stories 'just because'. It makes no sense to me, not when there's so much else in this world that has reason and logic on it's side.
I believe water is wet, because I can actually touch it. I believe fire is hot, because I actually burn myself if I get too close. I don't believe in God because there is no further proof to his existence than "the bible says so". And that's just not enough for me...
So christians, believe in whatever you want. I can't, and won't, stop you. But please, PLEASE, stop with your bullshit "because I say so" rhetoric and backwards logic. If you don't bother me, I won't other you.
Well, then. Why ARE you here? To argue a moot point against a majority of people who very obviously don't think the same way you do? And argue that point solely on the fact that ONE judge thinks the same way you do (And boy, do we know that judges NEVER make mistakes!), against the fact that simple logic dictates otherwise.
The only reason I can see for ANYONE to keep thinking that copyright infringement is "theft", is that theft sounds alot worse that "copyright infringement", and thus makes it more efficient to use as scare-tactics and propaganda towards the unknowing masses. Or that you're simply stupid. Your choice.
So you're right because you say he's wrong? He asked you to verify YOUR claims, not to have his own questioned as proof that you're right.
Backwards logic is still logic, but won't get you much respect in a discussion like this.
The USA has never been the "land of the free", or if it has it was a damn long time ago.
When I say "freedom", I'd much rather think that I'll be free to choose whatever it is that *I* want, and not the choices I'm given by someone else. Take the whole Democrat/Republican thing, for example. Two choices. Two parties telling you that unless you vote for one of them, your vote is wasted. Two parties that only want to be in control, and don't really care what they're in control of. Two parties that both much rather trash-talk the other one instead of telling you why you should vote for them.
The same things goes in this whole mess that is the music industry. They're telling you that unless you "vote" for them by buying your over-priced, DRM-infected CDs from them, you're wasting your vote and effectively killing the music scene. Bullshit! Every dollar I don't give to the record labels is an entire dollar I can give directly to the artist. What does the artist get by working for the record industry? A few pennies, at the most. So what do I, as a consumer, choose?
The trick question here is that I have plenty of choices, other than giving my money to a dying industry.
But the manufacturers rarely, if ever, create products to favor the consumers. The consumers are merely a method of transportation, if you will. They stand in between the manufacturer and it's revenue. That's why companies make crap products that just a tiny fraction of consumers will ever need or want and that probably break within a year or two, forcing the few people who actually like to product to buy it again.
Trust me, no successful company got to where they are simply because they put money, effort and time into a product that did absolutely nothing but favor the consumer.
Companies want money in return of their favors, and if a company can find a way to make more money out of less favors, they'll grab it by the balls the first chance they get!
This is what's happening with the music industry. They no longer have what consumers want, and they are hellbent on never providing it either. They're still sitting there with their over-priced CDs, riddled with DRM viruses, that aren't worth even close to what they're asking for them. Especially not when an artist can produce, promote AND sell music over the internet at several times their income working for a major record label while still selling their products at just a fraction of todays CD prices.
That is reality.
So... By your arguing, "copyright infringement" equals "theft", right?
Copyright infringement is illegal as it is, why continue these childish ways of making copyright infringement look like something completely different? Copyright infringement does not equal theft any more than 1 equals 2. They are two separate things, and to try obsessively to make the one thing into the other you're completely missing the point.
The term "copyright infringement" exists solely to define something that is not something else, i.e. not a dog, not an emotion and certainly not theft. If it were theft, it would simply have been called theft
Now, can we PLEASE go back to discussing how this whole "copyright" business has been taken waaay out of context and is now only hurting those it claims to protect?
What you're saying, though, is that removing that "exclusivity" from someone is theft, plain and simple.
Well, that's wrong. You cannot steal "exclusivity". You can deny ones right to it, yes, but you can not steal "exclusivity" itself. I don't even understand how you can go on and on claiming this. "Exclusivity" is just a word, and "having the right to exclusivity" is a sentence in which this word has a meaning. If you take away, or infringe upon, someones "right to exclusivity", the "exclusivity" is subsequently removed, right? Where did it go then? Who took it? Who has it now?
You can not steal a word, nor the meaning of the word. You steal property, and the last time I checked, no one owned neither the word nor the meaning of "exclusivity".
What you're doing is splitting fake hairs at a microscopic level. You're both wrong and way off course.
What? So now nerds aren't allowed to have a political interest?
Get over yourself, and let the rest of us enjoy the "News"-part of the slogan, kthnxby
I'm not the one attacking Windows, I'm defending Linux against all those unproven claims that Linux is "harder". So first show me the evidence that Linux is an essentially "harder" system to use, and should you find some I'll gladly look up some evidence to the contrary. But until everyone stops attacking Linux without even a shred of evidence, I don't feel I should have to prove myself to anyone.
So you're saying that software companies have no responsibility at all towards making products work on a Unix platform? It's Linux's fault for not being able to emulate Windows? That's absurd, and I hope you understand that yourself. If nothing happens when you put that CD in your Linux computer, it's because the programmers didn't write a Linux installer. Imagine if you buy a CD released by Sony BMG, and it ONLY plays in Sony branded stereos? Is that really the fault of every other brand of stereos, or is it Sony BMG being an asshole about it?
Linux is a fact, and pretty soon not something you can just ignore anymore. Ubuntu is a very potent alternative to Windows, and there's really no reason not to make modern software cross-platform. Yet, software companies keep making programs that only works on Windows, and everyone else has to jump through hoops to make it work for them.
And this is just for those very few programs that lack any real OSS alternatives. Need Office? Get Open Office! Need Photoshop? Get GIMP! Need MSN Messenger? Get Gaim/Kopete/any other client!
You really can't keep claiming that you can't stay productive in Linux, that argument has been blown to smithereens a long time ago.
How is a newbie supposed to know that the little button-like thing at the bottom labeled "Start" holds all your programs? How is a newbie supposed to know what an icon is, and why it's more than just part if the desktop background? How is a newbie supposed to know what button to push to start the computer?
You're not talking about any general newbie. You're talking about someone who already KNOWS Windows, knows how to use a computer and who has already formed his or her definitions of "how it works". Put a complete newbie, someone with no experience in computers at all, in front of Linux and I guarantee you that he or she will learn Linux just as fast as Windows, maybe even faster.
Saying newbie, but really meaning someone with computer and Windows experience, is not really fair. Anyone that already knows Linux will have an equally hard time learning Windows as his or her second OS. It has nothing to do with Linux in particular.
And just so you know, downloading an "installer.deb" in any modern debian-based OS works just the same way as in Windows, only faster since there probably is no EULA and there's really nothing to accept since everything already has it's place in the system.
Oh really? Maybe you didn't know, but graphical interfaces in Linux have existed longer than Windows itself. Today one can use Linux and not ever have to use the CLI, but I guess it's easier for you to bash Linux if you just ignore to mention that, huh?
:)
And last time I checked, installing drivers in Windows is just as hellish as in Linux. The only difference being that in Linux you actually get meaningful error messages, instead of a blue screen and a reboot
Tell me -- If you didn't already know Windows, would you really find it so hard to learn Linux? It's basic human behavior: If you already know how to do it one way, why bother to learn another? Of course Linux is hard for someone used to Windows, just as Windows is a pain for someone used to Linux.
And you don't seriously mean that I have to know about the kernel, architecture or compiling just to surf the web or listen to music in Linux? There have been binary kernel AND software packages for YEARS, and source releases or now only for the enthusiasts who love that extra feeling of being in control. And if you don't believe me, just look at Mac OS X. It's built right on top of old-school Unix, and is often quoted to be even EASIER than Windows to learn, making your arg
My family and all my non-techie friends do. All the time. Or they'll save something, and 10 seconds later they go 'Ehm... where the hell did that damn file go?". And no, they don't all have Alzheimer's :)
.deb (equal to .exe in Windows) to the desktop and double click it is there, and has been for a while. I think people in general are just too comfortable whining about Linux being hard to actually find out if it still is :)
Hardware is an issue with Linux, but for different reasons. With windows, you get crappy drivers that companies churn out just because they have to, and when you get into driver-hell, you're not likely to get out so easily.
With Linux, the issue is the non-existence of first-party drivers. Usually the third-party ones are just as good, or even better, but might be harder to find.
And if you want to discover how easy Linux can be, try Ubuntu. It's based off Debian, so it has one of the most stable and software-rich packaging systems out there.
I don't agree with the thought that typing a command is at all "harder" to learn than knowing how, what and where to click in a GUI. Once you learn a command, it sticks. Just like how you don't forget to click "Start" to open a piece of installed software. I fully understand that the CLI might be a tad intimidating for someone already used to The Windows Way, but as I've said before: It's not automatically "harder" just because you don't know how to use it.
Besides, for those that absolutely cannot be arsed to learn something new, the ability to just save a
Cryptic names? If I want Xchat, I type "apt-get install xchat". Say I want Open Office, I just type in "apt-get install openoffice". And photo-editing is a simple "apt-get install gimp" away.
For the people used to The Windows Way, clicking an icon on the desktop might be the most familiar, but you simply can't argue that it's the easiest way.
Remember, just because you're not used to the CLI doesn't automatically translate to it being "harder". Windows is just as "hard" for someone who's familiar with the Unix way of doing things.
First, the user has to FIND the program. He/she has to actively search the internet, find the official site, get to the download page, download it, try and remember where they saved it (since, as you yourself noted, they just click "ok" without thinking, really), start the installer and finish the installation. You can't seriously tell me that's easier than remembering ONE single command?
It's not about a graphical UI, it's about getting used to the thought that the mouse isn't the ONLY way to control your computer. Windows has falsely taught people that it is, and that's why people are scared of the command line. It's not that it's harder, it's the fact that they're simply not used to it.
As I already said, remembering ONE command (why the hell would anyone compile from source with "make", when everything a user would ever need is in either apt or packed in a binary package?). And with "apt-get install" they don't have to click "next" at all, it will just install by itself. Can you really claim that it's "harder" than accepting a EULA, confirming installation directory, choosing what parts to install and click finish?
And sure, sometimes there are dependencies... But is that so much scarier than the legal mumbojumbo in the EULA? I don't think so. And again, it all boils down to habit. Nothing more, nothing less.
Maybe you didn't know, but this is 2006, and clickable installers in Linux have existed for several years already, not to mention apt, yum, portage and all the other one-command-installers out there, all with their own graphical UIs if one feels the urge to use them. There's really no excuse anymore, just petty whining.
"full Windows interoperability"? What do you mean, that windows programs should run natively on a Linux platform? That has NOTHING to do with Linux at all, it's entirely up to Microsoft to deliver THEIR software in a way that would work on Linux. Until they do, there are a plethora of ways to get them to run at near native speeds on Linux, or simply use the free and just-as-good alternatives that work on Windows, Linux and Mac in perfect unison.
As I said, unless you're using some distro from 1995, there's really nothing Windows can do that Linux can't do just as well.
A "newbie" would be just as intimated trying to install software in Windows as in Linux.
Windows:
- Download and open the installer ("where the heck did I save it?!")
- Agree to a pretty creepy-looking EULA
- Make informed choices of where to install it, what parts of the software to include and find the "finish"-button
- Hope that the installer made sane shortcuts to the application, and that no further steps have to be taken.
- Use!
Ubuntu:
- Open terminal
- Type "apt-get install "
- Type Y if there are lots of dependencies (already marked as default)
- Use!
Now tell me which is the simpler one.
Windows is "simpler" because people are used to it, not because it's actually easier to use. This is a VERY common misconception. A person with no experience what so ever would probably learn to do the same tasks in Gnome or KDE faster than in Windows.
I agree that games might pose a problem, but that's hardly Linux fault.
Of course everyone is different, and can't be treated *exactly* the same. No one said that either.
:)
Go watch 'American History X' for a perfect example of what's wrong with racism, and how it affects *everyone*.
What you're describing isn't racism. You're not actively going out telling people that everyone besides you and your family are bad. You probably don't even think so to yourself. It's a simple matter of helping those you care about, and has nothing to do with racism.
If I'd rather hang out with my friend than with a total stranger, that's not racism. No matter the skin color. But if I'd refuse to become friends with someone purely on the basis that their skin color is the wrong one, THEN it's racism.
And men and women using separate bathrooms... Again, this has absolutely nothing to do with racism or equality, it's a simple social preference. We just don't feel comfortable using the same bathrooms, so we don't. It's not hurting anyone, and I doubt there are people feeling put down because they can't use the opposite sex's bathroom.
Sorry, but you just completely missed the point here
I'll be staying with Dapper for a while, since I value stability and safety over new features. However, hopefully some new bling will make it into backports.
:)
I'm really glad to see that the Ubuntu project is chugging along so nicely. It's really starting to make quite a name for itself
I think you're completely right, but there's another side to it.
With freedom of speech comes responsibility. Sure, you can say what you want, but don't be a coward and hide behind your "right" to do so. If you want to be a racist, stand up for yourself and take the responsibility that comes with carrying a message most people will abhor. I can't walk into a group of Yankee's fans, yell "Yankees suck!!" and not expect to get anything back in return.
The problem is neither free speech nor censorship. It's all the cowards who want to speak their mind, but don't want to take the consequences.
Ok, so maybe TV was a bad example.
But please read what I mean, not just the very letters I use to convey my message.
Take advertising as an example instead. How about if half of all the ads around you when you're out of the house were racist? Is censorship ok then? What's worse, someone not being able to speak their mind, or hateful messages being fed to you from all around?
On a place like the Internet, that's totally true. But how about when racism is shown on TV? Is censorship ok then?
On the internet, it's very easy to only see what you want to see. There's enough content to satisfy anyone, without having to risk stumbling onto someones hate-site.
It's a tricky problem. Is censorship worse or better than racism and hate?