"So...they've got lobbying power. What's your point? Shouldn't businesses have the right to look after their interests (whether or not your agree with those interests)? I mean, if you can write your congressman, or have a group like the EFF or the ACLU trying to stop interests like the RIAA, why can't those groups do the same to protect what they view as their interests? I know that you never explicitly said it -- but you've implied that they shouldn't be able to do this. Is it because you think that they're wrong, or because they have more resources than you? IMO, yours is a defeatist attitude. Have you done anything to stop the RIAA's foray into legislature (like written your congress critters or donated to the EFF), or just accepted defeat and complain about it on slashdot?"
I think one of the major problems is how corporations are treated as a living citizen when it comes to the rights they enjoy, but escape many of the consequences that accrue to a living individual for bad/illegal behaviour.
A corporation does something bad/illegal, gets caught, fires the individual employee(s) involved and perhaps pays a fine, and goes on its' merry way, the corporation still intact. An individuals' life under similar circumstances would be over, as an individual can't figuratively send just one of his replaceable hands to jail for bribing a congressman.
This reduces the decisions on corporate behaviour to a simple one of if the behaviour will profit them enough to offset the loss if caught, and the likelyhood of being caught at all.
This, along with the huge financial differences, gives corporations a powers-of-magnitude advantage over individuals when it comes to the ability to exert influence and power.
People have learned from these tactics and organized to increase their effectiveness relative to corporate lobbyists and contributions, but laws like McCain-Feingold (despite what the lawmakers *claim* it's supposed to do) are attempting to limit groups of citizens' ability to pool their resources in order to play equally with the "big boys".
Hopefully, the advantages of peer communication among individuals via the internet will give individuals enough power to change this inequitable power balance back some before the corporations and the governments/politicians they own find a way to control this too.
"Seriously, you think that the US is going to have a moral change of heart when we are the same people who for years placed our national seaboarder miles out into the atlantic and contested anyone who got inside of it while at the same time following the 3 mile rule for every other country despite protests from those companys.
The US could give two shits sadly."
The U.S. stops and searches pretty much anyone it pleases in international waters, and not just within whatever limits it happens to set for its' own waters.
AFAIK, the only ships it hesitates to pull this on are ships of governments that have enough military/naval force to pose a realistic threat of significant reprisal, and/or significant enough economic/political might to cause the U.S. damage.
I guess that as far as freedom from U.S. boarding and search in international waters goes, you're as free as the number of carrier battle groups and submarines you can pony up when threatened makes you.
To be fair though, other countries also play the same game with the ships of countries with significantly less might than themselves.
The oceans have, to a greater or lesser extent, always been a no-mans' land where the rights a ship enjoys in open waters is directly related to how much power the country under which flag it happens to fly enjoys.
When you're on an unarmed freighter or fishing trawler and you have a destroyer demanding you heave-to for boarding and search with it's guns and missiles locked onto your vessel, international law is a moot point.
Especially if the only thing that happens if you're fired upon and sunk is a diplomatic letter of protest.
" I can't see how Apple can get away for long with charging $1 for muddy sounding 128Kbits lossy when something like MusicGiants [musicgiants.com] is charging only $1.29 for full quality, major label, lossless downloads [meehawl.com]. If the "premium" between the iTMS low quality and the "full" quality tracks is only 30 cents, then I am missing something. Either MusicGiants will be raising its prices soon, or Apple will be lowering its prices for 128Kbps or upping the quality.
My thinking on this is that if successful, it should prompt Apple to offer lossless downloads from the iTMS Service, if only because Apple likes to present a "high end" image, and having a competitor actively dissing iTMS [musicgiants.com] by lumping it in, quality-wise, with "pirated music from p2p networks" has got to hurt."
I'm wondering why more people don't take advantage of foreign distribution channels that aren't as tied into the RIAA cartel and sell music by the megabyte like allofmp3.com http://www.allofmp3.com/ .
As far as I can tell, there are no laws against buying from allofmp3, despite what the RIAA etc would like people to believe.
I hope the word spreads about such distribution outlets, as this directly impacts the RIAA/labels' bottom lines, and the less they get, the happier I'll be, and the less they'll have in their warchests to influence lawmaking as well as less market control to enslave artists and screw over customers.
Plus, the wide selection of file formats and bitrates that can be customer-specified seems particularly friendly to non-proprietary operating systems and software.
"Can artists put their own music on iTunes and skip the record labels altogether? It seems to me, if they could do that, then they wouldn't have to mess with 'Big Content'."
Yes, they can. There is CDBaby http://www.cdbaby.com/ which does submit indie artists to iTunes. They do filter for "quality" though.
They don't just turn artists down with no explanation. They do critiques which, from the ones I've read, are pretty fair. The critiques generally have to do with either poor quality of the recording/mixing itself, or skill at the art such as someone who does a recording, but just isn't a very good musician/singer. like sour chords/notes, poor song writing structurals, etc. I'm in a blues band (lead guitarist) and we've been considering submitting our CD(s) to CDBaby.
I'm the tech-knowledgeable one in the group, and it's taking some time and effort to convince the other band members to take new avenues of distribution seriously. The first part of the resistance is the common one of general computer fear and ignorance that is familiar to us all on slashdot whenever we try to talk to a non-tech type person about anything to do with computers. The other is, once the idea of indie distributors/promoters like CDBaby is grasped, the next reaction is "I dunno if we should 'waste our time' with that, because it'll get shut down just like Napster..."they" (music/content industry) won't allow something like that to ruin their profits...are you *sure* it's even legal?".
It's sad and quite scary to me how widely the "if it's not from the labels, it's likely illegal or will be soon" meme has spread even among artists and musicians.
"Has it occured to anyone the bellco's can play just as stupid a card if VoIP is not tappable. They'll say VoIP is a haven for drug dealers and those plotting against America to communicate and will try to get all VoIP banned the same way recording industry stooges try to P2P banned."
They won't have to bother with any type of scare or FUD campaign.
The way things are going, with the push on for laws and regulation that increase dramatically the expense of VOIP while at the same time decreasing the advantages, VOIP could easily be regulated and legislated out of existance without banning it outright.
Just wondering if that might be a likely outcome of the 2 services merging.
I chatted occasionally on MSN chat in the Computers/Programming rooms, but dropped it after they went pay. I could afford it, just not enough value for me to spend cash for.
I recall Yahoo having some trouble with user-created chat room topics recently..someone bringing some of the more sensational ones to the attention of advertisers, which pressured Yahoo to drop user-created rooms.
I'm thinking that the MSN pay-chat model might be adopted by Yahoo either on their own, or with pressure from MSN in order to both be consistent between the 2, and to also cover their butts legally and with advertisers.
"The reason why Apple is unwilling to work with artist directly is due to the court case that they are having with the Apple Record company, think Beetles, and that Apple is not suppose to become a record company. Signing up artist directly would make them a record company."
I'm aware of the court case, and the reason for the reluctance of Apple to sign artists directly..I didn't go into this part in detail to try to keep my post from rambling. Perhaps I should have.
"As far as I know, Apple has put down contract on the table for any record lable that wants to come on board, as long as its $.99 a song. That is why I say greed is probably the reason why. That even though indy artist don't mind, the labels they are on do. I know the labels are going to try and get their artist as much money too. So its some what a catch 22 for the label, get the artist on iTunes but don't get them much money, or hold out for more money, but don't get on iTunes. I would go with the first and hope full more money later, but who knows."
This is a good point for those artists that are signed with a small label, although I think the motivation for the small label itself to gain more exposure, as do the indie artists, would tend to mitigate any tendency to price themselves and the artists out.
"You are an artist, but have you asked your manager or exec at your lable why they haven't tried to get you on iTunes if you are not already."
The band I am in has contracted our own recording and production services independently, and are not contracted to any label.
We sell most of our CDs at our shows. We are currently looking at our options with regards to CDBaby and Taxi, as well as the small label of the producer we contracted the recording/production of our CD with (Dale Kelly, Universal Distribution...produces a series of CDs, a sampler of small up-and-coming blues artists called "Along the Blues Highway" http://www.jr.com/JRProductPage.process?Product=39 10574), but we're in no hurry. We are an original blues band, and are all over 45 years old with decades of experience each playing bars, clubs, bluesfests, etc. We do well on bookings and CD sales at shows.
We write and play for the music, and are not hugely ambitious. We're happy having control, and are approaching any promotional oportunities carefully, with the goal of minimum loss of that control.
If we find or create the right situation that results in our material being available through iTunes on our terms, great! That, however, is not an end in itself, and frankly we won't lose any sleep if we never appear on iTunes or get a deal with a label, large or small.
Great points, and well thought out. Thanks for the reply, so nice to have a *discussion* rather than a/. flame war!:D
"The reason why independant artist are not on the iTunes music store, is probably for this same reason. The musician wants to charge $1.49 a song while Apple wants it to be $.99 like all the others. Again, its greed."
I wonder if the sparseness of indie offerings might be due more to pressure from the labels.
I'm an indie artist, I network with many indie artists, online and IRL, and the tendency of the ones I've talked with on the subject is to accept a lower price because they know they're relatively unknown.
Along with the desire to "get heard" among a larger audience, I can't see the "greed" factor among indie artists such as you postulate being a reason for iTunes to keep the indie catalog as small as it is.
There is the issue of Apples' reluctance to deal with individual artists or indie labels, and CDBaby only has so many artists of a calibre they'd feel confident about offering to Apple.
There are other indie artist services such as Taxi http://www.taxi.com/ that might be a possible additional source of indie content, and possibly others, but Apple may be under pressure from the major labels to at least limit indie offerings, if not exclude them entirely.
It may be only thanks to Apples' negotiations that indies get carried at all. Of course, this is only my speculation, but it seems a likely scenario, having had some experience with a couple big label A&R reps and experienced the mindset of the guys who are supposed to be the big labels' "happy face" to recruit new meat for the grind...ummm...unique and valuable artists that they care about deeply.
Isn't one of the main reasons to have a "LiveCD" speed and convenience? With the hours-long compile time to simply get to an optimised ramdisk image, I'm just not sure who really *needs* this.
Don't misunderstand, I've run Gentoo and it has many geat attributes. As far as improving the install, that's great, and makes sense.
I just have trouble imagining many scenarios where a LiveCD that takes hours to compile is the "right tool".
It just seems to me that I'd want to invest the compile-time into something that won't be gone when I pull the CD and reboot.
Perhaps it's a case of being able to run a ramdisk image being convenient to do before or while the compiled OS is installed. In this case, I'd question the decision to call this a LiveCD first and foremost, as opposed to an install CD with the added feature of being able to run the compiled OS in a ramdisk.
However, seeing as the LiveCD is actually an.iso all its' own, I'm just confused as to what the reasoning was to invest the manpower in this. Not being critical here, I'm just curious.
"Personally, FBSD is one of those things I really wanted to like, but time and time again left dissapointed. That said, it's a *nix, so it certainly has it's good qualities;-)"
Have you tried PC-BSD? http://www.pcbsd.org/ I'm not claiming it's any competition for windows, but it's fast approaching the friendliness of a lot of linux distros.
I was quite impressed. They seem to have made some major progress, and seem to be working and releasing at a brisk pace, and most things either "just work" or are configurable with a GUI.
Again, I'm not saying it's as polished as windows or even some of the more user-friendly linux distros, but it's worth a look. For many it may be a friendly enough desktop to consider as a combo desktop/personal server, with the *BSD server goodness mitigating some of the friendliness issues remaining.
I'm a linux-user with medium skills with linux, and had tried FreeBSD a couple times, but the initial learning curve was so steep to get a working and configured desktop that I couldn't afford the time investment.
I'm now happily multi-booting 2 linux distros, windows, and PC-BSD, and have enough of a leg-up to be able to explore and learn at an acceptable (to me) rate. My g/f even had me replace her linux/KDE desktop with PC-BSD, which shocked me...she's not a geek or even especially interested in OSs. She told me she just liked PC-BSD because it "felt more stable".
I hope the folks at PC-BSD keep up the great work they're doing in making FreeBSD easier for people not already well-versed in *BSD/UNIX to get a start with.
Hopefully that will help them through that critical initial period until they've gained enough experience, so they'll stick with it.
As to TCPA/TC, my past/. posts on that subject have made my feelings quite clear. It's *my* computer, I'll say what happens, thankyou.
If it ceases to be possible for this state of affairs to continue, then I have other interests and places to spend my money. Maybe some more vintage guitars/amps and EFF donations.:) Their loss.
"It's been said a thousand times, but TCPA will NEVER stop booting whatever operating system and programs you want. Anything else would be a stupid business decision (for customized Windows installs too, not just Linux) and would kill the business PC, server and embedded market for anything touching TCPA, even if typical consumers don't care. This fact was well documented by IBM and even Linus Torvalds himself said TCPA is not bad as long as you (the user) remain in control of turning it off.
Besides, there is no practical way to sign mainstream Linux kernels unless the owner of the machine signs the kernel themselves (which is one legitimate use of TCPA, e.g. to prevent physical tampering with company or public machines)."
Of course, at this point at least, from what I've been able to learn, TCPA/TC functionality is optional, and you can boot into an untrusted OS or use untrusted software, but in untrusted mode. When a majority of users are using TCPA/TC-enabled computers and ISPs start to refuse to connect a non-trusted computer, and e-commerce websites refuse to work with non-trusted computers, that's when the problems arise. I'm sure the likes of IBM or Novell or even Red Hat can afford the certification/licensing costs to get their OSes and applications signed, but other non-corp.-backed distributions and software application creators will be unable to afford the costs.
This will mean that you're absolutely free to run anything you like, you just won't be able to connect to the internet or run any TCPA/TC-enabled and licensed software on a non-trusted platform in trusted mode, or access any data that was created by those apps or OSes while in trusted mode with any non-trusted app or OS.
What these people consider "mainstream" and what you or I consider mainstream are 2 different things. "Mainstream" to them are OSes and apps that are corporate-backed, with money to get their software authorized and someone to sue.
Anything else they consider a threat, and is precisely why IMHO TCPA/TC was created.
"there already is too much of a demand for Linux, either UEFI will accept Linux or some motherboard MFGer's will continue to produce mainboards with the old PC BIOS, i don't like the sound of UEFI and will probably go out of my way just to not purchase boards with it..."
Actually, I think the plan is to "authorize" only "TCPA-compliant" versions of linux, which will make the big corporate linux vendors the only linux OS providers whose distributions will run in "Trusted" mode, as they'll be the only ones to be able to afford TCPA licensing. This will satisfy the corporate linux users, while simultaneously locking out the non-corporate backed/owned linux distributions and software providers.
This makes me wonder also if this might also be a way to break GPL, by having a "Trusted"/protected linux, the DMCA might trump GPL and not allow the modified sources to be distributed, setting some kind of precedent.
In any case, it'll be a cold day in hell when I use any TCPA-like hardware or software on my computer..I'll limp along as long as I can, but if/when the time comes that it just becomes impossible (or flat-out illegal) to use non-TC-enabled computers in any meaningful way, I'll stop using/buying personal computers and devote more time and the money I used to spend on computing to playing guitar and writing music.
Recalling some of my old R.F. tech and ham experience, the dB is being used as a ratio, and when talking dBs of increase or decrease, when you increase a signal by 3dB, you have doubled it, and if you decrease a signal by 3dB, you've halved it. In other words, 100mw increased by 3dB is 200mw, 100mw decreased by 3dB is 50mw.
So, using that, 80mw +12dB = 320mw
One interesting thing I recall was an explanation that went something like: A typical radio receivers' signal-strength meter (S-meter) is roughly calibrated so that 1 S-unit is approximately equal to 3dB, and for a remote transmitter to increase it's received signal strength by 1 S-unit, the transmitter would have to effectively double in power. Conversely, reducing the effective transmitter power by half will result in only 1 S-unit decrease in received strength.
Of course, it's around 5:30 am, I could be too tired also.;)
Strat
Re:A GUI version of FreeBSD with easy installer
on
Why FreeBSD
·
· Score: 1
"I'm a visual person and handling my FreeBSD 5.3 install with text-only programs was not good enough, not enough feedback and not enough usability. I didn't have a good mental overview of my system with shell-only programs and everytime I wanted to do anything I had to consult the (excellent) FreeBSD manual. With Windows I could figure things out just by clicking around the GUI. GUIs can be seen as having built-in manuals in my opinion.
One thing that worries me is that I've been told that X is a big security vulnerability. Is KDE an X system? Is it open to attacks by default? It'd be great if someone can help answer. Thanks for helping out a newcomer."
Sorry for the late reply, was at rehearsal for a gig my blues band has coming up:-P.
I agree to a limited extent on the "GUI-as-manual", in the sense that useful clues can be gotten from a GUI, such as a button with an option one might not have been aware of as a flag for that particular command. However, as someone already pointed out, always check the manual to confirm a particular widgets' function on anything you're not familiar with, as button/widget labels can be misleading.
I'm not aware of any particular unpatched security vulnerabilities regarding X in PC-BSD/FreeBSD 5.4 RELEASE.
However, even if somewhat true, your risks would be minimal if using PC-BSD as a server. X would only be running for brief periods while you did the GUI-sysadmin thing. Seeing as X can be left off while functioning in its' server role, and started when needed, opportunities for mischief would be few and brief.
Hope that helps:)
Strat
Re:Uh Oh.
on
Why FreeBSD
·
· Score: 2, Informative
With the comments about poor usability and friendliness as compared against windows and linux sure to abound, I have to put in my $0.02.
FreeBSD has taken some huge steps toward a more user/newbie friendly experience in recent times. I'm posting this from my significant others' PC, which is running PC-BSD, based on 5.4 RELEASE.
The funny thing is, she prefered PC-BSD over any of the linux flavors I've had her try (including Mandriva/Mandrake, Debian, Mepis, Knoppix, etc.) and even over windows.
She tells me she likes PC-BSD because it "feels" more stable and predictable to her, and after doing a windows install last nite (for games and the occasional MSOffice/OO.org compatibility/formatting hiccups), I gotta say the PC-BSD install (the installer is a nice graphical installer, with nearly everything being fine if one just accepts the defaults) is much faster with far less pickiness, and of course, only one reboot..at the end, into the new fully-installed and functioning system.
Windows failed to detect or set up the very vanilla Linksys NIC, and required significant (for a newbie) setup after the install to get a working internet connection. PC-BSD "just worked" in regards to the NIC, and most everything else, including sound.
PC-BSD also has a package system for software management, using ".pbi" pre-built packages as well as the FreeBSD "ports" system. The ".pbi" packages available are somewhat limited still, but does include some standouts, such as the java installer, which automates the java installation, which has been an issue for me with the various FreeBSD desktops I've tried.
OO.org 2.0 beta is also included, running in KDE 3.4.0. Guess I've rambled enough, just wanted to get the word out on PC-BSD for the FreeBSD-squeamish. You can check it out for yourself at http://www.pcbsd.org/.
"Of course we're paying for it; we are the government. When the new revenue stream is created for the government, that's money that is then going back into our hands--in lower taxes, or more public services. Who do you want to pay to free up the analog frequencies?"
Actually, I don't see it ever resulting in lower taxes or more public services. All that will happen is what happens every time the government gets more money/resources...more pork-barrel spending and other incumbent-protection spending, along with more corporate-welfare largesse and a reduction of individual choices. Same as it ever was...
"This part always amazes me. The artist has chosen to use the business services of a record label. The label deals with a jillion details for the artist - from venue contracting, accounting, marketing, distribution and fronting cash for studio time and more. There is overhead involved, and they often lose a ton of money on some artists - most, in fact."
There's where you're wrong. Major recording labels NEVER lose money. Many artists end up in crippling debt if their "works for hire" for the labels don't, according to the labels' extremely shady book keeping, recoup the labels' costs plus interest. Here's a link to an excellent piece on the ugly realities of the music industry that I've posted before in similar threads.
I'm an artist myself, and have been approached with offers from major label reps and declined to be involved, even though I'm *very* poor. I distribute some work through online indie distributors, but currently, even the more successful indie artists make relatively little. I don't fault most artists that sign with a label, because the labels have strived for decades now to be the "only game in town", and music is an expensive game. Looked at the prices of quality guitars and amps recently? P.A. systems? Lighting?
I agree that the artists did enter into the labels' contract(s) voluntarily, but until independent distribution matures further, there's not much choice if you want to be distributed through mainstream brick-and-mortar resellers, and have any chance at all of recouping the investment the artists make in their music, including time, equipment, travel, etc.
Live performances are where I make *some* money, but with the popularity of karaoke and DJs, and increases in insurance costs for venues that employ live music, venues that will consider live music at all are becoming fewer and fewer, while the money those venues are willing/able to pay is shrinking.
I sell self-produced CDs at gigs, and give away more than I sell, in order to get heard. I also print a release on these CDs allowing (encouraging even) sharing/loaning/copying by individuals, as long as it's not simply taken and sold for profit.
Although home recording has progressed to an amazing degree the last 20 years, the cost of recording equipment of a quality sufficient to produce a truly professional-quality recording is still beyond most artists' means. The equipment in the mobile recording truck that came out to record me and my band cost in excess of $150,000, not counting the vehicle or generators, etc., and was limited, compared to a normal studios' equipment and capabilities. It cost $1500 for 2 hours' time on-site, which is barely enough time to get enough material recorded to make ~45 minutes of usable material. This doesn't include mixdowns and mastering, or any track overdubs. Just a raw recording.
I create and perform music out of love for music and playing. As a very good musician friend of mine is fond of saying, "players play". I can't write and play as much as I'd like. I need to eat, and pay rent and all that. Current copyright policies and the distribution models that they prop up prevent me from creating and distributing more works.
Just wanted to share a little real-world actual experience from an artists' perspective, since the thread took the turn towards artists.
"We have statuatory rape laws. We even have soliciting-sex-from-a-minor-laws. I don't understand why such laws are insufficient, and we have to start eliminating some people's fetish roleplaying."
That's an easy one. It's the fact that the chat service would have to pay someone to police the chatrooms, losing money, added to the fact that parents might have to actually parent, which could have a negative effect on the future profitability of increasingly-privately-run prisons. Plus the fact that lawyers want to make money from questionable lawsuits.
Let's not forget the politicians also, who need a feel-good cause to trumpet to distract and attract/retain voters and expand governmental power while not actually solving any problems, possibly even exascerbating them. Thus, insuring fresh opportunities for both themselves and lawyers to profit.
Victorianism? I don't think so. Follow the money and the plans of the power-hungry. Victorianism implies some firm moral standard, and we all know what kind of "moral standards" lawyers and politicians have...none.
"One gets used to the Gnome wm in Ubuntu, but I would like KDE. Sorry to see Debian going without KDE."
Debian is not going without KDE. I repeat, it is NOT going without KDE.
During install, you are asked which wm(s)/desktop(s) you want to install and have available to use.
There is a good selection of desktops (including KDE) that you may install during or any time after installation. You may choose which desktop to boot into at the login screen.
I have to agree with jayloden, the Mandrake/Mandriva installer makes dual-booting and resizing the windows partition a snap even for newbies. If you have a windows OS already installed, before the installation simply run scandisk then thoroughly defragment.
My first linux system was Debian 'Woody' a few years ago. Compared to that, the Mandrake/Mandriva installer was a whole new world. A few basic questions about the install and then just wait 20-30 minutes and change CDs when prompted while everything installs, then boot into your new system. No multiple-reboots during install, no CD keys or activation like windows.
" Great idea and all , but Id be amazed if you could power down windows in that time , never mind boot a live CD...(not entirely meant to be that serious a remark)"
I will note that LiveCDs do not boot as fast as an installed-to-hard-drive OS. That being said, the linux desktops (installed) that I've experienced typically boot a bit faster than 98SE, 2000, or XP that I've typically had set up to dual-boot.
A bit off-topic, but I was impressed with FreeSBIE 1.1, http://www.freesbie.org/ an installable (using the BSD Installer http://www.bsdinstaller.org/ ) FreeBSD-based LiveCD (version 1.2 due soon). I didn't take measurments, but it seemed to boot significantly faster than the average linux LiveCD, and the system after installation (after installing, you have a 5.3-STABLE FreeBSD system w/desktop, XFCE4 or fluxbox) booted much faster than either windows or linux.
One of the cool things with FreeSBIE is the inclusion of scripts to allow you to build your own custom FreeBSD LiveCD.iso images.
"How much money do they make from performances of music that was released in 1955 anyway? And does the record industry need so much extra money? Seems to be doing quite nicely as it is."
IMHO the moneys they make from performances aren't so much the point as it is the added control over the market.
By extending copyright, they maintain a larger database to use in comparing some independent artists' work against in hopes that a court might find it a derivative work. Given a large enough database, and an increasingly corporate-bought government and court system, this becomes more and more likely to happen to the independent/individual content creator/distributor.
They thereby increase the time/trouble/expense expended by an independent/individual and dissuade content creation/publication/distribution by individual/independent artits and writers.
This goes toward insuring they will be "the only game in town" for all practical purposes.
If the "IP industry" had its' way, there would be no "public domain" at all. Unfortunatley, the "boiling frog" method seems to be working quite well due to the induced dumbing-down and apathy of the public in general. By the time they're ready to pass the law(s) that take away the publics' last claims to their own culture and knowledge, few will know, and even fewer will care. I hope I'm proved wrong here, but it's not looking very likely.
Well, if Michael Jackson could find a way to patent the methods he used to seduce young boys, and copyright any materials he used while doing so, he might be safe from prosecution, or at least emulation, for the rest of his life and then some. (sorry, just trying to bring the thread back to IP law from a side-trip through neverland:-) )
Re:Current CPUs to maintain or increase in value
on
Intel Claims No DRM
·
· Score: 1
"One good thing, though, is that I haven't seen Cisco's name on the list of companies that support this TCPA."
Maybe not that particular implementation, and possibly that could even change, but make no mistake..Cisco is right out there competing with the same basic idea. At least that's how it looks from this article.
From that article, and a few others like it I was able to google, it seems likely it's down to simply a decision on whos' implementation Cisco will end up using..their own, or someone else's.
There goes that "one good thing", I'm afraid to say..sorry.:-(
I recently picked up an old PC from a friend that he obtained from an auction of property from a local small (around 35 employees) grocery store that closed.
Apparently, this was either the personnel managers' or store managers' PC, as there were employee and payroll records, including SSNs, bank account routing numbers, medical insurance info, drivers license numbers, names, addresses, phone numbers, etc. on the hard drive.
The only precaution taken, it seems, was to wipe the boot sector of the drive, which any linux/FreeBSD rescue or live CD can recover/rewrite in a few seconds. Luckily for them I'm honest, and used a hard drive overwrite utility to make the data relatively unrecoverable.
Makes one start thinking about all ones' previous jobs, and what kind of data storage disposal policies (if any) they might have had. Scary.
Slashdot Mirror
"So...they've got lobbying power. What's your point? Shouldn't businesses have the right to look after their interests (whether or not your agree with those interests)? I mean, if you can write your congressman, or have a group like the EFF or the ACLU trying to stop interests like the RIAA, why can't those groups do the same to protect what they view as their interests? I know that you never explicitly said it -- but you've implied that they shouldn't be able to do this. Is it because you think that they're wrong, or because they have more resources than you? IMO, yours is a defeatist attitude. Have you done anything to stop the RIAA's foray into legislature (like written your congress critters or donated to the EFF), or just accepted defeat and complain about it on slashdot?"
I think one of the major problems is how corporations are treated as a living citizen when it comes to the rights they enjoy, but escape many of the consequences that accrue to a living individual for bad/illegal behaviour.
A corporation does something bad/illegal, gets caught, fires the individual employee(s) involved and perhaps pays a fine, and goes on its' merry way, the corporation still intact. An individuals' life under similar circumstances would be over, as an individual can't figuratively send just one of his replaceable hands to jail for bribing a congressman.
This reduces the decisions on corporate behaviour to a simple one of if the behaviour will profit them enough to offset the loss if caught, and the likelyhood of being caught at all.
This, along with the huge financial differences, gives corporations a powers-of-magnitude advantage over individuals when it comes to the ability to exert influence and power.
People have learned from these tactics and organized to increase their effectiveness relative to corporate lobbyists and contributions, but laws like McCain-Feingold (despite what the lawmakers *claim* it's supposed to do) are attempting to limit groups of citizens' ability to pool their resources in order to play equally with the "big boys".
Hopefully, the advantages of peer communication among individuals via the internet will give individuals enough power to change this inequitable power balance back some before the corporations and the governments/politicians they own find a way to control this too.
Just my $0.02
Strat
"Seriously, you think that the US is going to have a moral change of heart when we are the same people who for years placed our national seaboarder miles out into the atlantic and contested anyone who got inside of it while at the same time following the 3 mile rule for every other country despite protests from those companys.
The US could give two shits sadly."
The U.S. stops and searches pretty much anyone it pleases in international waters, and not just within whatever limits it happens to set for its' own waters.
AFAIK, the only ships it hesitates to pull this on are ships of governments that have enough military/naval force to pose a realistic threat of significant reprisal, and/or significant enough economic/political might to cause the U.S. damage.
I guess that as far as freedom from U.S. boarding and search in international waters goes, you're as free as the number of carrier battle groups and submarines you can pony up when threatened makes you.
To be fair though, other countries also play the same game with the ships of countries with significantly less might than themselves.
The oceans have, to a greater or lesser extent, always been a no-mans' land where the rights a ship enjoys in open waters is directly related to how much power the country under which flag it happens to fly enjoys.
When you're on an unarmed freighter or fishing trawler and you have a destroyer demanding you heave-to for boarding and search with it's guns and missiles locked onto your vessel, international law is a moot point.
Especially if the only thing that happens if you're fired upon and sunk is a diplomatic letter of protest.
Strat
" I can't see how Apple can get away for long with charging $1 for muddy sounding 128Kbits lossy when something like MusicGiants [musicgiants.com] is charging only $1.29 for full quality, major label, lossless downloads [meehawl.com]. If the "premium" between the iTMS low quality and the "full" quality tracks is only 30 cents, then I am missing something. Either MusicGiants will be raising its prices soon, or Apple will be lowering its prices for 128Kbps or upping the quality.
My thinking on this is that if successful, it should prompt Apple to offer lossless downloads from the iTMS Service, if only because Apple likes to present a "high end" image, and having a competitor actively dissing iTMS [musicgiants.com] by lumping it in, quality-wise, with "pirated music from p2p networks" has got to hurt."
I'm wondering why more people don't take advantage of foreign distribution channels that aren't as tied into the RIAA cartel and sell music by the megabyte like allofmp3.com http://www.allofmp3.com/ .
As far as I can tell, there are no laws against buying from allofmp3, despite what the RIAA etc would like people to believe.
I hope the word spreads about such distribution outlets, as this directly impacts the RIAA/labels' bottom lines, and the less they get, the happier I'll be, and the less they'll have in their warchests to influence lawmaking as well as less market control to enslave artists and screw over customers.
Plus, the wide selection of file formats and bitrates that can be customer-specified seems particularly friendly to non-proprietary operating systems and software.
Strat
"Can artists put their own music on iTunes and skip the record labels altogether? It seems to me, if they could do that, then they wouldn't have to mess with 'Big Content'."
Yes, they can. There is CDBaby http://www.cdbaby.com/ which does submit indie artists to iTunes. They do filter for "quality" though.
They don't just turn artists down with no explanation. They do critiques which, from the ones I've read, are pretty fair. The critiques generally have to do with either poor quality of the recording/mixing itself, or skill at the art such as someone who does a recording, but just isn't a very good musician/singer. like sour chords/notes, poor song writing structurals, etc. I'm in a blues band (lead guitarist) and we've been considering submitting our CD(s) to CDBaby.
I'm the tech-knowledgeable one in the group, and it's taking some time and effort to convince the other band members to take new avenues of distribution seriously. The first part of the resistance is the common one of general computer fear and ignorance that is familiar to us all on slashdot whenever we try to talk to a non-tech type person about anything to do with computers. The other is, once the idea of indie distributors/promoters like CDBaby is grasped, the next reaction is "I dunno if we should 'waste our time' with that, because it'll get shut down just like Napster..."they" (music/content industry) won't allow something like that to ruin their profits...are you *sure* it's even legal?".
It's sad and quite scary to me how widely the "if it's not from the labels, it's likely illegal or will be soon" meme has spread even among artists and musicians.
Just my $0.02
Strat
"Has it occured to anyone the bellco's can play just as stupid a card if VoIP is not tappable. They'll say VoIP is a haven for drug dealers and those plotting against America to communicate and will try to get all VoIP banned the same way recording industry stooges try to P2P banned."
They won't have to bother with any type of scare or FUD campaign.
The way things are going, with the push on for laws and regulation that increase dramatically the expense of VOIP while at the same time decreasing the advantages, VOIP could easily be regulated and legislated out of existance without banning it outright.
Strat
Just wondering if that might be a likely outcome of the 2 services merging.
I chatted occasionally on MSN chat in the Computers/Programming rooms, but dropped it after they went pay. I could afford it, just not enough value for me to spend cash for.
I recall Yahoo having some trouble with user-created chat room topics recently..someone bringing some of the more sensational ones to the attention of advertisers, which pressured Yahoo to drop user-created rooms.
I'm thinking that the MSN pay-chat model might be adopted by Yahoo either on their own, or with pressure from MSN in order to both be consistent between the 2, and to also cover their butts legally and with advertisers.
Anyone see this as likely?
Strat
"The reason why Apple is unwilling to work with artist directly is due to the court case that they are having with the Apple Record company, think Beetles, and that Apple is not suppose to become a record company. Signing up artist directly would make them a record company."
9 10574), but we're in no hurry. We are an original blues band, and are all over 45 years old with decades of experience each playing bars, clubs, bluesfests, etc. We do well on bookings and CD sales at shows.
/. flame war! :D
I'm aware of the court case, and the reason for the reluctance of Apple to sign artists directly..I didn't go into this part in detail to try to keep my post from rambling. Perhaps I should have.
"As far as I know, Apple has put down contract on the table for any record lable that wants to come on board, as long as its $.99 a song. That is why I say greed is probably the reason why. That even though indy artist don't mind, the labels they are on do. I know the labels are going to try and get their artist as much money too. So its some what a catch 22 for the label, get the artist on iTunes but don't get them much money, or hold out for more money, but don't get on iTunes. I would go with the first and hope full more money later, but who knows."
This is a good point for those artists that are signed with a small label, although I think the motivation for the small label itself to gain more exposure, as do the indie artists, would tend to mitigate any tendency to price themselves and the artists out.
"You are an artist, but have you asked your manager or exec at your lable why they haven't tried to get you on iTunes if you are not already."
The band I am in has contracted our own recording and production services independently, and are not contracted to any label.
We sell most of our CDs at our shows. We are currently looking at our options with regards to CDBaby and Taxi, as well as the small label of the producer we contracted the recording/production of our CD with (Dale Kelly, Universal Distribution...produces a series of CDs, a sampler of small up-and-coming blues artists called "Along the Blues Highway" http://www.jr.com/JRProductPage.process?Product=3
We write and play for the music, and are not hugely ambitious. We're happy having control, and are approaching any promotional oportunities carefully, with the goal of minimum loss of that control.
If we find or create the right situation that results in our material being available through iTunes on our terms, great! That, however, is not an end in itself, and frankly we won't lose any sleep if we never appear on iTunes or get a deal with a label, large or small.
Great points, and well thought out. Thanks for the reply, so nice to have a *discussion* rather than a
Strat
"The reason why independant artist are not on the iTunes music store, is probably for this same reason. The musician wants to charge $1.49 a song while Apple wants it to be $.99 like all the others. Again, its greed."
I wonder if the sparseness of indie offerings might be due more to pressure from the labels.
I'm an indie artist, I network with many indie artists, online and IRL, and the tendency of the ones I've talked with on the subject is to accept a lower price because they know they're relatively unknown.
Along with the desire to "get heard" among a larger audience, I can't see the "greed" factor among indie artists such as you postulate being a reason for iTunes to keep the indie catalog as small as it is.
There is the issue of Apples' reluctance to deal with individual artists or indie labels, and CDBaby only has so many artists of a calibre they'd feel confident about offering to Apple.
There are other indie artist services such as Taxi http://www.taxi.com/ that might be a possible additional source of indie content, and possibly others, but Apple may be under pressure from the major labels to at least limit indie offerings, if not exclude them entirely.
It may be only thanks to Apples' negotiations that indies get carried at all. Of course, this is only my speculation, but it seems a likely scenario, having had some experience with a couple big label A&R reps and experienced the mindset of the guys who are supposed to be the big labels' "happy face" to recruit new meat for the grind...ummm...unique and valuable artists that they care about deeply.
Just my $0.02
Strat
Isn't one of the main reasons to have a "LiveCD" speed and convenience? With the hours-long compile time to simply get to an optimised ramdisk image, I'm just not sure who really *needs* this.
.iso all its' own, I'm just confused as to what the reasoning was to invest the manpower in this. Not being critical here, I'm just curious.
Don't misunderstand, I've run Gentoo and it has many geat attributes. As far as improving the install, that's great, and makes sense.
I just have trouble imagining many scenarios where a LiveCD that takes hours to compile is the "right tool".
It just seems to me that I'd want to invest the compile-time into something that won't be gone when I pull the CD and reboot.
Perhaps it's a case of being able to run a ramdisk image being convenient to do before or while the compiled OS is installed. In this case, I'd question the decision to call this a LiveCD first and foremost, as opposed to an install CD with the added feature of being able to run the compiled OS in a ramdisk.
However, seeing as the LiveCD is actually an
Just my $0.02
Strat
"Personally, FBSD is one of those things I really wanted to like, but time and time again left dissapointed. That said, it's a *nix, so it certainly has it's good qualities ;-)"
/. posts on that subject have made my feelings quite clear. It's *my* computer, I'll say what happens, thankyou.
:) Their loss.
Have you tried PC-BSD? http://www.pcbsd.org/
I'm not claiming it's any competition for windows, but it's fast approaching the friendliness of a lot of linux distros.
I was quite impressed. They seem to have made some major progress, and seem to be working and releasing at a brisk pace, and most things either "just work" or are configurable with a GUI.
Again, I'm not saying it's as polished as windows or even some of the more user-friendly linux distros, but it's worth a look. For many it may be a friendly enough desktop to consider as a combo desktop/personal server, with the *BSD server goodness mitigating some of the friendliness issues remaining.
I'm a linux-user with medium skills with linux, and had tried FreeBSD a couple times, but the initial learning curve was so steep to get a working and configured desktop that I couldn't afford the time investment.
I'm now happily multi-booting 2 linux distros, windows, and PC-BSD, and have enough of a leg-up to be able to explore and learn at an acceptable (to me) rate. My g/f even had me replace her linux/KDE desktop with PC-BSD, which shocked me...she's not a geek or even especially interested in OSs. She told me she just liked PC-BSD because it "felt more stable".
I hope the folks at PC-BSD keep up the great work they're doing in making FreeBSD easier for people not already well-versed in *BSD/UNIX to get a start with.
Hopefully that will help them through that critical initial period until they've gained enough experience, so they'll stick with it.
As to TCPA/TC, my past
If it ceases to be possible for this state of affairs to continue, then I have other interests and places to spend my money. Maybe some more vintage guitars/amps and EFF donations.
Just my $0.02
Strat
"It's been said a thousand times, but TCPA will NEVER stop booting whatever operating system and programs you want. Anything else would be a stupid business decision (for customized Windows installs too, not just Linux) and would kill the business PC, server and embedded market for anything touching TCPA, even if typical consumers don't care. This fact was well documented by IBM and even Linus Torvalds himself said TCPA is not bad as long as you (the user) remain in control of turning it off.
Besides, there is no practical way to sign mainstream Linux kernels unless the owner of the machine signs the kernel themselves (which is one legitimate use of TCPA, e.g. to prevent physical tampering with company or public machines)."
Of course, at this point at least, from what I've been able to learn, TCPA/TC functionality is optional, and you can boot into an untrusted OS or use untrusted software, but in untrusted mode. When a majority of users are using TCPA/TC-enabled computers and ISPs start to refuse to connect a non-trusted computer, and e-commerce websites refuse to work with non-trusted computers, that's when the problems arise. I'm sure the likes of IBM or Novell or even Red Hat can afford the certification/licensing costs to get their OSes and applications signed, but other non-corp.-backed distributions and software application creators will be unable to afford the costs.
This will mean that you're absolutely free to run anything you like, you just won't be able to connect to the internet or run any TCPA/TC-enabled and licensed software on a non-trusted platform in trusted mode, or access any data that was created by those apps or OSes while in trusted mode with any non-trusted app or OS.
What these people consider "mainstream" and what you or I consider mainstream are 2 different things. "Mainstream" to them are OSes and apps that are corporate-backed, with money to get their software authorized and someone to sue.
Anything else they consider a threat, and is precisely why IMHO TCPA/TC was created.
Strat
"there already is too much of a demand for Linux, either UEFI will accept Linux or some motherboard MFGer's will continue to produce mainboards with the old PC BIOS, i don't like the sound of UEFI and will probably go out of my way just to not purchase boards with it..."
Actually, I think the plan is to "authorize" only "TCPA-compliant" versions of linux, which will make the big corporate linux vendors the only linux OS providers whose distributions will run in "Trusted" mode, as they'll be the only ones to be able to afford TCPA licensing. This will satisfy the corporate linux users, while simultaneously locking out the non-corporate backed/owned linux distributions and software providers.
This makes me wonder also if this might also be a way to break GPL, by having a "Trusted"/protected linux, the DMCA might trump GPL and not allow the modified sources to be distributed, setting some kind of precedent.
In any case, it'll be a cold day in hell when I use any TCPA-like hardware or software on my computer..I'll limp along as long as I can, but if/when the time comes that it just becomes impossible (or flat-out illegal) to use non-TC-enabled computers in any meaningful way, I'll stop using/buying personal computers and devote more time and the money I used to spend on computing to playing guitar and writing music.
Just my $0.02
Strat
"80 mW + 12 dB = 80 mW x 15.8 = 1.27 W"
;)
Recalling some of my old R.F. tech and ham experience, the dB is being used as a ratio, and when talking dBs of increase or decrease, when you increase a signal by 3dB, you have doubled it, and if you decrease a signal by 3dB, you've halved it. In other words, 100mw increased by 3dB is 200mw, 100mw decreased by 3dB is 50mw.
So, using that, 80mw +12dB = 320mw
One interesting thing I recall was an explanation that went something like: A typical radio receivers' signal-strength meter (S-meter) is roughly calibrated so that 1 S-unit is approximately equal to 3dB, and for a remote transmitter to increase it's received signal strength by 1 S-unit, the transmitter would have to effectively double in power. Conversely, reducing the effective transmitter power by half will result in only 1 S-unit decrease in received strength.
Of course, it's around 5:30 am, I could be too tired also.
Strat
"I'm a visual person and handling my FreeBSD 5.3 install with text-only programs was not good enough, not enough feedback and not enough usability. I didn't have a good mental overview of my system with shell-only programs and everytime I wanted to do anything I had to consult the (excellent) FreeBSD manual. With Windows I could figure things out just by clicking around the GUI. GUIs can be seen as having built-in manuals in my opinion.
:-P.
:)
One thing that worries me is that I've been told that X is a big security vulnerability. Is KDE an X system? Is it open to attacks by default? It'd be great if someone can help answer. Thanks for helping out a newcomer."
Sorry for the late reply, was at rehearsal for a gig my blues band has coming up
I agree to a limited extent on the "GUI-as-manual", in the sense that useful clues can be gotten from a GUI, such as a button with an option one might not have been aware of as a flag for that particular command. However, as someone already pointed out, always check the manual to confirm a particular widgets' function on anything you're not familiar with, as button/widget labels can be misleading.
I'm not aware of any particular unpatched security vulnerabilities regarding X in PC-BSD/FreeBSD 5.4 RELEASE.
However, even if somewhat true, your risks would be minimal if using PC-BSD as a server. X would only be running for brief periods while you did the GUI-sysadmin thing. Seeing as X can be left off while functioning in its' server role, and started when needed, opportunities for mischief would be few and brief.
Hope that helps
Strat
With the comments about poor usability and friendliness as compared against windows and linux sure to abound, I have to put in my $0.02.
.
FreeBSD has taken some huge steps toward a more user/newbie friendly experience in recent times. I'm posting this from my significant others' PC, which is running PC-BSD, based on 5.4 RELEASE.
The funny thing is, she prefered PC-BSD over any of the linux flavors I've had her try (including Mandriva/Mandrake, Debian, Mepis, Knoppix, etc.) and even over windows.
She tells me she likes PC-BSD because it "feels" more stable and predictable to her, and after doing a windows install last nite (for games and the occasional MSOffice/OO.org compatibility/formatting hiccups), I gotta say the PC-BSD install (the installer is a nice graphical installer, with nearly everything being fine if one just accepts the defaults) is much faster with far less pickiness, and of course, only one reboot..at the end, into the new fully-installed and functioning system.
Windows failed to detect or set up the very vanilla Linksys NIC, and required significant (for a newbie) setup after the install to get a working internet connection. PC-BSD "just worked" in regards to the NIC, and most everything else, including sound.
PC-BSD also has a package system for software management, using ".pbi" pre-built packages as well as the FreeBSD "ports" system. The ".pbi" packages available are somewhat limited still, but does include some standouts, such as the java installer, which automates the java installation, which has been an issue for me with the various FreeBSD desktops I've tried.
OO.org 2.0 beta is also included, running in KDE 3.4.0. Guess I've rambled enough, just wanted to get the word out on PC-BSD for the FreeBSD-squeamish. You can check it out for yourself at http://www.pcbsd.org/
Strat
"Of course we're paying for it; we are the government. When the new revenue stream is created for the government, that's money that is then going back into our hands--in lower taxes, or more public services. Who do you want to pay to free up the analog frequencies?"
Actually, I don't see it ever resulting in lower taxes or more public services. All that will happen is what happens every time the government gets more money/resources...more pork-barrel spending and other incumbent-protection spending, along with more corporate-welfare largesse and a reduction of individual choices. Same as it ever was...
Strat
"This part always amazes me. The artist has chosen to use the business services of a record label. The label deals with a jillion details for the artist - from venue contracting, accounting, marketing, distribution and fronting cash for studio time and more. There is overhead involved, and they often lose a ton of money on some artists - most, in fact."
There's where you're wrong. Major recording labels NEVER lose money. Many artists end up in crippling debt if their "works for hire" for the labels don't, according to the labels' extremely shady book keeping, recoup the labels' costs plus interest. Here's a link to an excellent piece on the ugly realities of the music industry that I've posted before in similar threads.
http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
I'm an artist myself, and have been approached with offers from major label reps and declined to be involved, even though I'm *very* poor. I distribute some work through online indie distributors, but currently, even the more successful indie artists make relatively little. I don't fault most artists that sign with a label, because the labels have strived for decades now to be the "only game in town", and music is an expensive game. Looked at the prices of quality guitars and amps recently? P.A. systems? Lighting?
I agree that the artists did enter into the labels' contract(s) voluntarily, but until independent distribution matures further, there's not much choice if you want to be distributed through mainstream brick-and-mortar resellers, and have any chance at all of recouping the investment the artists make in their music, including time, equipment, travel, etc.
Live performances are where I make *some* money, but with the popularity of karaoke and DJs, and increases in insurance costs for venues that employ live music, venues that will consider live music at all are becoming fewer and fewer, while the money those venues are willing/able to pay is shrinking.
I sell self-produced CDs at gigs, and give away more than I sell, in order to get heard. I also print a release on these CDs allowing (encouraging even) sharing/loaning/copying by individuals, as long as it's not simply taken and sold for profit.
Although home recording has progressed to an amazing degree the last 20 years, the cost of recording equipment of a quality sufficient to produce a truly professional-quality recording is still beyond most artists' means. The equipment in the mobile recording truck that came out to record me and my band cost in excess of $150,000, not counting the vehicle or generators, etc., and was limited, compared to a normal studios' equipment and capabilities. It cost $1500 for 2 hours' time on-site, which is barely enough time to get enough material recorded to make ~45 minutes of usable material. This doesn't include mixdowns and mastering, or any track overdubs. Just a raw recording.
I create and perform music out of love for music and playing. As a very good musician friend of mine is fond of saying, "players play". I can't write and play as much as I'd like. I need to eat, and pay rent and all that. Current copyright policies and the distribution models that they prop up prevent me from creating and distributing more works.
Just wanted to share a little real-world actual experience from an artists' perspective, since the thread took the turn towards artists.
Cheers!
Strat
"We have statuatory rape laws. We even have soliciting-sex-from-a-minor-laws. I don't understand why such laws are insufficient, and we have to start eliminating some people's fetish roleplaying."
That's an easy one. It's the fact that the chat service would have to pay someone to police the chatrooms, losing money, added to the fact that parents might have to actually parent, which could have a negative effect on the future profitability of increasingly-privately-run prisons. Plus the fact that lawyers want to make money from questionable lawsuits.
Let's not forget the politicians also, who need a feel-good cause to trumpet to distract and attract/retain voters and expand governmental power while not actually solving any problems, possibly even exascerbating them. Thus, insuring fresh opportunities for both themselves and lawyers to profit.
Victorianism? I don't think so. Follow the money and the plans of the power-hungry. Victorianism implies some firm moral standard, and we all know what kind of "moral standards" lawyers and politicians have...none.
Just my opinion
Strat
"One gets used to the Gnome wm in Ubuntu, but I would like KDE. Sorry to see Debian going without KDE."
Debian is not going without KDE. I repeat, it is NOT going without KDE.
During install, you are asked which wm(s)/desktop(s) you want to install and have available to use.
There is a good selection of desktops (including KDE) that you may install during or any time after installation. You may choose which desktop to boot into at the login screen.
Cheers!
Strat
I have to agree with jayloden, the Mandrake/Mandriva installer makes dual-booting and resizing the windows partition a snap even for newbies. If you have a windows OS already installed, before the installation simply run scandisk then thoroughly defragment.
My first linux system was Debian 'Woody' a few years ago. Compared to that, the Mandrake/Mandriva installer was a whole new world. A few basic questions about the install and then just wait 20-30 minutes and change CDs when prompted while everything installs, then boot into your new system. No multiple-reboots during install, no CD keys or activation like windows.
Cheers!
Strat
" Great idea and all , but Id be amazed if you could power down windows in that time , never mind boot a live CD ...(not entirely meant to be that serious a remark)"
.iso images.
I will note that LiveCDs do not boot as fast as an installed-to-hard-drive OS. That being said, the linux desktops (installed) that I've experienced typically boot a bit faster than 98SE, 2000, or XP that I've typically had set up to dual-boot.
A bit off-topic, but I was impressed with FreeSBIE 1.1, http://www.freesbie.org/ an installable (using the BSD Installer http://www.bsdinstaller.org/ ) FreeBSD-based LiveCD (version 1.2 due soon). I didn't take measurments, but it seemed to boot significantly faster than the average linux LiveCD, and the system after installation (after installing, you have a 5.3-STABLE FreeBSD system w/desktop, XFCE4 or fluxbox) booted much faster than either windows or linux.
One of the cool things with FreeSBIE is the inclusion of scripts to allow you to build your own custom FreeBSD LiveCD
Just my $0.02
Strat
"How much money do they make from performances of music that was released in 1955 anyway? And does the record industry need so much extra money? Seems to be doing quite nicely as it is."
IMHO the moneys they make from performances aren't so much the point as it is the added control over the market.
By extending copyright, they maintain a larger database to use in comparing some independent artists' work against in hopes that a court might find it a derivative work. Given a large enough database, and an increasingly corporate-bought government and court system, this becomes more and more likely to happen to the independent/individual content creator/distributor.
They thereby increase the time/trouble/expense expended by an independent/individual and dissuade content creation/publication/distribution by individual/independent artits and writers.
This goes toward insuring they will be "the only game in town" for all practical purposes.
If the "IP industry" had its' way, there would be no "public domain" at all. Unfortunatley, the "boiling frog" method seems to be working quite well due to the induced dumbing-down and apathy of the public in general. By the time they're ready to pass the law(s) that take away the publics' last claims to their own culture and knowledge, few will know, and even fewer will care. I hope I'm proved wrong here, but it's not looking very likely.
Strat
Well, if Michael Jackson could find a way to patent the methods he used to seduce young boys, and copyright any materials he used while doing so, he might be safe from prosecution, or at least emulation, for the rest of his life and then some. :-) )
(sorry, just trying to bring the thread back to IP law from a side-trip through neverland
"One good thing, though, is that I haven't seen Cisco's name on the list of companies that support this TCPA."
:-(
Maybe not that particular implementation, and possibly that could even change, but make no mistake..Cisco is right out there competing with the same basic idea. At least that's how it looks from this article.
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-5370427.html
From that article, and a few others like it I was able to google, it seems likely it's down to simply a decision on whos' implementation Cisco will end up using..their own, or someone else's.
There goes that "one good thing", I'm afraid to say..sorry.
Strat
I recently picked up an old PC from a friend that he obtained from an auction of property from a local small (around 35 employees) grocery store that closed.
Apparently, this was either the personnel managers' or store managers' PC, as there were employee and payroll records, including SSNs, bank account routing numbers, medical insurance info, drivers license numbers, names, addresses, phone numbers, etc. on the hard drive.
The only precaution taken, it seems, was to wipe the boot sector of the drive, which any linux/FreeBSD rescue or live CD can recover/rewrite in a few seconds. Luckily for them I'm honest, and used a hard drive overwrite utility to make the data relatively unrecoverable.
Makes one start thinking about all ones' previous jobs, and what kind of data storage disposal policies (if any) they might have had. Scary.
Strat