Not to mention, how the hell do you organize 30 gigs worth of music on CDs?
You put your 'playlists' each on a CD, is one approach. Why would ANYBODY organize 30 gigs of music on a little thing they haphazardly carry around in a pocket is my question.
Please don't be an arrogant snob and imply I 'don't get the whole point of the ipod.'
'grok' means more than understand. You need to read a little RAH instead of just dabbling in the jargon file.
I am considering one of the cheapo MP3 players, there's one at Frys for under $40 now that uses regular compact flash. I have things like episodes of The Goon Show in MP3 that I'd like to be able to stick in my pocket and listen to on headphones at work.
Religion, on the other hand, claims to already know the truth. Such an idea is obviously preposterous.
Obviously you know very little about religion. Many people who devote themselves to a religion spend years studying it to know the truth. Monks devote a lifetime to such pursuits.
Stick to your science. But please stop pretending scientists aren't a priesthood to most people. You admitted as much when you acknowleged the 'poor science education' that most people receive.
First, the iPods are among the lowest-cost music players in the industry. The 30GB Dell Digital Jukebox (the cheapest, crappiest equivalent) is $260 + $20 tax + $10 shipping = $290, only $9 cheaper than the iPod (no tax, free shipping). It has a black and white screen, it looks ugly, it doesn't play video, and it's a lot larger and heavier than the iPod. That's without even taking into account the iPod's awesome user interface. For instance, it's the only player that I know of that starts playing music as soon as you hit the play button -- without waiting to boot up or fill its cache. It has the most pleasant, easy-to-use navigation system I've ever seen in a portable device. It has the best sound quality of any player in its class. The main reason for its success is great engineering.
The sentences following the first one in that paragraph were supposed to support your contention that it's 'one of the cheapest.' You weren't supposed to regurgitate a bunch of stuff about how wonderful it is. Did you get all that boilerplate with a cut and paste from an Apple marketing web page, or are you an Apple employed astroturfer??
There are many, MANY mp3 players that are MUCH lower cost then the iPod. For my money, I prefer a CD-based player. I can get 7 gigs of additional storage for my MP3 player right at Walgreens for a few bucks (ten blank CDR disks). I can't imagine the need to carry around an entire huge collection of programming material in a single package so the iPod just doesn't grok for me.
Well, I already have a video capture device capable of MPEG2 capture that doesn't care about macrovision, and one of the highest quality VHS decks, and a decent DVD player. And I use an 'analog cable' to make personal use copies of all sorts of prerecorded materials. Presumably this law will make it illegal for said video capture device to be sold anymore, since it ignores macrovision. And since a device that 'ignores macrovision' is as far away as a bit of driver code for whatever capture device, this law will just make it impossible to produce any open-source implementation of any driver code for any such capture device.
So I will have to kiss the Hollywood Moguls' ring in order to digitize any analog tapes I make with my (archaic) VHS-based camcorder. No, that isn't acceptable.
Indeed. These evile capitalists should cut each other into ribbons in court. Oh, and we'll pay the expense for the all-out lawyer feeding frenzy it will represent.
All religions tend to 'seek the truth.' It's kinda what most of them are about.
And a significant number of people in the population have such a nebulous understanding of the scientific method, that science might as well be a religion to them. In fact, that's all it is.
Hence, many believers in the principles of Evolution are nothing more than than members of another religion.
But anyway, I'm an imbecile, so it doesn't matter.
It's like teachin medicine and randomly changing the dosages int he texts.
Somehow I get the feeling that Medical Textbooks don't get into detailed dosage information.
'Adding stuff to the curriculum that undermines the basic principles' is a perfectly acceptable thing to do. Knowledge and learning comes out of a dialogue, and if nobody challanges scientific ideas they revert to religious dogmas. Remember, 'scientists' 100 years ago believed in many things that hadn't been fully explored, and which were plain untrue.
This whole mess boils down to dogmatists on both sides.
Why does it make so many people who cling to their notion of 'science' so angry to acknowledge religious belief has an intellectuatl base, too? Still angry that you had to go to Sunday School? Give it up.
This band of rather politically-oriented Scientists seems to be wanting to stomp right out into the mud and start flinging, too.
Regular folks with a balanced outlook will stand by and watch.
It's good that the more virulent dogmatic practitioners of science-as-a-religion are so clearly identifying themselves. It helps people with a classical Liberal outlook identify and isolate them.
4. GIVING EXCESSIVELY (tithes and/or offerings/contributions are required to be given to the group)
Where's the box I check off on my Income Tax form to eliminate funding to government-funded Science consortia?
11. Distinct Hierarchy with the Group (everyone has his or her place)
Do YOU have tenure? Where are you published??
8. Preoccupied with Bringing in New Members
It disturbs you that these kids in Kansas aren't getting the 'science education' you feel is necessary, eh?
Disclaimer: I am not a strong advocate of I.D. or anything. Just thought somebody should ping you on the fact that your kettle is pretty fuckin' black, too, dude.
If you want the majority of cars sold to be extremely fuel efficient the easiest way would be to artificially increase the costs of gas through taxation.
How is that an 'easy' way? It sounds awkward and disruptive to the economy, and further, it sounds like it involves giving government a scary new increase in power in the economy.
Slashdot Mirror
Not to mention, how the hell do you organize 30 gigs worth of music on CDs?
You put your 'playlists' each on a CD, is one approach. Why would ANYBODY organize 30 gigs of music on a little thing they haphazardly carry around in a pocket is my question.
Please don't be an arrogant snob and imply I 'don't get the whole point of the ipod.'
'grok' means more than understand. You need to read a little RAH instead of just dabbling in the jargon file.
I am considering one of the cheapo MP3 players, there's one at Frys for under $40 now that uses regular compact flash. I have things like episodes of The Goon Show in MP3 that I'd like to be able to stick in my pocket and listen to on headphones at work.
Agreed.
There wouldn't be zealots to tear down, etc. etc.
But that's a tautology.
An iPod does exactly, precisely what it should do and not a single thing more.
As defined by somebody other than me. Translation: no, it does not.
Religion, on the other hand, claims to already know the truth. Such an idea is obviously preposterous.
Obviously you know very little about religion. Many people who devote themselves to a religion spend years studying it to know the truth. Monks devote a lifetime to such pursuits.
Stick to your science. But please stop pretending scientists aren't a priesthood to most people. You admitted as much when you acknowleged the 'poor science education' that most people receive.
How do I run to the iTunes store, waving plastic frantically, with a LinkSys router?
First, the iPods are among the lowest-cost music players in the industry. The 30GB Dell Digital Jukebox (the cheapest, crappiest equivalent) is $260 + $20 tax + $10 shipping = $290, only $9 cheaper than the iPod (no tax, free shipping). It has a black and white screen, it looks ugly, it doesn't play video, and it's a lot larger and heavier than the iPod. That's without even taking into account the iPod's awesome user interface. For instance, it's the only player that I know of that starts playing music as soon as you hit the play button -- without waiting to boot up or fill its cache. It has the most pleasant, easy-to-use navigation system I've ever seen in a portable device. It has the best sound quality of any player in its class. The main reason for its success is great engineering.
The sentences following the first one in that paragraph were supposed to support your contention that it's 'one of the cheapest.' You weren't supposed to regurgitate a bunch of stuff about how wonderful it is. Did you get all that boilerplate with a cut and paste from an Apple marketing web page, or are you an Apple employed astroturfer??
There are many, MANY mp3 players that are MUCH lower cost then the iPod. For my money, I prefer a CD-based player. I can get 7 gigs of additional storage for my MP3 player right at Walgreens for a few bucks (ten blank CDR disks). I can't imagine the need to carry around an entire huge collection of programming material in a single package so the iPod just doesn't grok for me.
Supposedly nobody buys CDs to rip anymore.
I will admit, though, that the public library is less than a mile from my house.
Well, I already have a video capture device capable of MPEG2 capture that doesn't care about macrovision, and one of the highest quality VHS decks, and a decent DVD player. And I use an 'analog cable' to make personal use copies of all sorts of prerecorded materials. Presumably this law will make it illegal for said video capture device to be sold anymore, since it ignores macrovision. And since a device that 'ignores macrovision' is as far away as a bit of driver code for whatever capture device, this law will just make it impossible to produce any open-source implementation of any driver code for any such capture device.
So I will have to kiss the Hollywood Moguls' ring in order to digitize any analog tapes I make with my (archaic) VHS-based camcorder. No, that isn't acceptable.
Indeed. These evile capitalists should cut each other into ribbons in court. Oh, and we'll pay the expense for the all-out lawyer feeding frenzy it will represent.
Oh, wait . . .
My Sun Sparc IPC is even snappier. (it now has OpenBSD running on it as of tonight)
All religions tend to 'seek the truth.' It's kinda what most of them are about.
And a significant number of people in the population have such a nebulous understanding of the scientific method, that science might as well be a religion to them. In fact, that's all it is.
Hence, many believers in the principles of Evolution are nothing more than than members of another religion.
But anyway, I'm an imbecile, so it doesn't matter.
So, presumably in your case, OS X is a 'linux killer'??
Which continues a trend as Linux has primarily been a UNIX-killer.
192.168.0.1
Have fun.
Seriously, though. Your whole comment was spelled so pitifully in order to mock me for my typo on the word 'intellectual.'
Right?
You're clever to the point of being incoherent.
And no, I don't think I'm just being dumb.
As the copyright holder, they have a right to deny the use of a quotation of their material for as long as they hold a copyright.
Yikes. I guess we only make the 'Fair Use' arguement when we're downloading movies and tunes from our friend's server.
It's like teachin medicine and randomly changing the dosages int he texts.
Somehow I get the feeling that Medical Textbooks don't get into detailed dosage information.
'Adding stuff to the curriculum that undermines the basic principles' is a perfectly acceptable thing to do. Knowledge and learning comes out of a dialogue, and if nobody challanges scientific ideas they revert to religious dogmas. Remember, 'scientists' 100 years ago believed in many things that hadn't been fully explored, and which were plain untrue.
This whole mess boils down to dogmatists on both sides.
Why does it make so many people who cling to their notion of 'science' so angry to acknowledge religious belief has an intellectuatl base, too? Still angry that you had to go to Sunday School? Give it up.
This band of rather politically-oriented Scientists seems to be wanting to stomp right out into the mud and start flinging, too.
Regular folks with a balanced outlook will stand by and watch.
It's good that the more virulent dogmatic practitioners of science-as-a-religion are so clearly identifying themselves. It helps people with a classical Liberal outlook identify and isolate them.
4. GIVING EXCESSIVELY (tithes and/or offerings/contributions are required to be given to the group)
Where's the box I check off on my Income Tax form to eliminate funding to government-funded Science consortia?
11. Distinct Hierarchy with the Group (everyone has his or her place)
Do YOU have tenure? Where are you published??
8. Preoccupied with Bringing in New Members
It disturbs you that these kids in Kansas aren't getting the 'science education' you feel is necessary, eh?
Disclaimer:
I am not a strong advocate of I.D. or anything. Just thought somebody should ping you on the fact that your kettle is pretty fuckin' black, too, dude.
It's still frivolous, no matter how you mince words.
The more things the government taxes, the more the government encroaches into the economy.
The bigger a percentage of the ecomony the government taxes away, the less money there is in the economy that isn't encumbered by government control.
It's really not very complicated.
why disallow personal domains?
The question is, why clog up the domain name system with frivolous bullshit domain names.
It's the online equivalent of driving a big damn SUV. "Look at Me! I can DO this! Because!"
If you want the majority of cars sold to be extremely fuel efficient the easiest way would be to artificially increase the costs of gas through taxation.
How is that an 'easy' way? It sounds awkward and disruptive to the economy, and further, it sounds like it involves giving government a scary new increase in power in the economy.
Well, all bets are off if you're going to reinvent the world that satisfys your arguement.