Rosegarden and Muse are quite nice. And they may even be suitable alternatives for some users, but there is a long way to go before they are an alternative to Samplitude, Sequoia, or Nuendo. Never mind ProTools, which has a sucky user interface but does have some very important features for production.
>Of course, if you really want your CRT for the > "shelf space" then this isn't going to help you
Thanks for the reply. I have plenty of room on the desk, it's not a problem. I mentioned it because the place where I do need a small flat screen is on my (musical) keyboard rig. Space is at a premium there, and there's a limit to what I can clamp on my stands, etc.
It doesn't seem bad at all, and I have no problems with eyestrain. Font pitch is about what I'm used to with printed matter at reading distance, so it seems reasonable to me. I tend to run my terminals with a black background/cyan foreground.
>Samsung has just implemented a 0 dead pixels > policy, where if any of htem are dead they >replace it.
Now, that's good information. I may be inclined to buy one. The lack of a zero defect policy has caused me to not purchase an LCD monitor.
>And it's not necessairly quailty control. Pixels > will die over time.
The price isn't dropping, that I can detect. More importantly, the higher resolution monitors are still not available. As I type this on my 1920x1440 screen, I wonder why I would be motivated to pay a high premium for no more than 1280x1024 resolution. I do have one LCD panel that I like, it's only 1024x768, but it's mounted on my keyboard rack, and serves a specific purpose where low resolution is not a problem.
But everywhere else, virtual desktop real estate is much more important than physical desktop space, particularly with regard to the volume of the monitor. If anything, a flat panel is a net loss, because I lose the shelf that the display provides.
The other thing that stops me from buying an LCD is the ridiculous policy that "10 or less missing pixels" is not a problem. It would be a serious problem for me, to have missing pixels anywhere except *maybe* within a pixel or two of the edge. Just maybe. I'd still be upset. But anywhere else, and I'd be sick about it.
Because of that, I don't buy an LCD panel. Maybe if I were to buy one from a brick/mortar store where I could test it before buying.
For what these things cost, I think I should be able to ask the merchant to test it, and know before sending the damned thing that it has 8 missing pixels.
I have a big problem with that policy. It tells me the manufacturer doesn't understand the process well enough to have sufficient quality control.
>She deserved to be compensated for their negligence.
All she had asked for was assistance paying for her skin grafts. McDonald's people were such complete bastards about this, that the issue turned into a lawsuit. When it came out in the lawsuit that McDonald's *knew* there was a problem, and had tried to cover it up in this instance, the punitive damages were levied for the amount of a single day's coffee sales.
"Of which could include the McDonalds "oh crap- I didn't realize the coffee in the cup was hot when I was holding it in a paper cup"
No, you won't get away with that one.
McDonalds was in the wrong in that case, knew they were in the wrong, and the huge punitive damages that everybody thinks were so outrageous, were a punishment for their attempt to cover up the fact that they knew this was a safety problem.
"Only In America...
That's about all I have to say."
The US hardly has a global monopoly on fucked up legal systems. Maybe you live in Utopia, but I don't think so.
"Why is it that the courts actually consider cases like these that make absolutely no sense, while people who commit actual crimes have trouble getting court dates. Nice legal system."
Number one, the right to due process is guaranteed, and any prejudice you apply to determine that this case has no merit, will be an abridgement of the plaintiff's basic Constitutional rights.
Number two, there's no reason to believe that any court has actually considered this case. It has been filed. Anyone can file a suit on any damage. Now a judge might get this on his bench and read it and dismiss it immediately. That happens a whole lot. Very few lawsuits ever reach a courtroom.
Number three, when criminals have problems getting their cases heard, it's usually because they have taken advantage of processes that extend the hearing date, or because the prosecution has done so, or both. Are you talking about appeals of convictions? That's different.
Number four, why are you bundling the civil and criminal courts together into one "nice legal system?"
What "actual criminal" are you thinking of that could not get a hearing set?
Re:This could actually be good precendent...
on
Spammers Sue Spamee
·
· Score: 1
> So the next time [I have some grievance and believe > I have been damaged by some party] I can simply > [petition the court to hear my argument and my > request for compensation]
Essentially, yes. You can even petition for a temporary order to force the party to cease whatever action you believe abridges your rights. Your case might even be granted a hearing. In some states, you are *guaranteed* a hearing, on ANY matter.
Does it mean you're guaranteed to prevail? NO. Does it mean the defendant is going to be pushed into bankruptcy by merely following the process, attending the hearings, etc.? NO.
The problem in this case, is the defendant might be in the wrong.
The case isn't about SPAM. It's about the defendant's allegations that the CEO is "a criminal", and the fact that the defendant used this claim to cause damages to the plaintiff.
No doubt the plaintiff is a right bastard, but the defendant has made some horrible mistakes in the way he has gone about seeking justice, and may have committed a more serious offense against the plaintiff than the plaintiff has against the defendant.
Or, perhaps the case will be read by a judge and dismissed without a hearing.
"I think the point was the use of lawsuits for what is effectively extortion and partly bullying."
The plaintiff can enumerate damages, and it is not at all clear that his rights were not abridged by the defendant. I don't want to defend them because they are spammers, but I don't see any basis for denying their rights to process.
"reviewed for frivolousness before it costs the defendant a cent."
Has it cost the defendant anything? He may have chosen to consult an attorney, etc., but what has this case which has only been filed, actually cost the defendant?
If rights were abridged, e.g., if Stuler made false or exaggerated statements to cause the ISP to take action, and he's wrong, it might not even get mentioned that the company was a "spammer".
Two wrongs do not make a right, especially not when you're talking civil damages.
Stuhler apparently called the CEO "a criminal". If nothing else, he'd better have his bases covered for a slander claim!
I have relatives in Las Vegas, so I go there quite often, neither for business nor for vacation.
So one day I'm at the Budget Car Rental desk, and the lady at the counter starts asking me questions, like "who are you staying with?" She wanted adressess and phone numbers, etc.
Now, I was so taken aback by all of this, that I confronted her, trying to understand what the point of the questioning was -- because it seemed to me that my credit card, insurance, drivers license, and the fact that I have very frequently made this same rental, weren't sufficient to get me past the counter.
She simply asserted that "the information was necessary before she could rent me a car." "Very well", I said, "you will not be renting me a car today. Please cancel my reservation."
I then went to the National shuttle, showed my National Emerald Card to the shuttle driver, went to the lot, picked out a car, and the shuttle driver even put my bags in the trunk for me. I had to show my card and my license at the doghouse gate, and that was that. The rate turned out to be cheaper than Budget would have been anyway.
Needless to say, I don't bother with Budget anymore.
"Clearly there's an issue with the law when something like this is allowed to happen"
Yes, it's unfortunate when a person with a grievance seeks to have his case heard in a court of law.
Damn that legal system, giving everyone an impartial venue in which to air their grievances.
Why, the legal process ought to be open only to those people whose arguments you and I already agree with. Everybody else needs to look for some other remedy.
>What REALLY burned me though, was the stories of >overnight "downgrades" and the EULA with crap about >how "Company reserves the right to alter the user >experience at will..blah..blah..." I think everyone >remembers hearing something about TIVO caving into >industry demands to remove features that Hollywood >didn't like....
I never bought a Tivo, and you have just listed the reasons.
Maybe Tivo can live forever as the word that means TV Recorder, like Frigidaire meant refrigerator, and Xerox still means photocopier...
You don't think a TI-89 can do statistics? Or are you referring to some built-in program that happens to do a chi-square based on US population metrics or something?
There is someone out there who seems to really want my domain, really bad, but evidently not badly enough to warm me up by, say, buying me a beachfront house in Kaui and a nice Gulfstream as an ante to open negotiations:-)
Now, I would never, ever, do anything stupid like forget to renew the registration (and I believe that anyone this careless *SHOULD* lose his registration.)
But aside from keeping it renewed, what should I be doing to protect my domain name?
I get calls once in a while, and I make it very clear to the callers that I am not interested in surrendering my domain to anyone, and that I do not even want to hear their offer (because I *know* it's not going to start with the house in Kaui and the Gulfstream, and that's not my price, that's the incentive to get me interested in talking about negotiating. I want my lawyers to be comfortable while we begin the negotiation process.)
I usually piss off the solicitors pretty bad by basically telling them they don't have anything to offer me to get my interest, and that since they've insulted me by calling without being prepared to meet my terms, then they are harassing me. They never get it.
> Hmm i can add a printer to my kde in a minute or > two.
Right. I read that, and in order to give you the benefit of the doubt, I tried, yet again, to setup my printer.
I'm pretty experienced, and I'm pretty smart. So for the life of me, I cannot setup the HP Photosmart-1310 that's shared via SMB from a Windows XP host on my TCP/IP, DNS-enabled network, from my Debian (Sid) Linux box with KDE, cups, or anything else for that matter.
From a Windows host, it's easy as can be -- browse to the printer, set as default, there's even a simple way to setup ink saturation, paper size, etc.
From KDE, I can go through the motions of setting up the printer (which does appear via smbtree, etc.), but it won't work. Stuck. Brick wall. Easiest thing in the world to do in Windows, completely lost cause with Linux.
"Maybe I'm naive, but why should I care about preventing people from accessing my home wlan?"
Some people experience significant abuse, ranging from spent bandwidth to host exploits. There is also the risk of you being implicated as an accessory to a crime if someone is using your network to distribute k*dd*e p*rn or operate a t*rr*r*st operation.
It also may be a violation of your service agreement with your ISP to allow others to connect.
Or maybe you just want to be in control of who connects to your system. Plenty of people setup their wlan so that the SSID is the phone number to call, or else proxy a web page to be a signup system, like hotels and coffee shops do.
There is a lot to be said for wide-open systems, but they can be targets for abuse.
There can be issues related to jurisdiction and venue, and changes in process that can come about because of the way an address is styled. It's not nearly as important as the people who advocate such things (tax protestors, mostly), want you to believe. Probably the most significant consequence would be, say, to inadvertently waive your right to have your case heard in a county court because you filled out a document incorrectly and caused a procedure that takes your case to a State jurisiction.
But you aren't going to get out of paying taxes, legal marijuana possession, or driving without a license, based on whether you spell your name in all capital letters or abbreviate the name of your state on a form. (Both are claims that tax protestors, etc., have asserted from time to time.)
"if requiring a graphics accelerator card is an unchangeable part of the Operating System, the system is obviously badly designed."
No kidding. My primary application is to operate as a headless audio processing system. Any component or resource that is not contributing to that application is a waste, and should be removed or disabled.
"If the info being transfered is copyrighted then it is not legal for the 'client' to ask for and accept this info nor it is it legal for the 'server' to respond to these requests."
Even that statement is not anywhere nearly true enough to be reasonable. There is possibly as much material that is copyrighted, but permitted to be distributed, as not.
This means the problem is even bigger than it appears. On the other hand, nobody honestly believed it was permitted to distribute the items in the story, in Hong Kong. There are two ingredients, though: 1. The owner of the distribution rights to Miss Congeniality chooses to 2. restrict those rights.
Merely being copyrighted alone does not make it illegal to transfer a file! If that were the case, how would you get GCC or Mozilla? More to the point, how do you make the same law that protects GCC in the way the FSF wants it protected, also protect Miss Congeniality in the way Warner Bros wants it protected?
Simply saying "this material is copyrighted, and therefore is a no-no" actually serves to *abridge* the rights of some people creating content! If I write music, and I want it distributed, does that mean I have to give up my copyright? NO! But a blanket argument like yours, which is a common misconception, does serve to reduce my own rights, and increases the power of the large media corporations by doing so.
Re:A joke from the past
on
Newsy Numbers
·
· Score: 1
> "The Soviet athlete took the second place, while > the American only got the penultimate one"
That must have lost something in the translation from Bulgarian (or Russian?)
Slashdot Mirror
> What about Rosegarden?
Rosegarden and Muse are quite nice. And they may even be suitable alternatives for some users, but there is a long way to go before they are an alternative to Samplitude, Sequoia, or Nuendo. Never mind ProTools, which has a sucky user interface but does have some very important features for production.
>Of course, if you really want your CRT for the
> "shelf space" then this isn't going to help you
Thanks for the reply. I have plenty of room on the desk, it's not a problem. I mentioned it because the place where I do need a small flat screen is on my (musical) keyboard rig. Space is at a premium there, and there's a limit to what I can clamp on my stands, etc.
>Congrats on running at such high resolution.
It doesn't seem bad at all, and I have no problems with eyestrain. Font pitch is about what I'm used to with printed matter at reading distance, so it seems reasonable to me. I tend to run my terminals with a black background/cyan foreground.
>Samsung has just implemented a 0 dead pixels
> policy, where if any of htem are dead they
>replace it.
Now, that's good information. I may be inclined to buy one. The lack of a zero defect policy has caused me to not purchase an LCD monitor.
>And it's not necessairly quailty control. Pixels
> will die over time.
You don't see that as a contradictory statement?
The price isn't dropping, that I can detect.
More importantly, the higher resolution monitors are still not available. As I type this on my 1920x1440 screen, I wonder why I would be motivated to pay a high premium for no more than 1280x1024 resolution. I do have one LCD panel that I like, it's only 1024x768, but it's mounted on my keyboard rack, and serves a specific purpose where low resolution is not a problem.
But everywhere else, virtual desktop real estate is much more important than physical desktop space, particularly with regard to the volume of the monitor. If anything, a flat panel is a net loss, because I lose the shelf that the display provides.
The other thing that stops me from buying an LCD is the ridiculous policy that "10 or less missing pixels" is not a problem. It would be a serious problem for me, to have missing pixels anywhere except *maybe* within a pixel or two of the edge.
Just maybe. I'd still be upset. But anywhere else, and I'd be sick about it.
Because of that, I don't buy an LCD panel. Maybe if I were to buy one from a brick/mortar store where I could test it before buying.
For what these things cost, I think I should be able to ask the merchant to test it, and know before sending the damned thing that it has 8 missing pixels.
I have a big problem with that policy. It tells me the manufacturer doesn't understand the process well enough to have sufficient quality control.
>She deserved to be compensated for their negligence.
All she had asked for was assistance paying for her skin grafts. McDonald's people were such complete bastards about this, that the issue turned into a lawsuit. When it came out in the lawsuit that McDonald's *knew* there was a problem, and had tried to cover it up in this instance, the punitive damages were levied for the amount of a single day's coffee sales.
"Of which could include the McDonalds "oh crap- I didn't realize the coffee in the cup was hot when I was holding it in a paper cup"
No, you won't get away with that one.
McDonalds was in the wrong in that case, knew they were in the wrong, and the huge punitive damages that everybody thinks were so outrageous, were a punishment for their attempt to cover up the fact that they knew this was a safety problem.
"Only In America...
That's about all I have to say."
The US hardly has a global monopoly on fucked up legal systems. Maybe you live in Utopia, but I don't think so.
"Why is it that the courts actually consider cases like these that make absolutely no sense, while people who commit actual crimes have trouble getting court dates. Nice legal system."
Number one, the right to due process is guaranteed, and any prejudice you apply to determine that this case has no merit, will be an abridgement of the plaintiff's basic Constitutional rights.
Number two, there's no reason to believe that any court has actually considered this case. It has been filed. Anyone can file a suit on any damage. Now a judge might get this on his bench and read it and dismiss it immediately. That happens a whole lot. Very few lawsuits ever reach a courtroom.
Number three, when criminals have problems getting their cases heard, it's usually because they have taken advantage of processes that extend the hearing date, or because the prosecution has done so, or both. Are you talking about appeals of convictions? That's different.
Number four, why are you bundling the civil and criminal courts together into one "nice legal system?"
What "actual criminal" are you thinking of that could not get a hearing set?
> If no one uses Email anymore,
But how will the old people communicate?
> So the next time [I have some grievance and believe
> I have been damaged by some party] I can simply
> [petition the court to hear my argument and my
> request for compensation]
Essentially, yes. You can even petition for a temporary order to force the party to cease whatever action you believe abridges your rights. Your case might even be granted a hearing. In some states, you are *guaranteed* a hearing, on ANY matter.
Does it mean you're guaranteed to prevail? NO. Does it mean the defendant is going to be pushed into bankruptcy by merely following the process, attending the hearings, etc.? NO.
The problem in this case, is the defendant might be in the wrong.
The case isn't about SPAM. It's about the defendant's allegations that the CEO is "a criminal", and the fact that the defendant used this claim to cause damages to the plaintiff.
No doubt the plaintiff is a right bastard, but the defendant has made some horrible mistakes in the way he has gone about seeking justice, and may have committed a more serious offense against the plaintiff than the plaintiff has against the defendant.
Or, perhaps the case will be read by a judge and dismissed without a hearing.
"I think the point was the use of lawsuits for what is effectively extortion and partly bullying."
The plaintiff can enumerate damages, and it is not at all clear that his rights were not abridged by the defendant. I don't want to defend them because they are spammers, but I don't see any basis for denying their rights to process.
"reviewed for frivolousness before it costs the defendant a cent."
Has it cost the defendant anything? He may have chosen to consult an attorney, etc., but what has this case which has only been filed, actually cost the defendant?
If rights were abridged, e.g., if Stuler made false or exaggerated statements to cause the ISP to take action, and he's wrong, it might not even get mentioned that the company was a "spammer".
Two wrongs do not make a right, especially not when you're talking civil damages.
Stuhler apparently called the CEO "a criminal".
If nothing else, he'd better have his bases covered for a slander claim!
I have relatives in Las Vegas, so I go there quite often, neither for business nor for vacation.
So one day I'm at the Budget Car Rental desk, and the lady at the counter starts asking me questions, like "who are you staying with?" She wanted adressess and phone numbers, etc.
Now, I was so taken aback by all of this, that I confronted her, trying to understand what the point of the questioning was -- because it seemed to me that my credit card, insurance, drivers license, and the fact that I have very frequently made this same rental, weren't sufficient to get me past the counter.
She simply asserted that "the information was necessary before she could rent me a car." "Very well", I said, "you will not be renting me a car today. Please cancel my reservation."
I then went to the National shuttle, showed my National Emerald Card to the shuttle driver, went to the lot, picked out a car, and the shuttle driver even put my bags in the trunk for me. I had to show my card and my license at the doghouse gate, and that was that. The rate turned out to be cheaper than Budget would have been anyway.
Needless to say, I don't bother with Budget anymore.
"Clearly there's an issue with the law when something like this is allowed to happen"
Yes, it's unfortunate when a person with a grievance seeks to have his case heard in a court of law.
Damn that legal system, giving everyone an impartial venue in which to air their grievances.
Why, the legal process ought to be open only to those people whose arguments you and I already agree with. Everybody else needs to look for some other remedy.
>What REALLY burned me though, was the stories of
>overnight "downgrades" and the EULA with crap about
>how "Company reserves the right to alter the user
>experience at will..blah..blah..." I think everyone
>remembers hearing something about TIVO caving into
>industry demands to remove features that Hollywood
>didn't like....
I never bought a Tivo, and you have just listed the reasons.
Maybe Tivo can live forever as the word that means TV Recorder, like Frigidaire meant refrigerator, and Xerox still means photocopier...
>Cool. I wonder how they portray four real
>dimensions.
You project 4-space to 3-space, and technology can help with that. Then you project 3-space to a plane, and technology takes over.
You don't think a TI-89 can do statistics? Or are you referring to some built-in program that happens to do a chi-square based on US population metrics or something?
There is someone out there who seems to really want my domain, really bad, but evidently not badly enough :-)
to warm me up by, say, buying me a beachfront house in Kaui and a nice Gulfstream as an ante to open negotiations
Now, I would never, ever, do anything stupid like forget to renew the registration (and I believe that anyone this careless *SHOULD* lose his registration.)
But aside from keeping it renewed, what should I be doing to protect my domain name?
I get calls once in a while, and I make it very clear to the callers that I am not interested in surrendering my domain to anyone, and that I do not even want to hear their offer (because I *know* it's not going to start with the house in Kaui and the Gulfstream, and that's not my price, that's the incentive to get me interested in talking about negotiating. I want my lawyers to be comfortable while we begin the negotiation process.)
I usually piss off the solicitors pretty bad by basically telling them they don't have anything to offer me to get my interest, and that since they've insulted me by calling without being prepared to meet my terms, then they are harassing me. They never get it.
But what stops them from simply *taking* my name?
> Panix at least used to have a lot of users with
>jobs like "NY Times reporter" and "Wall Street
>technology analyst."
But not, "Secretary of State", or "Director of ICANN", unfortunately.
"So what is one supposed to use to kill these Monsanto weeds, once they have infested your property?"
They aren't fire resistant.
> Hmm i can add a printer to my kde in a minute or
> two.
Right. I read that, and in order to give you the benefit of the doubt, I tried, yet again, to setup my printer.
I'm pretty experienced, and I'm pretty smart. So for the life of me, I cannot setup the HP Photosmart-1310 that's shared via SMB from a Windows XP host on my TCP/IP, DNS-enabled network, from my Debian (Sid) Linux box with KDE, cups, or anything else for that matter.
From a Windows host, it's easy as can be -- browse to the printer, set as default, there's even a simple way to setup ink saturation, paper size, etc.
From KDE, I can go through the motions of setting up the printer (which does appear via smbtree, etc.), but it won't work. Stuck. Brick wall. Easiest thing in the world to do in Windows, completely lost cause with Linux.
"Maybe I'm naive, but why should I care about preventing people from accessing my home wlan?"
Some people experience significant abuse, ranging from spent bandwidth to host exploits. There is also the risk of you being implicated as an accessory to a crime if someone is using your network to distribute k*dd*e p*rn or operate a t*rr*r*st operation.
It also may be a violation of your service agreement with your ISP to allow others to connect.
Or maybe you just want to be in control of who connects to your system. Plenty of people setup their wlan so that the SSID is the phone number to call, or else proxy a web page to be a signup system, like hotels and coffee shops do.
There is a lot to be said for wide-open systems, but they can be targets for abuse.
>Go to law school, boy.
There can be issues related to jurisdiction and venue, and changes in process that can come about because of the way an address is styled. It's not nearly as important as the people who advocate such things (tax protestors, mostly), want you to believe.
Probably the most significant consequence would be, say, to inadvertently waive your right to have your case heard in a county court because you filled out a document incorrectly and caused a procedure that takes your case to a State jurisiction.
But you aren't going to get out of paying taxes, legal marijuana possession, or driving without a license, based on whether you spell your name in all capital letters or abbreviate the name of your state on a form. (Both are claims that tax protestors, etc., have asserted from time to time.)
"if requiring a graphics accelerator card is an unchangeable part of the Operating System, the system is obviously badly designed."
No kidding. My primary application is to operate as a headless audio processing system. Any component or resource that is not contributing to that application is a waste, and should be removed or disabled.
"If the info being transfered is copyrighted then it is not legal for the 'client' to ask for and accept this info nor it is it legal for the 'server' to respond to these requests."
Even that statement is not anywhere nearly true enough to be reasonable. There is possibly as much material that is copyrighted, but permitted to be distributed, as not.
This means the problem is even bigger than it appears. On the other hand, nobody honestly believed it was permitted to distribute the items in the story, in Hong Kong. There are two ingredients, though: 1. The owner of the distribution rights to Miss Congeniality chooses to 2. restrict those rights.
Merely being copyrighted alone does not make it illegal to transfer a file! If that were the case, how would you get GCC or Mozilla? More to the point, how do you make the same law that protects GCC in the way the FSF wants it protected, also protect Miss Congeniality in the way Warner Bros wants it protected?
Simply saying "this material is copyrighted, and therefore is a no-no" actually serves to *abridge* the rights of some people creating content! If I write music, and I want it distributed, does that mean I have to give up my copyright? NO! But a blanket argument like yours, which is a common misconception, does serve to reduce my own rights, and increases the power of the large media corporations by doing so.
> "The Soviet athlete took the second place, while
> the American only got the penultimate one"
That must have lost something in the translation from Bulgarian (or Russian?)
>> between 0 and 1 Billion (or more) people
>Erm, is this not a hard way of saying "some people"?
No, actually, it's a hard way of saying, "nobody, maybe one or more, or everyone."