With all due respect, a "real" audiophile doesn't use optical. TOSlink is strictly meant for consumers. S/PDIF is what is actually used by professional equipment.
BTW, you should see what I write *before* I spellcheck it. I make the/. editors look like... well, editors!
Yeah, but you're not posting your (unedited) words on the front page of a website which millions visit and then trying to get people to *pay* for the privilege of reading them.:)
You're absolutely right - the Marines have been doing embassy duty for quite a long time now. But, as far as I know, it took Somalia to finally wake them up and realize that they need to train to do things other than just kill people.
For example: The only "official" Marine Corps hand-to-hand training that was offered prior to about 1997 (I may be off by a few years) was LINE. I don't remember what it stands for (Linear Inline Neural something-beginning-with-E), but it was essentially 101 Ways to Kill Someone. I was told, but don't know for sure, that the later classes in LINE training were actually classified. That sounds a bit far-fetched, but I'm sure that you've met a Marine or Soldier that wasn't afraid to stretch the truth a little bit to appear to be bit more of a bad ass.:)
Apparently LINE training was discontinued in favor of more "traditional" hand-to-hand and martial arts training. The Marines finally realized that their hand-to-hand training, up to that point, consisted almost entirely of quick and easy ways to kill people. There was no in between, in their minds, from kill someone or leave them alone.
Finally, I think that the word that you meant to use was "anecdote" and not antidote. Close, but no cigar.:)
Why do the Marines need crowd control? Wouldn't this be the job of law enforcement, and maybe National Guard?
Our elected officials have this notion in their head that the Marine Corps is the world's 911 force. Somalia was a hell of a wake up call for the Marines. Until that time, they didn't really spend any time training for crowd control or less than lethal methods of controlling or attacking people. Why should they? It wasn't their job to do so. Let the MPs deal with that shit!
Well, they've since woken up and realized that it is now their job to do so, for good or bad. I've been to Quantico during the phase of The Basic School (the officer training program through which *all* Marine Corps officers go and learn to be rifle platoon leaders) which they are taught riot control. It's quite impressive.
Should the Marines should have to deal with this shit? That's another discussion all together (and I'm sure that you can guess my opinion). But the reality is that as long as our elected officials keep sending them into giving them missions where crowd control is required, the Marine Corps will keep training for it.
How in the world do you think that placing music, or anything, online and available for download by anyone is something that is confined to only your home?
I don't understand how so many of you (you in the general sense, not necessarily you in particular) can be so defensive of the rights of (open source) software developers yet so dismissive of the rights of other people to decide a distribution model for their work. What's with the double standard?
Please find in my original post where I equated theft with copyright infringement.
Oh, what's that? You can't? That's right, because I never made such a mistake.
To use your analogy, if I have a copyright on the design on my couch (if such a thing is possible, but let's go with it for a minute) and you make a copy of it wihtout my permission then you would indeed be violating my copyright. No, it's not theft, but it is still wrong in my mind. If you don't buy the idea of intellectual property at all, then that's a different discussion, but I fully support the idea of some sort of system of intellectual property rights.
Once again, let me reiterate that just because musicians make their music available for purchase doesn't give you the right to decide how to distribute if for them. If you do, then I say that you're just as bad or even worse than the "recording industry." At least they pretend to pay the artists.
Damnit! Just because you want free music doesn't give you the right to violate the rights of the artists who create that music! I want a lot of software to be free, but that sure as hell doesn't give me the right to screw the software publishers by just copying all of it that I want.
This is not a legal or financial argument, or at least it shouldn't be. It's a moral one. I don't want my rights violated so I in turn try not to violate the rights of others. And yes, I do think that the ability to (at least for a limited amount of time) restrict the distribution of music that you write and record is a right, just like your ability to restrict the distribution of software that you have written.
I am frustrated by people who use the "fact" that Napster and other file-sharing apps strengthen CD sales as moral justification for using file sharing apps against the will of the artists. The fact that you're more willing to buy their music doesn't mean that you (should) have the ability to completely ignore their wishes with regard to distribution of said music.
Let me try to give an example to clarify my frustration with this argument. Let's say that I decide to break into your house one day while you're away. I discreetly pick the lock and walk right in. I don't take anything, but I've still violated your privacy and the sanctity of your home. When I'm arrested for breaking and entering later on that day, I can't complain to the police, "But dude, I vaccumed! Look, I even washed your dishes!! C'mon man, I did something good for you! You ungrateful lout!"
I see that as the same as people violating the copyrights of musicians and then telling those same musicians, "Shut up about your damn rights. We're buying your albums so that gives *us* the right to decide how to distribute your music!" In essence, the artists are being told to not worry about their rights because they're making more money. I hope that we can all see the foolishness of that.
Please note that I'm not accusing the RIAA of actually representing the artists or their wishes. I find them as morally repugnant and repulsive as most Napster users.
This is an Ask Slashdot? What's the next pressing question that requires the attention and careful consideration of tens of thousands of IT professionals: A/S/L?
It's standard practice (required, I think) that "legal papers" have the name and version of the software that was used to type them. The vast majority of them are done on older versions of WordPerfect. I have been told that there are some particular features that WordPerfect has that makes it particularly useful to the legal profession, but I don't remember what those features are.
In other words, CompTIA (owners of the x+ series of certifications, such as A+ and Network+) may have included this not only as a political statement but also as some sort of attempt to make their comment appear more more professional and like a legal document of some sort. If this is the case, then it seems to be pretty slick to do both at the same time, IMHO.
Assuming that these are Windows computers, there are several tools that allow you to query a computer remotely and obtain a list of the currently running processes and kill them. For example, sysinternals has just such a suite of tools available freely.
You could easily set up a scheduled task to look at the processes running on each computer and generate a list of ones that aren't on the "approved" list. I don't think that this is the right solution to this problem, but it is a possible one.
From a business standpoint it's about the same as turning away people who have a credit card that isn't Visa, Mastercard, American Express, or Discover. Does it _really_ make sense for most businesses to accept other cards? It's just an extra headache for an all but irrelevant market.
But you and I both know that, the vast majority of the time, it *isn't* a headache to code to standards. It's simply different, not difficult.
When you set up an internet MX, you are implicitly agreeing to a certain set of unwritten rules. Essentially, the rules are that you must relay any and all mail from and to your customers, except as specified in their user agreements.
I'm waving the bullshit flag on this one. But your assertion is an unprovable one since you assert that the rules are "unwritten" and thus no amount of arguing will convince you otherwise.
It is not my ISP's business to arbitrarily block inbound e-mails for me.
I agree. But if your ISP blocks mail without telling you, then your problem is with your ISP and the idiots who made that decision, not with MAPS.
Rather, it is my resonsibility to control the availability of my address, and to deal with any and all mail I receive, regardless of source or desirability.
And some people choose to delegate this authority to their ISP who in turn delegate this to MAPS or ORBS(with the full knowledge, consent, and approval of their customers). Who the hell are you to tell these people that they can't delegate that authority???
If you want to get rid of spam, replace SMTP. Create a system where addresses can be "authorized-only", similar to how ICQ can work: to receive mail from someone, you must authorize them to send to you.
And just how would new people get themselves added to your authorization list? Are you going to start posting your phone number next to your e-mail address so that people can call you to get added to your authorization list so that they can send you an e-mail? I understand where you're coming from here, but it's an inviable solution.
Putting people in jail for sending mail over a system DESIGNED AND IMPLEMENTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF SENDING MAIL is absolutely ridiculous. It would be like arresting people for driving on the road because the locals didn't like the paintjob on your car.
No, it's like the government telling you that you can't live in a gated community. After all, the roads and driveways in that community(paid for and maintained by your money) were built to be drived upon and you can't delegate the policing of those roads and driveways to another entity(the landlord of the gated community, the homeowner's association, etc). If you want your driveway policed and you don't want undesireable people to park there, then you'll just have to police it your own damn self.
Sure, this is the fault of the companies that design sites like this. But when 95% of all online purchases are made from Windows machines, then from a business point of view it doesn't make sense to worry about the other 1%. How many Linux users are going to buy clothes from L.L. Bean or Chadwick's?
But why in the hell would you turn away paying customers based on arbitrary things such as choice of operating system or browser? And don't tell me that it's because the tools for online commerce only exist on MS platforms, because we all know that's not true.
This seems to me to be another case of the technology leading the business, when it should be the other way around. Unless your business is web development, your webmaster and other IT staff shouldn't be the ones making your business plans.
I'm not sure I'm ready to tell those kids whose parents didn't come home last week that they and others down the road just have to suck it up because people may be unwilling -- even temporarily -- to lose any measure of privacy
I am. I believe that liberty is more important than the life.
"Give me liberty or give me death." Heard that before?
A small footbridge was collapsed at the US Naval Academy a few years ago during Plebe Summer when a company of plebes ran across the bridge at a double time. It's a miracle no one was hurt.
...this article argues that computer security law would be more coherent and protect equity more predictably if it treated the Internet as if it were physical place--cyberspace
Gee, it sure would be nice and convenient if we could pretend that the Internet was a physical place. But it's not. And no amount of wishful thinking will make it.
It's hard to make laws regarding cyberspace. Deal with it; don't wish the problem away.
I also don't understand why the hell anyone would like to remove the best web browser on earth from their installation.
The only people that I know that do this are those who use their PCs as home recording studios. They claim that Win95 with IE removed is a very, very stable OS. More and more audio applications are only being produced for Windows. We'd love to use Linux, BeOS, or something else(short of dumping most of our hardware and buying a Mac), but we don't have much of a choice...
Kevin
The arms falling off were apparently a problem with the design. I went through at least two Japanese-made versions of the same toy("real" Robotech) and the arms came off on all of them.
The articulation was incredible, but the joints were weak.:(
Slashdot Mirror
Who said anything about networks?
Kevin
You're right. I typed "S/PDIF" when I was thinking "(balanced) XLR." Sorry. :)
Kevin
With all due respect, a "real" audiophile doesn't use optical. TOSlink is strictly meant for consumers. S/PDIF is what is actually used by professional equipment.
Kevin
BTW, you should see what I write *before* I spellcheck it. I make the /. editors look like... well, editors!
:)
Yeah, but you're not posting your (unedited) words on the front page of a website which millions visit and then trying to get people to *pay* for the privilege of reading them.
Kevin
You're absolutely right - the Marines have been doing embassy duty for quite a long time now. But, as far as I know, it took Somalia to finally wake them up and realize that they need to train to do things other than just kill people.
:)
:)
For example: The only "official" Marine Corps hand-to-hand training that was offered prior to about 1997 (I may be off by a few years) was LINE. I don't remember what it stands for (Linear Inline Neural something-beginning-with-E), but it was essentially 101 Ways to Kill Someone. I was told, but don't know for sure, that the later classes in LINE training were actually classified. That sounds a bit far-fetched, but I'm sure that you've met a Marine or Soldier that wasn't afraid to stretch the truth a little bit to appear to be bit more of a bad ass.
Apparently LINE training was discontinued in favor of more "traditional" hand-to-hand and martial arts training. The Marines finally realized that their hand-to-hand training, up to that point, consisted almost entirely of quick and easy ways to kill people. There was no in between, in their minds, from kill someone or leave them alone.
Finally, I think that the word that you meant to use was "anecdote" and not antidote. Close, but no cigar.
Kevin
Why do the Marines need crowd control? Wouldn't this be the job of law enforcement, and maybe National Guard?
Our elected officials have this notion in their head that the Marine Corps is the world's 911 force. Somalia was a hell of a wake up call for the Marines. Until that time, they didn't really spend any time training for crowd control or less than lethal methods of controlling or attacking people. Why should they? It wasn't their job to do so. Let the MPs deal with that shit!
Well, they've since woken up and realized that it is now their job to do so, for good or bad. I've been to Quantico during the phase of The Basic School (the officer training program through which *all* Marine Corps officers go and learn to be rifle platoon leaders) which they are taught riot control. It's quite impressive.
Should the Marines should have to deal with this shit? That's another discussion all together (and I'm sure that you can guess my opinion). But the reality is that as long as our elected officials keep sending them into giving them missions where crowd control is required, the Marine Corps will keep training for it.
Kevin
How in the world do you think that placing music, or anything, online and available for download by anyone is something that is confined to only your home?
I don't understand how so many of you (you in the general sense, not necessarily you in particular) can be so defensive of the rights of (open source) software developers yet so dismissive of the rights of other people to decide a distribution model for their work. What's with the double standard?
Kevin
Please find in my original post where I equated theft with copyright infringement.
Oh, what's that? You can't? That's right, because I never made such a mistake.
To use your analogy, if I have a copyright on the design on my couch (if such a thing is possible, but let's go with it for a minute) and you make a copy of it wihtout my permission then you would indeed be violating my copyright. No, it's not theft, but it is still wrong in my mind. If you don't buy the idea of intellectual property at all, then that's a different discussion, but I fully support the idea of some sort of system of intellectual property rights.
Once again, let me reiterate that just because musicians make their music available for purchase doesn't give you the right to decide how to distribute if for them. If you do, then I say that you're just as bad or even worse than the "recording industry." At least they pretend to pay the artists.
Lay off of the caffiene and sugar, man...
Kevin
This is not a legal or financial argument, or at least it shouldn't be. It's a moral one. I don't want my rights violated so I in turn try not to violate the rights of others. And yes, I do think that the ability to (at least for a limited amount of time) restrict the distribution of music that you write and record is a right, just like your ability to restrict the distribution of software that you have written.
Kevin
I am frustrated by people who use the "fact" that Napster and other file-sharing apps strengthen CD sales as moral justification for using file sharing apps against the will of the artists. The fact that you're more willing to buy their music doesn't mean that you (should) have the ability to completely ignore their wishes with regard to distribution of said music.
Let me try to give an example to clarify my frustration with this argument. Let's say that I decide to break into your house one day while you're away. I discreetly pick the lock and walk right in. I don't take anything, but I've still violated your privacy and the sanctity of your home. When I'm arrested for breaking and entering later on that day, I can't complain to the police, "But dude, I vaccumed! Look, I even washed your dishes!! C'mon man, I did something good for you! You ungrateful lout!"
I see that as the same as people violating the copyrights of musicians and then telling those same musicians, "Shut up about your damn rights. We're buying your albums so that gives *us* the right to decide how to distribute your music!"
In essence, the artists are being told to not worry about their rights because they're making more money. I hope that we can all see the foolishness of that.
Please note that I'm not accusing the RIAA of actually representing the artists or their wishes. I find them as morally repugnant and repulsive as most Napster users.
Kevin
#3.) Professional quality home recording is a reality and is not cost prohibitive for the vast majority of the US population.
Spoken like a true non-musician...
This is an Ask Slashdot? What's the next pressing question that requires the attention and careful consideration of tens of thousands of IT professionals: A/S/L?
Kevin
It's standard practice (required, I think) that "legal papers" have the name and version of the software that was used to type them. The vast majority of them are done on older versions of WordPerfect. I have been told that there are some particular features that WordPerfect has that makes it particularly useful to the legal profession, but I don't remember what those features are.
In other words, CompTIA (owners of the x+ series of certifications, such as A+ and Network+) may have included this not only as a political statement but also as some sort of attempt to make their comment appear more more professional and like a legal document of some sort. If this is the case, then it seems to be pretty slick to do both at the same time, IMHO.
Kevin
Assuming that these are Windows computers, there are several tools that allow you to query a computer remotely and obtain a list of the currently running processes and kill them. For example, sysinternals has just such a suite of tools available freely.
You could easily set up a scheduled task to look at the processes running on each computer and generate a list of ones that aren't on the "approved" list. I don't think that this is the right solution to this problem, but it is a possible one.
Kevin
From a business standpoint it's about the same as turning away people who have a credit card that isn't Visa, Mastercard, American Express, or Discover. Does it _really_ make sense for most businesses to accept other cards? It's just an extra headache for an all but irrelevant market.
But you and I both know that, the vast majority of the time, it *isn't* a headache to code to standards. It's simply different, not difficult.
Kevin
Are you serious???
When you set up an internet MX, you are implicitly agreeing to a certain set of unwritten rules. Essentially, the rules are that you must relay any and all mail from and to your customers, except as specified in their user agreements.
I'm waving the bullshit flag on this one. But your assertion is an unprovable one since you assert that the rules are "unwritten" and thus no amount of arguing will convince you otherwise.
It is not my ISP's business to arbitrarily block inbound e-mails for me.
I agree. But if your ISP blocks mail without telling you, then your problem is with your ISP and the idiots who made that decision, not with MAPS.
Rather, it is my resonsibility to control the availability of my address, and to deal with any and all mail I receive, regardless of source or desirability.
And some people choose to delegate this authority to their ISP who in turn delegate this to MAPS or ORBS(with the full knowledge, consent, and approval of their customers). Who the hell are you to tell these people that they can't delegate that authority???
If you want to get rid of spam, replace SMTP. Create a system where addresses can be "authorized-only", similar to how ICQ can work: to receive mail from someone, you must authorize them to send to you.
And just how would new people get themselves added to your authorization list? Are you going to start posting your phone number next to your e-mail address so that people can call you to get added to your authorization list so that they can send you an e-mail? I understand where you're coming from here, but it's an inviable solution.
Putting people in jail for sending mail over a system DESIGNED AND IMPLEMENTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF SENDING MAIL is absolutely ridiculous. It would be like arresting people for driving on the road because the locals didn't like the paintjob on your car.
No, it's like the government telling you that you can't live in a gated community. After all, the roads and driveways in that community(paid for and maintained by your money) were built to be drived upon and you can't delegate the policing of those roads and driveways to another entity(the landlord of the gated community, the homeowner's association, etc). If you want your driveway policed and you don't want undesireable people to park there, then you'll just have to police it your own damn self.
Kevin
But why in the hell would you turn away paying customers based on arbitrary things such as choice of operating system or browser? And don't tell me that it's because the tools for online commerce only exist on MS platforms, because we all know that's not true.
This seems to me to be another case of the technology leading the business, when it should be the other way around. Unless your business is web development, your webmaster and other IT staff shouldn't be the ones making your business plans.
Kevin
I'm not sure I'm ready to tell those kids whose parents didn't come home last week that they and others down the road just have to suck it up because people may be unwilling -- even temporarily -- to lose any measure of privacy
I am. I believe that liberty is more important than the life.
"Give me liberty or give me death." Heard that before?
Kevin
A small footbridge was collapsed at the US Naval Academy a few years ago during Plebe Summer when a company of plebes ran across the bridge at a double time. It's a miracle no one was hurt.
Kevin
What happens if someone steals your car and causes a fatal accident with it?
Sue.
What happens if a child finds the gun you left in your dresser and shoots himself?
Sue.
What happens if someone breaks into your house, trips over something and breaks a leg?
Sue.
Well, that seems to be the answer to everyone's problems in America...
...this article argues that computer security law would be more coherent and protect equity more predictably if it treated the Internet as if it were physical place--cyberspace
Gee, it sure would be nice and convenient if we could pretend that the Internet was a physical place. But it's not. And no amount of wishful thinking will make it.
It's hard to make laws regarding cyberspace. Deal with it; don't wish the problem away.
Kevin
I also don't understand why the hell anyone would like to remove the best web browser on earth from their installation. The only people that I know that do this are those who use their PCs as home recording studios. They claim that Win95 with IE removed is a very, very stable OS. More and more audio applications are only being produced for Windows. We'd love to use Linux, BeOS, or something else(short of dumping most of our hardware and buying a Mac), but we don't have much of a choice... Kevin
Now if anyone who doesn't believe me wants to invest in my plan to turn the volume up on your computer from the internet, email me the money.
d00d, do you have PayPal? I am SO there!
The arms falling off were apparently a problem with the design. I went through at least two Japanese-made versions of the same toy("real" Robotech) and the arms came off on all of them.
:(
The articulation was incredible, but the joints were weak.
I'm sorry, but this article lost all validity when they started quoting Derek Smart.