I think people have just found more "secure" ways of trading music.
Why? There's no reason to believe that filesharing was ever that mainstream, except perhaps in the Napster days. it's not surprising to me that more people legally buy music. After all, most people don't shoplift, even though it is very easy to do. It's just that now there are new ways of buying music (read: iTunes) which are starting to become popular, as people don't see the need for a CD anymore.
Believing that filesharing was the majority is believing RIAA propaganda about the "piracy threat."
Irrelevant. You can get warrants to monitor terrorists. So why the need to go with warrantless spying? And there is now news of the Bush administration trying to use Google and other search engines to spy on people's porn habits. And what's more American than porn?
Haven't you ever seen the movie Brazil? Some people think it's science fiction, but it was actually a WWII documentary about British intelligence technology.
He doesn't really say anything. And by not saying anything on such an important issue, he is almost justifying it. He certainly justifies apathy, with lines like "I don't know whether to be outraged or bored."
It's pretty hard to take someone seriously when he writes on a topic he couldn't even be bothered getting interested in. Why is there so much apathy? probably because of attitudes like Cringeley's "Oh well, it always happens. I'm bored. Change the channel, Marge."
And many current Bush administration cronies were behind the scenes in the attempts to pass decency laws, even in previous Democratic governments. The Democrats aren't perfect by any means, but the Republicans, and the current mob in particular - have been especially invasive of privacy and the media.
You actually have to understand what is being said. 'Alternatives to the primitive models' aren't all cheap either. Good luck finding a cheap magic lantern. And you should note that it says "fairly" high quality.
In other words, you won't be getting the same results as the pictures you see taken with his Horseman 4x5 version. Especially if you use a Box Brownie lens. And then there's the time to assemble it - a task which is more difficult without a pre-built camera to modify. And this guy seems pretty experienced with photography. An amateur is going to have a much steeper curve, and worse results.
Don't get me wrong, it would be a fun project. But don't expect the results you see here from a cheapo setup. They are used for education because that's about all they are good for. There's just no way that the cost of a scanner is the major investment here. They are free for anyone to take from the dump. It's the time, workmanship and optics that really count. Not the scanner.
I don't. I have a chip on my shoulder about people claiming something as artistically and/or technically new when it has been done numerous times before, and often better.
But nobody claimed this. The article says:
"... and produce results that are both similar to and significantly different from traditional digital and conventional cameras."
The examples you provide are not provided by the standard use of traditional equipment. The article does not claim this effect has never been done before.
What do you mean by "better"? Art is very subjective, there is no absolute scale of goodness. Does it matter that Andy Warhol used mediums that many other people used?
I had an Amiga with a Newtek digitizer. It would scan the analog video input one line at a time. So, connect a black-and-white security camera, and scan my friend's face as he rotates his head. One picture distorted his nose so he looked like a camel. If I can find those pictures on an old floppy, I will post them.
This is a good idea for recycling old equipment. I have several of those laying around,
Several of what? An old scanner is pretty useless without a decent lens with large area coverage, and a housing to mount it in. That's not exactly cheap. If you have old large format cameras or lenses just lying around, then getting a scanner is the least of your problems.
I don't know about you, but I have Horseman 4x5 cameras coming out of my ass.
For fuck's sake. I've got a Horizont, several large-format cameras, and a Panoscan. I still think this is cool. Not everybody can afford the equipment I use, and none of it is exactly the same as this, anyway. Good art is still made with disposable cameras. Why have a chip on your shoulder about non-elitist equipment?
Hey, at least Windows users understand that they have insecure systems. They might not be able to get at the magnitude, but they'll tell you: "Yes, that thing pops up all the time, I always just cancel it..." -- sigh...
How does that show they are aware of the security flaws? To me that shows the opposite - apathy and ignorance of security. I'm pretty sure that most Mac users would think "something is seriously wrong here" is something popped up all the time, and try to find out what the hell it is.
All this said, I'm a die hard Mac user. I know where the vulnerabilities are. But that's because I have REAL understanding of the systems that I have to use.
So, what makes you think that the majority of Mac users don't have the same understanding? Anecdotal evidence isn't always reliable.
Mac users need to move past the infatuation phase with OS X and realise that OS X has many of the same weaknesses as Linux, Solaris and BSD.
And black people need to get past their infatuation with their African culture and realise that black people suffer from the same diseases and weaknesses as white people, hispanics and asians.
Please don't misuse the word "troll". Like it or not, he is pointing out a very serious issue that affects all operating systems, be it Windows, Mac OS X, OpenBSD, UnixWare, OS/2, MS-DOS, VMS, or basically any other operating system.
How does saying that Mac users suffer from "indefensible smugness" point out "a very serious issue that affects all operating systems"?? if he wants to be taken seriously, this is not the way to do it. If anything, it makes a mockery of any serious points he might make.
If your doctor were to diagnose you with AIDS, and you did indeed have the syndrome, he would not be a "troll", regardless of how much you were angered by his diagnosis. In much the same way, this BBC author is not a "troll".
how is this relevant to what he was saying? He did not diagnose Mac users as having viruses. He gives no clinical evidence of smuness. He just insults a bunch of people based on his own feelings and assumptions.
South Korea is planning on developing an advanced line of robots for military and police use by the 2010 decade.
So I'm not sure what your point is. "50s" is very different to "the 1950 decade." 50s references years that include "5" in the tens position of the decimal system. "The (specific year) decade" is something I have never heard before.
Therefore the only benefit in speed boost to a single threaded application is that the other processor core can handle background tasks or OS related threads, potentially freeing up a bit of speed maybe.
That alone is not an insignificant benefit. But with so many Mac applications supporting multiple processors, I'm not sure what your point is. What Mac user is using processor-intensive applications, that do not also support multiprocessing? It's not like dual-processor Macs and applications are a new thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Now, that's funny.
not on 107 FM or commercial radio - but on public radio, sure. All the time.
I enjoyed your comment, but do you happen to write George Bush's speeches?
The man that hath no music in himself, Nor is not moved with concord of sweet sounds, Is fit for treasons, stratagems and spoils.
William Shakespeare
Why? There's no reason to believe that filesharing was ever that mainstream, except perhaps in the Napster days. it's not surprising to me that more people legally buy music. After all, most people don't shoplift, even though it is very easy to do. It's just that now there are new ways of buying music (read: iTunes) which are starting to become popular, as people don't see the need for a CD anymore.
Believing that filesharing was the majority is believing RIAA propaganda about the "piracy threat."
The finger pyramid of evil contemplation.
Irrelevant. You can get warrants to monitor terrorists. So why the need to go with warrantless spying? And there is now news of the Bush administration trying to use Google and other search engines to spy on people's porn habits. And what's more American than porn?
Haven't you ever seen the movie Brazil? Some people think it's science fiction, but it was actually a WWII documentary about British intelligence technology.
Sounds more like you would buy the Brooklyn Bridge if it were offered on eBay. Keep drinking that Kool-aid.
Heh. So did you. One shouldn't criticise someone else's spelling if one can't spell.
It's pretty hard to take someone seriously when he writes on a topic he couldn't even be bothered getting interested in. Why is there so much apathy? probably because of attitudes like Cringeley's "Oh well, it always happens. I'm bored. Change the channel, Marge."
Wasn't that a Will Smith movie?
And many current Bush administration cronies were behind the scenes in the attempts to pass decency laws, even in previous Democratic governments. The Democrats aren't perfect by any means, but the Republicans, and the current mob in particular - have been especially invasive of privacy and the media.
In other words, you won't be getting the same results as the pictures you see taken with his Horseman 4x5 version. Especially if you use a Box Brownie lens. And then there's the time to assemble it - a task which is more difficult without a pre-built camera to modify. And this guy seems pretty experienced with photography. An amateur is going to have a much steeper curve, and worse results.
Don't get me wrong, it would be a fun project. But don't expect the results you see here from a cheapo setup. They are used for education because that's about all they are good for. There's just no way that the cost of a scanner is the major investment here. They are free for anyone to take from the dump. It's the time, workmanship and optics that really count. Not the scanner.
But nobody claimed this. The article says:
The examples you provide are not provided by the standard use of traditional equipment. The article does not claim this effect has never been done before.
What do you mean by "better"? Art is very subjective, there is no absolute scale of goodness. Does it matter that Andy Warhol used mediums that many other people used?
I had an Amiga with a Newtek digitizer. It would scan the analog video input one line at a time. So, connect a black-and-white security camera, and scan my friend's face as he rotates his head. One picture distorted his nose so he looked like a camel. If I can find those pictures on an old floppy, I will post them.
Several of what? An old scanner is pretty useless without a decent lens with large area coverage, and a housing to mount it in. That's not exactly cheap. If you have old large format cameras or lenses just lying around, then getting a scanner is the least of your problems.
I don't know about you, but I have Horseman 4x5 cameras coming out of my ass.
For fuck's sake. I've got a Horizont, several large-format cameras, and a Panoscan. I still think this is cool. Not everybody can afford the equipment I use, and none of it is exactly the same as this, anyway. Good art is still made with disposable cameras. Why have a chip on your shoulder about non-elitist equipment?
How does that show they are aware of the security flaws? To me that shows the opposite - apathy and ignorance of security. I'm pretty sure that most Mac users would think "something is seriously wrong here" is something popped up all the time, and try to find out what the hell it is.
All this said, I'm a die hard Mac user. I know where the vulnerabilities are. But that's because I have REAL understanding of the systems that I have to use.
So, what makes you think that the majority of Mac users don't have the same understanding? Anecdotal evidence isn't always reliable.
And black people need to get past their infatuation with their African culture and realise that black people suffer from the same diseases and weaknesses as white people, hispanics and asians.
C'mon. You must be trawling me.
Are you on crack? Windows users are still doing the same stupid things. Running Windows is not being careful.
How does saying that Mac users suffer from "indefensible smugness" point out "a very serious issue that affects all operating systems"?? if he wants to be taken seriously, this is not the way to do it. If anything, it makes a mockery of any serious points he might make.
If your doctor were to diagnose you with AIDS, and you did indeed have the syndrome, he would not be a "troll", regardless of how much you were angered by his diagnosis. In much the same way, this BBC author is not a "troll".
how is this relevant to what he was saying? He did not diagnose Mac users as having viruses. He gives no clinical evidence of smuness. He just insults a bunch of people based on his own feelings and assumptions.
South Korea is planning on developing an advanced line of robots for military and police use by the 2010 decade.
So I'm not sure what your point is. "50s" is very different to "the 1950 decade." 50s references years that include "5" in the tens position of the decimal system. "The (specific year) decade" is something I have never heard before.
That alone is not an insignificant benefit. But with so many Mac applications supporting multiple processors, I'm not sure what your point is. What Mac user is using processor-intensive applications, that do not also support multiprocessing? It's not like dual-processor Macs and applications are a new thing.