Ah and X-Fi: you may call it a terrible SPU, but it sounds great to me on Vista.
I don't just call it a terrible SPU; it is a terrible SPU. The reason you disagree is probably because you aren't aware of high fidelity audio principles and largely playback poor quality audio. Commercial companies like Creative always encourage consumers to take a subjective, non-empirical and non-scientific approach to sound reproduction, with the view to convincing you to spend your money with them, and this is exactly what you've done.
I rarely use dvd subtitles. I'm talking about Substation Alpha, Advanced Substation Alpha, or even SubRip - the main softsubs used in anime. The support is horrid on linux.
I've used subrip subs with mplayer many times before, and they work great, with lots of nice little features like being able to sync the subs on the fly (like with sound, which is useful for botched scene releases), subpixel hinting, blurring and anti-aliasing. Here is a helpful screenshot of mplayer displaying SSA/ASS subtitles.
It's because "Left" changed its meaning between 1910 and 1945; it used to mean what is now libertarianism(/classical liberalism). "Right" changed its meaning later on, probably when religion and neoconservationism got involved in US politics. As such, the old distinction between individualism (Left) and collectivism (Right) got moved around and the left-right spectrum is no longer of any use. Nowadays, "Right" and "Left" are mostly used to affiliate people with various parties (but not ideologies), essentially because certain parts of socialism are very easy to sell to the public.
It seems that on Slashdot, the prevalent opinion is that we should all get whatever we want, whenever we want, for free (or nearly free). That's not how the real world works.
No, that is not the position typical of anti-patent arguments. The typical position is that patenting is only a very small incentive to produce drugs and has a disproportionately large cost to society. Additionally, there is a position to say that organisations like the FDA dramatically increase the cost of new drug creation for no good reason, and the patent system is used to pay that cost. Furthermore, you look silly making spurious claims to be a realist when it is clear you have not examined much of the evidence.
(X) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
(X) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
(X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
(X) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
(X) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
The main issue with your spam was that there are objections which you failed to mark. Don't worry, new anti-spam measures are invented all the time, you won't have to wait long for another try!
Mplayer has always had dvd sub support...at least, for as long as I can remember, and I remember many years. There are also subtitle OCR programs, though some are better than others, and some aren't very good at all. Even if you don't like the unix ones, virtualdub is very well supported through wine, and has been for, again, as long as I can remember.
I don't know what media player classic is, however, but there are lots of good media player programs for unix, and they all share the same libraries with every other player out there. If you're trying to say "Call me when Ubuntu is Windows XP" you're never going to be satisfied, but Ubuntu does all the things you mention, with the exclusion of XFI, which is a terrible SPU anyway.
You're quite a few centuries out of date there. Value (being rich) is created by market values, and market values do not necessarily correspond to value. Quick example: you own something not valuable, and suddenly the value of it shoots up many times. Not a lot of labour has occurred, and you're suddenly a lot richer.
Your opinion is wrong, and you shouldn't voice it. I'm not saying your shouldn't be able to voice it; that is completely different.
Really? So, if I think a politician is lying about something, or even misrepresenting his position on an issue, I should just be okay with it and move on because it's not nice to point out they're lying?
It's totally irrelevant to accuse him of being a liar. If you are opposed to his position, make a counterpoint. Fighting him on a personal level is moronic; you should oppose him on his policies.
First of all, the section that I objected to as stirring animosity;
On this issue Ron Paul shows his colors as just another politician who will twist and distort an issue until if fits his personal morality. He doesn't see an easy way to get rid of Roe (which is what he wants), so he says it's a "state's rights" issue knowing that abortion will be outlawed in at least some places.
This is you ramming words into his mouth and trying to present Paul as someone who "twists and distorts an issue". Whether or not this is true it is totally irrelevant to a discussion of political positions. If you take issue with a position a politician takes, take issue. There is zero need to present someone you (and I) oppose on a particular issue as a person who is dishonest or untruthful.
In point of fact, I didn't even mention whether I think abortion is right or wrong, simply that Ron Paul doesn't seem to be taking a very "Libertarian" stance on the issue, mainly, the government staying out of peoples personal lives.
No, he is taking a position that is entirely consistent with libertarianism. Libertarians will always object to murder, and as he claims abortion is murder, his position is consistent. From his point of view, abortion is murder, and requires state intervention. As we do not agree with his classification of abortion, we must challenge his classification. We don't gain anything by challenging his position that murder should be prevented (and saying that murder is personal business), because, after all, that is our position too.
And now you're doing it too. I'm not arguing the right or wrong of P2P. That is off topic. I'm pointing out that/. readers, on the whole, are a bunch of hypocrites. They are against disconnecting users for suspected illegal P2P use, but in favor of disconnecting users suspected of sending unsolicited commercial email. Legitimate and illegitimate uses of both protocols are equally difficult to distinguish. Yet most of you are perfectly fine with that, or at least you will be until some legislator exploits your hypocrisy to create laws regarding one only to embrace/extend/extinguish the other. It's obvious to me what will happen, and most of you will never see it coming until it's far too late. Either you defend everyone's right to free speech, or you are not defending free speech.
And this is just not the case. Firstly, slashdotters will probably find it hard to be hypocritical, seeing as they are a group of people with only a similar background and not a coherent ideology. Secondly, you are not distinguishing between government intervention (which is the case with copyright infringement) and private intervention (which is largely the case with spam). I have no objection to the latter. This is the probable libertarian position, and a lot of slashdotters are libertarians, so this view is probably fairly common. The "hypocrisy" you see is likely due to you not distinguishing between government and private action.
No, I believe I followed that by pointing out you are assuming legal traffic on P2P and illegal traffic on email to justify your stance. There are both spam and legitimate mailing lists. How does an ISP know the difference? They don't know any more than they know the difference between a Linux ISO and a copy of a hollywood movie. It's doublethink. Sorry if you weren't bright enough to catch that one. I'll try to spell everything out for you in this post so you can keep up.
Must people don't try and add strength to their argument by employing newspeak terms. In the book, newspeak was employed by the antagonist. Unless you are intentionally suggesting that you are the antagonist from 1984, why are you using this vocabulary?
The original posters point is that are there not three people involved in a p2p transaction. There are only two. The poster rejects the concept of "imaginary property" and the concept of copyright. So do I. The law is wrong.
Empirical evidence probably isn't needed - if Lenovo have changed anything significant, I'd be interested to know. Even the 1990-era coloured IBM logo is still on the front.
I never understand why laptop makers don't provide a breakaway cord, but despite this happening a number of times on my Thinkpads, I never had any problem like that.
Yeah, whatever. Maybe it is arrogance but they're doing what is the right thing and they expect you to deal with it. It's what any moral principle is; worth fighting for.
Well, back in the day, MS was a better option for most "general" work than Linux and Mac. We're talking 1995-1998ish. Nowadays, the advantage is because it's a government supported monopoly (copyright).
This kind of mentality wrongly assumes that there is a sort of perfect market state that translates into people switching retailers/PC's as features/price change. This is totally untrue. Consumers of all kinds normally suffer all kinds of bad product based on a number of factors that can be generalized into the herd mentality. Look at how much consumers have been overcharged for CD's and DVD's.
Only to an extent. If what I will call the vendors' mistake (buying expensive processors) produces a difference in price larger than the inconvenience of shopping elsewhere, people will switch vendor. If needed, a new vendor will arise.
CD's and DVD's are a bad example because they're not a free market, and don't obey any of the normal rules. They are a partly state sanctioned monopoly (because of copyright).
5. New competition enters the market as dominant player is now charging prices which are "high".
There are almost zero examples of what you state actually occurring as you say it will. Normally because the cost to the dominant player of selling at a loss for a prolonged period of time is too high. Futhermore, you're confusing the word "cost" with "price". In this situation, the competitors are cutting prices below costs. They are not cutting costs.
I'm guessing you might not be a native speaker, so the mistake could be understandable. But the distinction is important.
Then, from their perspective, that is the best. This interjection isn't germane to the GPs' main point; that people generally choose the processor that suits their needs best at the lowest cost.
Yes. That is, after all, the entire point of the free market. The market sets prices, and when the market price exceeds the natural price by enough, competition to begin.
Monopolies with prices that are exorbitant compared to the natural price rarely exist without a technical, legal or otherwise unavoidable monopoly (USA broadband operators for the technical monopoly (dubious though that is), Microsoft for the legal monopoly).
No, they are trying to eliminate the competitor(s). And by the way, this means that they are effectively competing.
Your idea of the company bankrupting the other company is a misunderstanding. This happens extremely rarely; the overall cost of selling at a loss for a long time > the cost of competing for the future. Intel isn't try to do this at all, and it would need an absurd market situation for it to work, even if they wanted to. The actual situation is that Intel and AMD have both improved their products over the past few years, and there is no evidence to say that competition is going to be stifled in the foreseeable future.
Slashdot Mirror
It's because "Left" changed its meaning between 1910 and 1945; it used to mean what is now libertarianism(/classical liberalism). "Right" changed its meaning later on, probably when religion and neoconservationism got involved in US politics. As such, the old distinction between individualism (Left) and collectivism (Right) got moved around and the left-right spectrum is no longer of any use. Nowadays, "Right" and "Left" are mostly used to affiliate people with various parties (but not ideologies), essentially because certain parts of socialism are very easy to sell to the public.
(X) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
(X) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
(X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
(X) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
(X) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
The main issue with your spam was that there are objections which you failed to mark. Don't worry, new anti-spam measures are invented all the time, you won't have to wait long for another try!
Mplayer has always had dvd sub support...at least, for as long as I can remember, and I remember many years. There are also subtitle OCR programs, though some are better than others, and some aren't very good at all. Even if you don't like the unix ones, virtualdub is very well supported through wine, and has been for, again, as long as I can remember.
I don't know what media player classic is, however, but there are lots of good media player programs for unix, and they all share the same libraries with every other player out there. If you're trying to say "Call me when Ubuntu is Windows XP" you're never going to be satisfied, but Ubuntu does all the things you mention, with the exclusion of XFI, which is a terrible SPU anyway.
I'm sure you think you're being funny, but please just stop.
You're quite a few centuries out of date there. Value (being rich) is created by market values, and market values do not necessarily correspond to value. Quick example: you own something not valuable, and suddenly the value of it shoots up many times. Not a lot of labour has occurred, and you're suddenly a lot richer.
The original posters point is that are there not three people involved in a p2p transaction. There are only two. The poster rejects the concept of "imaginary property" and the concept of copyright. So do I. The law is wrong.
I think the original post is probably a cautionary tale about the dangers of logging in. Put crap to your name, and you have to live with it.
Empirical evidence probably isn't needed - if Lenovo have changed anything significant, I'd be interested to know. Even the 1990-era coloured IBM logo is still on the front.
This is basically called risk.
Yeah, whatever. Maybe it is arrogance but they're doing what is the right thing and they expect you to deal with it. It's what any moral principle is; worth fighting for.
I suppose this distinction is fair, but I think it is rare for one condition to be and for the other not to be.
I think companies are generally not far sighted enough to take this into account. And rightly so; this is an extremely hard judgement to make.
I don't agree with him; I'm undecided. There is a large volume of evidence on both sides, but I choose to err on the side of freedom of choice.
You post is designed to stir animosity, and not debate. You do not do justice to the pro-choice movement.
Well, back in the day, MS was a better option for most "general" work than Linux and Mac. We're talking 1995-1998ish. Nowadays, the advantage is because it's a government supported monopoly (copyright).
CD's and DVD's are a bad example because they're not a free market, and don't obey any of the normal rules. They are a partly state sanctioned monopoly (because of copyright).
5. New competition enters the market as dominant player is now charging prices which are "high".
There are almost zero examples of what you state actually occurring as you say it will. Normally because the cost to the dominant player of selling at a loss for a prolonged period of time is too high. Futhermore, you're confusing the word "cost" with "price". In this situation, the competitors are cutting prices below costs. They are not cutting costs.
I'm guessing you might not be a native speaker, so the mistake could be understandable. But the distinction is important.
Then, from their perspective, that is the best. This interjection isn't germane to the GPs' main point; that people generally choose the processor that suits their needs best at the lowest cost.
Yes. That is, after all, the entire point of the free market. The market sets prices, and when the market price exceeds the natural price by enough, competition to begin.
Monopolies with prices that are exorbitant compared to the natural price rarely exist without a technical, legal or otherwise unavoidable monopoly (USA broadband operators for the technical monopoly (dubious though that is), Microsoft for the legal monopoly).
Your idea of the company bankrupting the other company is a misunderstanding. This happens extremely rarely; the overall cost of selling at a loss for a long time > the cost of competing for the future. Intel isn't try to do this at all, and it would need an absurd market situation for it to work, even if they wanted to. The actual situation is that Intel and AMD have both improved their products over the past few years, and there is no evidence to say that competition is going to be stifled in the foreseeable future.