As a musician, I can appreciate the desire for this old equipment. I'd _never_ buy a solid state amplifier, and I'd never record directly to digital. Most music is recorded in analog because it does sound warmer.
Vinyl sounds great, too, so I am with you there.
Interesting you mention old speakers, though. All of the old speakers I have ever seen never seem to be that great. What kind are you looking for? Where do you get them from? And is anyone making new equipment the way they made the old stuff? For example, Fender makes new guitar amps that are all tube, and while they use a PC board unlike the old amps, the sound is often quite comparable (for the most part). Does anyone make sudio equipment along these lines or do you strictly look for the old stuff? I am interested, because I would never have thought that anyone would want old speakers since they just seem to wear out after a while.
I forgot to add...don't forget to click around in that site. Like a good wine, it reveals it's cache of "goodness" slowly and more with each click. My personal fave is the logo page. Believe it or not, they have made it much better than it was last time...nah, you'll never believe that so just trust me!
Because you'd never hear a military guy saying that lethal weapons should be used on civilians. Not publicly at least. The barrier to using nonlethal weapons is much lower and would thus be easier for some suit to justify using on civilians without. That said, it is a good thing if you can protect people by perhaps using these nonlethal weapons on rioters and terrorists (caught in the act, not "suspected" terrorists) and the like. It is just scary that some military officer would suggest that these weapons should be used on civilians without qualifying the circumstances in which they'd be used. Certain arms of the government have shown themselves callous with regard to treatment of citizens, so it's not hard to assume the worst when statements like that are made. Probably making a mountain out of a molehill but when powerful government officials talk about what amounts to performing experiments on citizens it makes me shudder. Government's job is to protect its constituents, not exploit them. My problem is not with nonlethal weapons. My problem is with some fat old man in a suit who suggests that civilians should serve as guinea pigs. Unless he wants to sign up his wife and children as lab rats, he ought to refrain from suggesting that citizens should be used to test weapons on.
I guess it depends. If I am a threat to the general populace or to the officer, then using a weapon of any type would be reasonable.
However, if I were fired upon by an officer under any other circumstances then I could justifiably claim that my rights were being violated. Whether the use of weapons (lethal or nonlethal) is used against civilians would of course depend on the circumstances. Am I saying that police would be unjustified in using such weapons in the event of a riot, terror attack, back robbery etc? Not at all. It is just that given a little bit of knowledge of US history, it is all too easy to suspect that the government may try to use these weapons against civilians in an unjustified manner.
Actually, I slightly misread your post. You ask which constitutional "principle" is being violated. You did not say constitutional ammendment or article. I would have to say that the entire spirit of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights would be violated by such a thing. See my post just above this one.
I agree. No constitutional principle would be violated by testing weapons on US civilians.
What this would constitute is a violation of basic human rights: a right to life, liberty, property and/or the pursuit of happiness. The Constitution does not mention these, but the Declaration of Independance sure does, right there in its preamble. Yes, the US does not regard the Declaration of Independence as law, however, these are clearly the principles upon which the US was founded. Are you suggesting that testing weapons on US citizens could be somehow justified?
It can be. I use AJAX quite a bit, though, and find that prototype makes things pretty simple. It takes a while to get proficient with it, but it really does pay off. This coming from someone who generally _hates_ to use someone else's code libraries. I cringe when I see "professional" web developers grab scripts from websites like dynadrive.com and use them. I _always_ write my own stuff. I have to admit, though, that compared with when I used to have my own AJAX library, prototype has taken much of the difficulty out of using AJAX.
A lot depends on how you use it. I do not create spreadsheets and maps and so forth like google, but I find it extremely beneficial for 1) loading content from a DB that may be too slow for the initial page load, 2) allowing users to perform simple DB tasks (ex. deleting a row) without reloading the page, and 3) performing certain tasks on demand as opposed to when the page loads. I find that I can create a pretty functional AJAX page very easily.
The other nice thing is that you can use AJAX tchniques to better separate content from presentation.
I am sure you know most of these things, but I say them to illustrate the point that while it can be a hair more difficult (using prototype) to code AJAX pages than coding conventional pages, the benefits in terms of performance and user experience outweigh the negatives. I have not yet found that maintenance is more difficult, either.
If you think it's too complex/tedious to work with AJAX, just give prototype a shot.
I will add to this in the interest of Karma Whoring...er, I mean ensuring the most important post ever makes it to everybody including all people who only read every 15th post, like Gouda cheese, or play chinese checkers with elderly men named Larry.
We're the Cut'n'paste generation. We don't really care about what we write before putting 'paper on pen' or anywhere else for the following reasons:
1. You cant cut'n'paste you sentinces to make some semblance of odored thought.
2. You cant get a quick response, so if you're imprecise, you'll know about it more quickerly.
3. Llamas are friendly reminders that people will always try stupid things without drinking milk from camels. Pickle me if you will, but once you have tasted the fruit fiy, you won't think thrice if you know what I mean. Playing a half hearted game of guess-the-Willy will always land you in a gritty Saskatoon stockade. Pirates flocked to nearby Winnipeg (or Lose-a-Peg depending on your luck) to play go fish with the high society lowbrow element of society, the railroad hobo.
The nearest pen-and-paper equivalent would be to read the Outgoing Mail slot.
Offhand, not sure of any forums that deal with this (though I am sure they do exist). Here is what I do, try at your own risk...
Check for services/startup items related to AOL (check MSConfig too).
Search for any folders/files like AOL
Check your registry. Here is where the risk comes in; you don't want to delete the wrong things. I usually look in HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT, HKEY_CURRENT_USER/Software, HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE/SOFTWARE, HKEY_USERS/*/Software, and HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\Curr entVersion\Uninstall. If I can ID it as AOL, then it's gone.
Not difficult stuff, and by no means top secret information. I may not be getting all of it out, but at least its to the point that the AOL software is undetectable and really really broken if it is still there.
Of course, do not delete something from the registry unless you are certain it is AOL unless you wanna reinstall the OS or manually fix the registry.
Same here, and experience is the reason I think AOL is worse than any spyware or adware that I can think of. I have been called upon to help numerous friends etc whose computers "run real slow". First step, get firefox. Install, get adaware and spybot, install and run. Get Zonealarm and AVG (cause they never have a firewall or AV). Run of the mill stuff. What always deals me fits, though, is the lame AOL software they invariably have on their PCs. I usually have to remove it manually (hunting down the files, removing services, and cleaning the registry), as the uninstall programs NEVER actually remove AOL and rarely do anything except hang the PC. You might as well try to totally remove IE.
So here's why I say it's worse than all other malware: If Lavasoft decided one day to make Adaware remove AOL, they would be slapped with a lawsuit from the well heeled lawyers owned by AOL Time Warner for merely suggesting that AOL's software is less than scrupulous. So, good malware removal tools are right out of the picture. The AOL uninstall programs are just "mysteriously" unable to remove the sotware. So, most users are left with a polluted add/remove programs list, a bunch of crap loading at startup, and totally stupid applications on their systrays, not to mention who knows-whatever-else is bundled with AOL. Just based on the fact that AOL makes it super easy to install their crapware and next to impossible to totally remove it smacks of malicious intent.
AOL sucks. AOL sucks. AOL sucks. Badware? No. There has to be a much stronger word than "badware" reserved for AOL. AOL is the intestinal parasite of the internet.
... and that's it, you know. Thanks for mentioning the fjords. You helped lead me right to this conclusion. For your assistance, I shall provide you with a daily ration of pickled herring and call you nice names like Slappy.
That's what happens when you have ambiguous laws designed and enforced by people who know nothing about technology. It's worse when these laws are designed to be elastic clauses to cover future innovations. It's ok, though. If more laws are enforced the way the DMCA is, there won't be any future innovations.
Here is where we see if Apple actually different than other corporations (as they would have you believe). Will they do something about this, or is this just another corporate "Yeah, we are going to look into the bad conditions of our overseas workers. We'll get riiight on that..." to placate public moral outrage? I'd be interested in the follow up, though I doubt we will ever know.
Personally, I'd wager they don't care two dead flies.
Disclaimer, I have an iPod and love it. I would never trade it for a Creative Zin or a M$ Zoon or whatever those stupid knockoffs are called.
There's nothing hip or cool aboug having some music device from a giant corporation
Ok. Apple is every bit as much of a giant evil corporation as Microsoft. The difference is that Apple knows how to design stuff. I like that Apple pays attention to UI design. M$ does *not* have that going for them. But it is not because Apple is some upstart, for goodness sakes, that people buy their products. I am sick of the notion that buying from Apple makes you all anti-establishment and stuff.
Otherwise, I agree with you. This thing sounds and looks like a totally sub-par knockoff. No wheel? All plastic? Once again, Apple does what they do best and everyone else flounders in an attempt to duplicate. Think about the fact that an iPod has a metal back. Does this make it more durable? Perhaps. More likely, though, is that it gives the user the feeling of a solid device. In your hand, an all plastic device just feels different. Attention to detail; the little things that maybe don't add value other than user perception is what sets Apple apart here. If something "feels" better, then the perception of quality is much higher. M$ and all the other would-be contenders just don't get it.
You insensitive clod! I lost my teeth saving children from a burning bus! At least my mom cares enough! Geez...
There is nothing wrong with a decent user interface. amaroK looks like a Soviet era apartment building. Blocky, Klunky, and butt ugly. Kind of like your mother's basement. Get out and see the world. Or at least the rest of Waco.
Agreed. I tried AmaroK, and it KsucKed. I know what I am saying is highly subjective. I am also sure that iTunes uses resources on some systems (though on my very vanilla XP box, no prob at all).
Let's exclude application functionality. I still say amaroK sucked because it just seemed Klunky (KDE seems this way to me in general, compared with gnome). iTunes just feels clean and slick. I know that I am quibbling about nice pretty user interfaces, but remember: the user interface gives the user the overall impression of quality -- or lack thereof.
I once read that one of the biggest indicators of a quality automobile, in the mind of many drivers at least, is if it has a quiet ride. Now, anyone knows that a car could have squeaks and rattles and so forth and be very well made. But it's all about perception. Obviously, an application has to just work out of the box (no CLI business) and have useful functionality. But the user interface also has to yell "This is a quality product!"
Just because some people (looking at you ID/Creationist political movement) have some bizarro ideas doesn't make the idea of creation implausible. That's no more valid than a creationist using one instance of a paleontologist falsifying fossil evidence as a means to totally debunk evolution. What you are doing is mudslinging instead of having an intelligent debate, AC. Go away, or I shall taunt you a second time!
I'd bet that the majority of people in the US believe in what they do because of ignorance and fear or changing. I am referring to creationists and evolutionists.
Many who believe in creation do so not because they see the logic in attributing the order in nature to a designer (just as we would in any other circumstance) but because it's what their parents|churche$ taught them.
Many people who accept evolution do so not because they see evidence thereof, but rather because it is taught as the "scientific" truth. This in spite of the very good points you make, of course.
I will stick my Karma out there and agree with you. I'd add to your list a third point: the fact that nature's laws that scientists spend lifetimes unraveling show tremendous order. This implies a designer. It's not that things are too complex to understand therefore they must be miraculous. It's that in any other context when you see order and structure you credit that to a designer. Trouble is that so many in the scientific community have a religious (yes, I said it) objection to the notion of a creator. Yet, neither evolution nor creation is testable, so in that respect both are a matter of faith.
Of course, it is with good reason that many people reject the position of the churches. They persecuted Galilleo for being right but against their obviously wrong scriptural interpretations. Belief in a creator (or the genesis account, for that matter, if correctly read) does not fly in the face of scientific fact. It only flies in the face of conclusions drawn by those in the scientific community who prefer the philosophical implications of a purely naturalistic origin of life rather than accept belief in a creator.
--
WAIT! Are you modding me down simply because you disagree with me?
Sorry, but am I the only one who found reading this review to be the literary equivalent of trying to hack through a jungle with a machete? I read this and I still don't know what the heck it's saying. I am asking myself if this is a joke or something? Or was the book so illogically arranged (I did get that about the book) that it scrambled the poor reviewer's brain?
Slashdot Mirror
As a musician, I can appreciate the desire for this old equipment. I'd _never_ buy a solid state amplifier, and I'd never record directly to digital. Most music is recorded in analog because it does sound warmer.
Vinyl sounds great, too, so I am with you there.
Interesting you mention old speakers, though. All of the old speakers I have ever seen never seem to be that great. What kind are you looking for? Where do you get them from? And is anyone making new equipment the way they made the old stuff? For example, Fender makes new guitar amps that are all tube, and while they use a PC board unlike the old amps, the sound is often quite comparable (for the most part). Does anyone make sudio equipment along these lines or do you strictly look for the old stuff? I am interested, because I would never have thought that anyone would want old speakers since they just seem to wear out after a while.
I forgot to add...don't forget to click around in that site. Like a good wine, it reveals it's cache of "goodness" slowly and more with each click. My personal fave is the logo page. Believe it or not, they have made it much better than it was last time...nah, you'll never believe that so just trust me!
Oh, man, is that ever BAD! I think it's up there with the worst site I've ever seen, right here. Hope you like blink tags!!!
Because you'd never hear a military guy saying that lethal weapons should be used on civilians. Not publicly at least. The barrier to using nonlethal weapons is much lower and would thus be easier for some suit to justify using on civilians without. That said, it is a good thing if you can protect people by perhaps using these nonlethal weapons on rioters and terrorists (caught in the act, not "suspected" terrorists) and the like. It is just scary that some military officer would suggest that these weapons should be used on civilians without qualifying the circumstances in which they'd be used. Certain arms of the government have shown themselves callous with regard to treatment of citizens, so it's not hard to assume the worst when statements like that are made. Probably making a mountain out of a molehill but when powerful government officials talk about what amounts to performing experiments on citizens it makes me shudder. Government's job is to protect its constituents, not exploit them. My problem is not with nonlethal weapons. My problem is with some fat old man in a suit who suggests that civilians should serve as guinea pigs. Unless he wants to sign up his wife and children as lab rats, he ought to refrain from suggesting that citizens should be used to test weapons on.
I guess it depends. If I am a threat to the general populace or to the officer, then using a weapon of any type would be reasonable.
However, if I were fired upon by an officer under any other circumstances then I could justifiably claim that my rights were being violated. Whether the use of weapons (lethal or nonlethal) is used against civilians would of course depend on the circumstances. Am I saying that police would be unjustified in using such weapons in the event of a riot, terror attack, back robbery etc? Not at all. It is just that given a little bit of knowledge of US history, it is all too easy to suspect that the government may try to use these weapons against civilians in an unjustified manner.
Actually, I slightly misread your post. You ask which constitutional "principle" is being violated. You did not say constitutional ammendment or article. I would have to say that the entire spirit of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights would be violated by such a thing. See my post just above this one.
I agree. No constitutional principle would be violated by testing weapons on US civilians.
What this would constitute is a violation of basic human rights: a right to life, liberty, property and/or the pursuit of happiness. The Constitution does not mention these, but the Declaration of Independance sure does, right there in its preamble. Yes, the US does not regard the Declaration of Independence as law, however, these are clearly the principles upon which the US was founded. Are you suggesting that testing weapons on US citizens could be somehow justified?
It can be. I use AJAX quite a bit, though, and find that prototype makes things pretty simple. It takes a while to get proficient with it, but it really does pay off. This coming from someone who generally _hates_ to use someone else's code libraries. I cringe when I see "professional" web developers grab scripts from websites like dynadrive.com and use them. I _always_ write my own stuff. I have to admit, though, that compared with when I used to have my own AJAX library, prototype has taken much of the difficulty out of using AJAX.
A lot depends on how you use it. I do not create spreadsheets and maps and so forth like google, but I find it extremely beneficial for 1) loading content from a DB that may be too slow for the initial page load, 2) allowing users to perform simple DB tasks (ex. deleting a row) without reloading the page, and 3) performing certain tasks on demand as opposed to when the page loads. I find that I can create a pretty functional AJAX page very easily.
The other nice thing is that you can use AJAX tchniques to better separate content from presentation.
I am sure you know most of these things, but I say them to illustrate the point that while it can be a hair more difficult (using prototype) to code AJAX pages than coding conventional pages, the benefits in terms of performance and user experience outweigh the negatives. I have not yet found that maintenance is more difficult, either.
If you think it's too complex/tedious to work with AJAX, just give prototype a shot.
You forgot the memory leaks. No self-respecting Mozilla troll fails to point out that Firefox uses up 5 Terabytes of RAM. Get with it!
Heck, it wasn't an HDD failure anyhow. He just had a couple of Smoke Emitting Diodes soldered in for effect.
- Check for services/startup items related to AOL (check MSConfig too).
- Search for any folders/files like AOL
- Check your registry. Here is where the risk comes in; you don't want to delete the wrong things. I usually look in HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT, HKEY_CURRENT_USER/Software, HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE/SOFTWARE, HKEY_USERS/*/Software, and HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\Cur
r entVersion\Uninstall. If I can ID it as AOL, then it's gone.
Not difficult stuff, and by no means top secret information. I may not be getting all of it out, but at least its to the point that the AOL software is undetectable and really really broken if it is still there.Of course, do not delete something from the registry unless you are certain it is AOL unless you wanna reinstall the OS or manually fix the registry.
Hope that helps you out.
Same here, and experience is the reason I think AOL is worse than any spyware or adware that I can think of. I have been called upon to help numerous friends etc whose computers "run real slow". First step, get firefox. Install, get adaware and spybot, install and run. Get Zonealarm and AVG (cause they never have a firewall or AV). Run of the mill stuff. What always deals me fits, though, is the lame AOL software they invariably have on their PCs. I usually have to remove it manually (hunting down the files, removing services, and cleaning the registry), as the uninstall programs NEVER actually remove AOL and rarely do anything except hang the PC. You might as well try to totally remove IE.
So here's why I say it's worse than all other malware: If Lavasoft decided one day to make Adaware remove AOL, they would be slapped with a lawsuit from the well heeled lawyers owned by AOL Time Warner for merely suggesting that AOL's software is less than scrupulous. So, good malware removal tools are right out of the picture. The AOL uninstall programs are just "mysteriously" unable to remove the sotware. So, most users are left with a polluted add/remove programs list, a bunch of crap loading at startup, and totally stupid applications on their systrays, not to mention who knows-whatever-else is bundled with AOL. Just based on the fact that AOL makes it super easy to install their crapware and next to impossible to totally remove it smacks of malicious intent.
AOL sucks. AOL sucks. AOL sucks. Badware? No. There has to be a much stronger word than "badware" reserved for AOL. AOL is the intestinal parasite of the internet.
... and that's it, you know. Thanks for mentioning the fjords. You helped lead me right to this conclusion. For your assistance, I shall provide you with a daily ration of pickled herring and call you nice names like Slappy.
I ROT13 my super secret files 48 times! Nobody is gonna get their grubby mits on my plans for world domination OR my secret recipe for iced tea!
That's what happens when you have ambiguous laws designed and enforced by people who know nothing about technology. It's worse when these laws are designed to be elastic clauses to cover future innovations. It's ok, though. If more laws are enforced the way the DMCA is, there won't be any future innovations.
Here is where we see if Apple actually different than other corporations (as they would have you believe). Will they do something about this, or is this just another corporate "Yeah, we are going to look into the bad conditions of our overseas workers. We'll get riiight on that..." to placate public moral outrage? I'd be interested in the follow up, though I doubt we will ever know.
Personally, I'd wager they don't care two dead flies.
Ok. Apple is every bit as much of a giant evil corporation as Microsoft. The difference is that Apple knows how to design stuff. I like that Apple pays attention to UI design. M$ does *not* have that going for them. But it is not because Apple is some upstart, for goodness sakes, that people buy their products. I am sick of the notion that buying from Apple makes you all anti-establishment and stuff.
Otherwise, I agree with you. This thing sounds and looks like a totally sub-par knockoff. No wheel? All plastic? Once again, Apple does what they do best and everyone else flounders in an attempt to duplicate. Think about the fact that an iPod has a metal back. Does this make it more durable? Perhaps. More likely, though, is that it gives the user the feeling of a solid device. In your hand, an all plastic device just feels different. Attention to detail; the little things that maybe don't add value other than user perception is what sets Apple apart here. If something "feels" better, then the perception of quality is much higher. M$ and all the other would-be contenders just don't get it.
You insensitive clod! I lost my teeth saving children from a burning bus! At least my mom cares enough! Geez...
There is nothing wrong with a decent user interface. amaroK looks like a Soviet era apartment building. Blocky, Klunky, and butt ugly. Kind of like your mother's basement. Get out and see the world. Or at least the rest of Waco.
Riiiight, AC, riiiight. Mea Culpa. It's a brilliant piece of software... *gags*
Agreed. I tried AmaroK, and it KsucKed. I know what I am saying is highly subjective. I am also sure that iTunes uses resources on some systems (though on my very vanilla XP box, no prob at all).
Let's exclude application functionality. I still say amaroK sucked because it just seemed Klunky (KDE seems this way to me in general, compared with gnome). iTunes just feels clean and slick. I know that I am quibbling about nice pretty user interfaces, but remember: the user interface gives the user the overall impression of quality -- or lack thereof.
I once read that one of the biggest indicators of a quality automobile, in the mind of many drivers at least, is if it has a quiet ride. Now, anyone knows that a car could have squeaks and rattles and so forth and be very well made. But it's all about perception. Obviously, an application has to just work out of the box (no CLI business) and have useful functionality. But the user interface also has to yell "This is a quality product!"
Just because some people (looking at you ID/Creationist political movement) have some bizarro ideas doesn't make the idea of creation implausible. That's no more valid than a creationist using one instance of a paleontologist falsifying fossil evidence as a means to totally debunk evolution. What you are doing is mudslinging instead of having an intelligent debate, AC. Go away, or I shall taunt you a second time!
I'd bet that the majority of people in the US believe in what they do because of ignorance and fear or changing. I am referring to creationists and evolutionists.
Many who believe in creation do so not because they see the logic in attributing the order in nature to a designer (just as we would in any other circumstance) but because it's what their parents|churche$ taught them.
Many people who accept evolution do so not because they see evidence thereof, but rather because it is taught as the "scientific" truth. This in spite of the very good points you make, of course.
I will stick my Karma out there and agree with you. I'd add to your list a third point: the fact that nature's laws that scientists spend lifetimes unraveling show tremendous order. This implies a designer. It's not that things are too complex to understand therefore they must be miraculous. It's that in any other context when you see order and structure you credit that to a designer. Trouble is that so many in the scientific community have a religious (yes, I said it) objection to the notion of a creator. Yet, neither evolution nor creation is testable, so in that respect both are a matter of faith.
Of course, it is with good reason that many people reject the position of the churches. They persecuted Galilleo for being right but against their obviously wrong scriptural interpretations. Belief in a creator (or the genesis account, for that matter, if correctly read) does not fly in the face of scientific fact. It only flies in the face of conclusions drawn by those in the scientific community who prefer the philosophical implications of a purely naturalistic origin of life rather than accept belief in a creator.
--
WAIT! Are you modding me down simply because you disagree with me?
Sure, if you want send me a few to corp.marketing@gmail.com.
thanks!
Sorry, but am I the only one who found reading this review to be the literary equivalent of trying to hack through a jungle with a machete? I read this and I still don't know what the heck it's saying. I am asking myself if this is a joke or something? Or was the book so illogically arranged (I did get that about the book) that it scrambled the poor reviewer's brain?