Two reasons: A well-recorded vinyl record played on an audiophylic turntable has simply a better resolution. When the CD came to the market, technology simply was unable to reach the same resolution. Further, the spectrum has no sharp cut-off on a record. On a CD, when its 19999 Hz, the frequency is there, when it's 20001 Hz, it isn't. This sounds not natural, since you are used to hear high frequency worse the higher they are. You can hear this when a cymbal is played: this instrument has very strong, high harmonics. On an audiophylic record, they sound clear, on a CD a little sharp en fuzzed.
The second reason is more historical: when the first CD players appeared, they sounded horrible. The high frequencies were sharp, a pain in the ear. Gadget-eager people not used to the sound quality of a good turntable, liked the sound, and they thought this was how sound should be. So the general public got used to an audio sound with a way to sharp high. The typical Sony-sound was born, and the British and German sound lost ground. Audio industry is still not completely recovered from this. Since the record only survived in audiophylic form, and on the dancefloor (where a sharp high also isn't exactly what you want), chances are your vinyl record and player have a more balanced sound than their digital equivalents.
Palestine just elected Hamas to power. The Palestinians were given a choice, and they CHOSE a historically violent faction by the consolidated MAJORITY of their voting population.
So? Is it the first time in history a violent faction got elected? In the west, going to war has many times proved to be a effective election strategy.
And what would YOU vote, if your country was occupied? I bet most people would vote the guys who actually showed resistance.
You want to listen to your CD? That's surely not 'fair use'. Remember, you've only a licence to play the CD. If you want to listen to it, why don't you just buy an additional licence? It comes at affordable prices, so we do not see why you should listen to the music when you have only a license to play it.
So, would the honorable representant of the RIAA please explain me where i can get copies of albums by the Cranes and other musicians who were dumped by record companies for making music which was not commercial enough?
The guy in Birkenstocks, whose footprint on nature is fifty times bigger than the villager's, sneers at the guy in cowboy boots whose footprint is sixty times greater.
The guy in a Birkenstock will have a seriously smaller footprint.
Did you ever read Jared Diamonds latest book? Bottom line: civilisations collapse at the top of their power, because they rather die than give up their status symbols. So yes, if the choice is driving a hummer and starving, or riding a bicycle and eating, people will keep on driving until it's to late.
Talk about attacks on science. Lomborg was smart enough to keep ecologists, climatologists, experts on population growth and health, technologists and left-winged economists out of his 'consensus'. Like he did not tolerate statisticians talking about his 'statistics'.
If a 3C increase in global temperature reduces GDP by only 20%, i will start to believe in god again.
But how to obtain two different copies? Noone will buy two copies just to be able to give it to the world for free. Friends? People tend to buy music their friends don't already have (this is the real problem for the music industry: differentiation.)
So, to find another copy, one's copy has to be exposed on a p2p-net with the watermark on. It will be trivial to build a fake-cleanser to catch it in this stage of sharing.
Either way, I don't see them putting unique ID codes on mass-market CDs anytime soon. Imagine the size of the tracking database - and the distribution chain cooperation required. Instead they'll make one version for each distribution channel or region, and use that as part of the evidence in building a case ("we know the CD was sold in Nebraska - which is exactly where our suspect lives!").
There is a reason why they are experimenting with albums-on-a-stick. Makes watermarking easy. I'm quite sure they will succeed, they will be using the same tricks they used to push the CD when the sound quality of a player was horrible compared to a record player of the same price. (bonus tracks etc). They'll do the same with online music, just to make CD's obsolete
When this is accomplished, it's quite simple: RFID + paying with bank/credit card = YOU!
As well, it also ignors that the conviction in rate in China is over 95%
This is not very different in the USA. There's only a different name for it: 'plea bargain'. The vast majority of cases never see a real trial, because of this.
Let's say 70% of the cases becomes a plea bargain. Further, lets say you have a chance of 50% when you actually go to trial. This adds up to 70%+(0,5*30%)=85% conviction rate. IRL you have less chance in a real trial (especially when there's not much money to defend you), so the real number will be over 90%.
A few years ago, there was trouble in the Netherlands because of a Dutchmen who was extradited to US for some drugs-thing. In a European trial, the evidence would have the chance of a Bose-Einstein condensate in a full blown fusion reactor, but still he had no other choice than take a plea bargain. Conviction rate in US is too close to China to be comfortable.
But what is the death rate of companies who already survived those first three critical years? Few companies in fortune5h are younger than three years, if any. Most companies will die young, and few companies start big. Those 90% of companies simply never had the chance to become big or stay small.
So, compare small mature companies with large mature companies.
In my town there's a very small shop selling paint. It's 125 years old and still going strong. I don't think MS will be selling anything in the 22th century. About the paint shop, i'm not so sure.
If it's possible for someone sufficiently stupid to drive a battle tank or a car off a cliff, this person will also be able to trash any virus protection on his PC.
In fact, Windows has a vastly, almost prohibitively more elegant security infrastructure than "Linux": File rights of "Full Control, Modify, Read & Execute, Read, Write," file attributes of "Read-Only, Archive, System, Hidden," very finely-grained ACL-based system security "Policies", a global Kerberos-based directory authentication scheme in Active Directory, etc etc etc.
"Linux" has rwx-rwx-rwx. That's it.
IANAHBIAAS (i am not a hacker but i am a sailor). This quote gives me a strong feeling Linux is much safer than Windows. I know you can't compare a computer to a ship, but at sea, one thing's for sure: Safe systems are simple systems. Especially when you have to deal with a lot of people of which you don't know how educated they are (which is, of course, much more the case in computers than on board).
On the sailing ship which i am a captain of, we use exactly TWO KNOTS to control the ship. One for the sails, one for the vessel. For these knots, the crew has to abide THREE rules of thumb. Only three or four other knots are used in non-critical situations, only by the captain, mate, or a trained crewmember. That's safety: it's simple, it's easy to understand, and it is always the same. This does not imply the system as a whole is simple: controlling 6 or 7 sails (or two in heavy wheather) on shallow, tidal water is a very complex job. And mistakes can potentially take lives, not files. This complex job can be done safely. But if every rope needs its own, special knot, you're fried. A dangerous mistake will be unevadible in the long run.
I see no reason why in a computer system, it would be the other way around.
Or at least, not that stupid. Having to type a rootpassword is no nuisance at all. People are used to passwords, for the terminal at work, for gmail, their bank account, whatever. Jan Modaal carries keys for his home, his car, his bicycle. Everyone understands you need security codes for your credit card and your account on the DB-ticketservice. You only have to tell them, if they don't ask themselves for it.
A text like 'To make sure no programs are installed without your permission, there is a special password [...]. This is needed to protect your computer from attacks.' is not too hard for anyone. If it is, the person won't be able to buy a computer, since he doesn't understand the security code of his bank card.
It must be great to own a patent on herion or a new designer drug. All you have to do is wait until a drugdealer is caught, and then sue him. When this doesn't bring in enough money, you can always sue the police for the loss of profit they caused by destroying the dealers' business.
Maybe i should take a patent on this brilliant, innovative business method.
B***********'s is hardly whisky, it's like chewing on raw grain drenched in alcohol. And it's surely not whiskEy, since that's Irish. But it can be used to clean your monitor, keyboard, or the oil lamps of a classic sailing ship. Only, you'll have to do a lot of cleaning until the bottle is empty.
For drinking, i would recommand a fine Lowlands, like Rosebank or Bladnoch. You can also try a St. Magdalene, to make sure you won't have to bother getting a motherboard inside the bottle, since your budget will be totally spent on the booze.
The Marshall plan was not a gift. On a large scale, it was a subsidy for the american war economy, which had to cool down. This was done by letting the destroyed countries buy hardware from the american war industry, so it had the chance to switch back to civil products on an normal production level. At the same time, the price of the dollar doubled, and stayed very long at this level. American hardware was unnatural expensive, but Europe had no choice. (i bet the Russians could've provided the same for much less, but cold war, etc). Only when european countries started to couple their currencies, the dollar slowly came back at it's natural level, and Europe started to pay normal prices for American hardware (and oil etc.) So, in a way, the Marshall plan was also a loan.
Anyways, in the first decades after the war, Germany did not have an army like they have nowadays. The Netherlands also got money from the Marshall plan, but the recovery of Holland was not even close to the 'Wirtschaftswunder' in Germany.
It's a well-known argument, but there are some problems.
1) The military costs a fscking lot of money, and just a small part is used for development. Soldiers, uniforms, gasoline, ammunition, ordinary vehicles and bureaucracy eats most of the budget. So, if the military brings development, it does with an awful overhead. There is no reason to think this is more efficient than putting all this money directly into universities, civil research centers and innovative companies.
2) Both Japan and Germany lost the war, were bombed to dust, but in the decades after they developed at a marvelous pace. The myth about those countries 'just imitating' should be debunked by now. Both did this with no or just a small army. Many economist think the reason for this 'wirtschaftswunder' was the absence of the economic burden of an army.
3) The military steers development in a certain direction, which might not be the direction that would benefit civilians most. The military is more interested in things which can survive impacts and rough handeling, more than in being energy-efficient, for example. Military hardware is heavy, ugly, and uses energy like it's free. Take a look at outdoor-equipment. Tents, sleeping bags, clothing, tools etc for soldiers are useless for civil outdoor activities. They are way to heavy and not comfortable. They are designed to be transported by vehicles, and to endure in combat. Not for being carried by a 53kg woman in a national park. It's the same for vehicles. A hummer might be fine for the military, but in daily life it's a pain in the ass. For civilian life, we need velomobiles and other small, lightweight vehicles. War ships might be fast and beautiful (at least the Dutch ones - my father-in-law designed a good part of them:) ), but ships who actually need to bring cargo from A to B are totally different.
4) The military technology uses civil innovations as well. The military switching to Linux is just another example.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't forget 'nazi' or 'terrorist' or 'failed' or 'narco'.
Two reasons: A well-recorded vinyl record played on an audiophylic turntable has simply a better resolution. When the CD came to the market, technology simply was unable to reach the same resolution. Further, the spectrum has no sharp cut-off on a record. On a CD, when its 19999 Hz, the frequency is there, when it's 20001 Hz, it isn't. This sounds not natural, since you are used to hear high frequency worse the higher they are. You can hear this when a cymbal is played: this instrument has very strong, high harmonics. On an audiophylic record, they sound clear, on a CD a little sharp en fuzzed.
The second reason is more historical: when the first CD players appeared, they sounded horrible. The high frequencies were sharp, a pain in the ear. Gadget-eager people not used to the sound quality of a good turntable, liked the sound, and they thought this was how sound should be. So the general public got used to an audio sound with a way to sharp high. The typical Sony-sound was born, and the British and German sound lost ground. Audio industry is still not completely recovered from this. Since the record only survived in audiophylic form, and on the dancefloor (where a sharp high also isn't exactly what you want), chances are your vinyl record and player have a more balanced sound than their digital equivalents.
You cannot get energy from magnets.
You can burn them.
Israel is collecting most of palestinian customs fees and tarriffs which is a huge chunk of the rest of their funding
Isn't that a part of the occupation? Not to let the Palestinians collect their own taxes? Isn't it their own money?
It's quite usual for future violent domination to start as an effective defence against the current violent domination.
Palestine just elected Hamas to power. The Palestinians were given a choice, and they CHOSE a historically violent faction by the consolidated MAJORITY of their voting population.
So? Is it the first time in history a violent faction got elected? In the west, going to war has many times proved to be a effective election strategy.
And what would YOU vote, if your country was occupied? I bet most people would vote the guys who actually showed resistance.
You bet. Got a clue what my nic means? http://fotos.ligfiets.net/fotos-alkmaar-2004/pages /2004-12-12_155519.html
You want to listen to your CD? That's surely not 'fair use'. Remember, you've only a licence to play the CD. If you want to listen to it, why don't you just buy an additional licence? It comes at affordable prices, so we do not see why you should listen to the music when you have only a license to play it.
So, would the honorable representant of the RIAA please explain me where i can get copies of albums by the Cranes and other musicians who were dumped by record companies for making music which was not commercial enough?
Of course, the earth mantle couldn't possibly contain anything but oil to take up the space.
The guy in Birkenstocks, whose footprint on nature is fifty times bigger than the villager's, sneers at the guy in cowboy boots whose footprint is sixty times greater.
The guy in a Birkenstock will have a seriously smaller footprint.
Did you ever read Jared Diamonds latest book? Bottom line: civilisations collapse at the top of their power, because they rather die than give up their status symbols. So yes, if the choice is driving a hummer and starving, or riding a bicycle and eating, people will keep on driving until it's to late.
Talk about attacks on science. Lomborg was smart enough to keep ecologists, climatologists, experts on population growth and health, technologists and left-winged economists out of his 'consensus'. Like he did not tolerate statisticians talking about his 'statistics'.
If a 3C increase in global temperature reduces GDP by only 20%, i will start to believe in god again.
But how to obtain two different copies? Noone will buy two copies just to be able to give it to the world for free. Friends? People tend to buy music their friends don't already have (this is the real problem for the music industry: differentiation.)
So, to find another copy, one's copy has to be exposed on a p2p-net with the watermark on. It will be trivial to build a fake-cleanser to catch it in this stage of sharing.
Either way, I don't see them putting unique ID codes on mass-market CDs anytime soon. Imagine the size of the tracking database - and the distribution chain cooperation required. Instead they'll make one version for each distribution channel or region, and use that as part of the evidence in building a case ("we know the CD was sold in Nebraska - which is exactly where our suspect lives!").
There is a reason why they are experimenting with albums-on-a-stick. Makes watermarking easy. I'm quite sure they will succeed, they will be using the same tricks they used to push the CD when the sound quality of a player was horrible compared to a record player of the same price. (bonus tracks etc). They'll do the same with online music, just to make CD's obsolete
When this is accomplished, it's quite simple: RFID + paying with bank/credit card = YOU!
As well, it also ignors that the conviction in rate in China is over 95%
This is not very different in the USA. There's only a different name for it: 'plea bargain'. The vast majority of cases never see a real trial, because of this.
Let's say 70% of the cases becomes a plea bargain. Further, lets say you have a chance of 50% when you actually go to trial. This adds up to 70%+(0,5*30%)=85% conviction rate. IRL you have less chance in a real trial (especially when there's not much money to defend you), so the real number will be over 90%.
A few years ago, there was trouble in the Netherlands because of a Dutchmen who was extradited to US for some drugs-thing. In a European trial, the evidence would have the chance of a Bose-Einstein condensate in a full blown fusion reactor, but still he had no other choice than take a plea bargain. Conviction rate in US is too close to China to be comfortable.
But what is the death rate of companies who already survived those first three critical years? Few companies in fortune5h are younger than three years, if any. Most companies will die young, and few companies start big. Those 90% of companies simply never had the chance to become big or stay small.
So, compare small mature companies with large mature companies.
In my town there's a very small shop selling paint. It's 125 years old and still going strong. I don't think MS will be selling anything in the 22th century. About the paint shop, i'm not so sure.
If it's possible for someone sufficiently stupid to drive a battle tank or a car off a cliff, this person will also be able to trash any virus protection on his PC.
In fact, Windows has a vastly, almost prohibitively more elegant security infrastructure than "Linux": File rights of "Full Control, Modify, Read & Execute, Read, Write," file attributes of "Read-Only, Archive, System, Hidden," very finely-grained ACL-based system security "Policies", a global Kerberos-based directory authentication scheme in Active Directory, etc etc etc.
"Linux" has rwx-rwx-rwx. That's it.
IANAHBIAAS (i am not a hacker but i am a sailor). This quote gives me a strong feeling Linux is much safer than Windows. I know you can't compare a computer to a ship, but at sea, one thing's for sure: Safe systems are simple systems. Especially when you have to deal with a lot of people of which you don't know how educated they are (which is, of course, much more the case in computers than on board).
On the sailing ship which i am a captain of, we use exactly TWO KNOTS to control the ship. One for the sails, one for the vessel. For these knots, the crew has to abide THREE rules of thumb. Only three or four other knots are used in non-critical situations, only by the captain, mate, or a trained crewmember. That's safety: it's simple, it's easy to understand, and it is always the same. This does not imply the system as a whole is simple: controlling 6 or 7 sails (or two in heavy wheather) on shallow, tidal water is a very complex job. And mistakes can potentially take lives, not files. This complex job can be done safely. But if every rope needs its own, special knot, you're fried. A dangerous mistake will be unevadible in the long run.
I see no reason why in a computer system, it would be the other way around.
Or at least, not that stupid. Having to type a rootpassword is no nuisance at all. People are used to passwords, for the terminal at work, for gmail, their bank account, whatever. Jan Modaal carries keys for his home, his car, his bicycle. Everyone understands you need security codes for your credit card and your account on the DB-ticketservice. You only have to tell them, if they don't ask themselves for it.
A text like 'To make sure no programs are installed without your permission, there is a special password [...]. This is needed to protect your computer from attacks.' is not too hard for anyone. If it is, the person won't be able to buy a computer, since he doesn't understand the security code of his bank card.
It must be great to own a patent on herion or a new designer drug. All you have to do is wait until a drugdealer is caught, and then sue him. When this doesn't bring in enough money, you can always sue the police for the loss of profit they caused by destroying the dealers' business.
Maybe i should take a patent on this brilliant, innovative business method.
B***********'s is hardly whisky, it's like chewing on raw grain drenched in alcohol. And it's surely not whiskEy, since that's Irish. But it can be used to clean your monitor, keyboard, or the oil lamps of a classic sailing ship. Only, you'll have to do a lot of cleaning until the bottle is empty.
For drinking, i would recommand a fine Lowlands, like Rosebank or Bladnoch. You can also try a St. Magdalene, to make sure you won't have to bother getting a motherboard inside the bottle, since your budget will be totally spent on the booze.
Like they don't use FireFox when nobody is looking over their shoulder.
The Marshall plan was not a gift. On a large scale, it was a subsidy for the american war economy, which had to cool down. This was done by letting the destroyed countries buy hardware from the american war industry, so it had the chance to switch back to civil products on an normal production level. At the same time, the price of the dollar doubled, and stayed very long at this level. American hardware was unnatural expensive, but Europe had no choice. (i bet the Russians could've provided the same for much less, but cold war, etc). Only when european countries started to couple their currencies, the dollar slowly came back at it's natural level, and Europe started to pay normal prices for American hardware (and oil etc.) So, in a way, the Marshall plan was also a loan.
Anyways, in the first decades after the war, Germany did not have an army like they have nowadays. The Netherlands also got money from the Marshall plan, but the recovery of Holland was not even close to the 'Wirtschaftswunder' in Germany.
It's a well-known argument, but there are some problems.
:) ), but ships who actually need to bring cargo from A to B are totally different.
1) The military costs a fscking lot of money, and just a small part is used for development. Soldiers, uniforms, gasoline, ammunition, ordinary vehicles and bureaucracy eats most of the budget. So, if the military brings development, it does with an awful overhead. There is no reason to think this is more efficient than putting all this money directly into universities, civil research centers and innovative companies.
2) Both Japan and Germany lost the war, were bombed to dust, but in the decades after they developed at a marvelous pace. The myth about those countries 'just imitating' should be debunked by now. Both did this with no or just a small army. Many economist think the reason for this 'wirtschaftswunder' was the absence of the economic burden of an army.
3) The military steers development in a certain direction, which might not be the direction that would benefit civilians most. The military is more interested in things which can survive impacts and rough handeling, more than in being energy-efficient, for example. Military hardware is heavy, ugly, and uses energy like it's free. Take a look at outdoor-equipment. Tents, sleeping bags, clothing, tools etc for soldiers are useless for civil outdoor activities. They are way to heavy and not comfortable. They are designed to be transported by vehicles, and to endure in combat. Not for being carried by a 53kg woman in a national park. It's the same for vehicles. A hummer might be fine for the military, but in daily life it's a pain in the ass. For civilian life, we need velomobiles and other small, lightweight vehicles. War ships might be fast and beautiful (at least the Dutch ones - my father-in-law designed a good part of them
4) The military technology uses civil innovations as well. The military switching to Linux is just another example.