Edit the "Album Artist" tag for all the songs in the Album, to the same value. This will solve your problem of "split" albums, as it takes precedence over the "Artist" tag.
Apple could produce a $350 "MacBook Lite", by upgrading the processor of a previous MacBook model, and selling it alongside the newer designs. And they would sell in droves.
I'm not saying that they should, but they could if they wanted to.
Oh, you thought you'd get to use the dollar? Uh, no, that's a United States Federal Reserve Note. Fuck off!
There are already 10 other countries that use the US$ as their sole official currency, with a further 10 countries using it in parallel with their own currency.
So no reason that seceded states couldn't do the same, it's not like you could effectively go and take the currency back.
You do realise that one of the main reasons people in third world countries have many children, is that they know that there is a very high infant mortality rate, coupled with the fact that ones children are the only social security they will have in later life, as children will assist in growing food, and look after their parents when they themselves become adults.
If you know that 4 out of 5 babies die before they are 5 years old, (often due to malaria, as it hits children a lot harder than adults) then aiming for 10 children will mean that hopefully 2 survive to look after you when you get old.
A lot of work has been done in the last 2 to 3 decades to educate africans about birth-control, and they know about it, but still choose to have large families because of the high infant mortality. Access to condoms, (both male and female) is pretty widespread due to HIV/AIDS awareness programmes.
If you knew that 80% of any money/assets you saved for retirement had a very good chance of disappearing in a puff of smoke, you'd save a heck of a lot more than you do now.
I'm not American, nor do I live in the US, but I currently live in a 1st world country, and have lived in a 3rd world country.
While it's true that there are those who live in rural locations because the want the peace and tranquility etc, there are those who live there because they "need" to. When I say "need", I mean you can't run a big farm or mine in the middle of the city. Amazingly, the work these people do, affects you directly.
If a farmer (both 1st and 3rd world) has decent communications and internet access, it makes an amazing difference to the efficiency and profitability of his farm. This in turn allows him to reduce his costs, and therefore the final cost (to you) of his produce, be that wheat for the bread that you eat, or the steak for your barbeque.
A small contribution on your part, (multiplied by everyone else in the country), means that improved infrastructure can be provided to those living out in the sticks. (provided of course, that the money is used correctly, and not abused, either by governments, or corporations)
This in turn will provide benefits to you. You may not see the benefits immediately but believe me, they will trickle down eventually.
Not all who live in rural areas are selfish pricks.
Disarming the population (if done effectively) reduces the number of guns in circulation, making it harder (and more expensive) for criminals to get hold of illegal firearms.
Not into the public domain, but they must release them.
Just trying to understand your point here so bear with me (I'm a bit thick). If you say they don't have to be released into the public domain, then I assume you are ok with them marketing and selling the tracks, and thereby hopefully for them) making a profit. How long after the artists death do you suggest that they have to have released them by?
I ask because as far as I know, they haven't stated that they will never release them, and I assume they are waiting until they feel the market conditions are right for them to achieve the maximum return on their investment.
You can not seriously keep unpublished works of an artist locked away after his death, as they are of common interest.
Just to argue a point:
If an artist creates and records 20 songs, they are free to decide that they would like to release 10 of them today, and the other 10 in five years time, their logic being that they don't want to flood the market with new tracks, as that would affect demand, price & revenue.
They are also free to sell the rights to the extra 10 songs to a third party. Additionally they can make it a conditional sale, that prevents the purchaser from releasing them before a particular date.
Now if the original artist dies before the agreed upon release date, are you suggesting that the new owner MUST forfeit any chance to profit from their investment, and immediately release the songs into the public domain? If you are, do you realise that that would likely prevent artists from selling the rights to their future catalogs, as far fewer investors would take the risk, if their investment was likely to simply disappear, if the artist died.
Compared to the other providers, not having to worry about hitting a data cap is such a relief. I don't phone much, so I'll probably never run out of minutes, 2000 sms's is about 10 times what I need, but the data that is simply amazing!
I have a Mac Mini installed in my car, and I can tether, without worry. If passengers want to download they can just go ahead, I can run google maps etc. I spend a lot of time in the car, and it really makes a difference.
See King Mswati III, of Swaziland, who went to school in England from the ages of 14 to 18.
Many thought that his western education would mean he would be a different type of leader to his father, but he doesn't appear to be as progressive as most would wish.
used cell phones were imported and hacked/jailbroken, which created enough subscribers for private sector companies to erect the towers
Doesn't seem to make sense, why would someone import and hack a cellphone into a country with no towers? There is no reason to spend time and resources doing this, if the phones won't work. A few individuals may have done this for their own purposes, but you would never have enough people carrying around useless cellphones, that a company would then say, "hey, let's build a tower/network"
N.B. As I was actually living in an African country when cellphones were introduced, I happen to know that it was private sector companies that built towers first, and the first phones were bloody expensive.
hmm, their TOS cannot give them ownership of previously published material.
I wonder what would happen if they got a ton (like a slashdotting ton) of posts that contained previously published, and therefore copywritten material.
If enough posts were made, and enough DMCA takedown requests were made, the owner/admin might be forced to take the site down
Alternatively, If we all decided to use it for sharing links to RIAA/MAFIAA content, and simultaneously notified the RIAA/MAFIAA, would it be possible to get their domain seized?
I agree with all the replies that hunting purely for sport is indeed fucked up
I only mentioned what I did because I lived in a country where the elephant population was too large. they were destroying the environment they lived in because there were too many of them for the given land area. Therefore, they HAD to be culled, to prevent the area from turning into a desert that would have been incapable of supporting ANY of the local wildlife, let alone elephants.
Seeing as the elephant had to be culled, why not let someone with more money than sense, shoot them, at least that way, it's less of a waste.
I realise the parent poster was talking about the person.
I was just offering some other information regarding hunting, that in my experience may people have never thought about.
While I agree that it is indeed fucked up to kill animals simply for fun, sensible thinking people can take the foolishness of others and turn it around so it has a net positive effect!
While elephants are endangered globally, they are not always endangered locally if you see what I mean.
Some areas of Africa, have good conservation and wildlife management programs, and actually have too many elephants for their local environment to support. The funds they pull in from rich foreigners who want to kill something for fun, are used to sustain the management programs.
Supposedly they could move the elephants to areas where they are low in numbers, but this is not always sensible. Firstly, it costs money, which they don't have much of. Secondly, there is a reason why some areas have low elephant populations, usually lack of management programs or high numbers of poachers, in which case moving elephants to that location is non-productive, as they will be killed by poachers.
I know it is counter-intuitive, but sometimes killing elephants for fun, actually helps the elephant population to survive.
One way of looking at it, is that sport hunting attaches a monetary value to an elephant, turning it into an asset for people to whom an elephant is usually a liability. (They destroy crops, and large areas of vegetation). People tend to look after their assets.
I used to keep an old pizza box on the back seat of my car, slip the laptop in there, and leave a couple of empty, slightly crushed soft drink cans lying next to it, and nobody takes a second look.
Slashdot Mirror
Edit the "Album Artist" tag for all the songs in the Album, to the same value. This will solve your problem of "split" albums, as it takes precedence over the "Artist" tag.
Apple could produce a $350 "MacBook Lite", by upgrading the processor of a previous MacBook model, and selling it alongside the newer designs. And they would sell in droves.
I'm not saying that they should, but they could if they wanted to.
Oh, you thought you'd get to use the dollar? Uh, no, that's a United States Federal Reserve Note. Fuck off!
There are already 10 other countries that use the US$ as their sole official currency, with a further 10 countries using it in parallel with their own currency.
So no reason that seceded states couldn't do the same, it's not like you could effectively go and take the currency back.
Children under 13 should be banned from pubic schools.
Indeed!
yes, but they don't know where the note has been, or who has had it in between those two points.
Therefore, as I long as I don't get cash from the bank, or an ATM, or deposit cash into my own account, they'll never know what I've been up to.
Surely, a VACUUM cleaner is exactly what you need when operating in space, which is as close to vacuum as you are going to get? ;-)
You do realise that one of the main reasons people in third world countries have many children, is that they know that there is a very high infant mortality rate, coupled with the fact that ones children are the only social security they will have in later life, as children will assist in growing food, and look after their parents when they themselves become adults.
If you know that 4 out of 5 babies die before they are 5 years old, (often due to malaria, as it hits children a lot harder than adults) then aiming for 10 children will mean that hopefully 2 survive to look after you when you get old.
A lot of work has been done in the last 2 to 3 decades to educate africans about birth-control, and they know about it, but still choose to have large families because of the high infant mortality. Access to condoms, (both male and female) is pretty widespread due to HIV/AIDS awareness programmes.
If you knew that 80% of any money/assets you saved for retirement had a very good chance of disappearing in a puff of smoke, you'd save a heck of a lot more than you do now.
I'm not American, nor do I live in the US, but I currently live in a 1st world country, and have lived in a 3rd world country.
While it's true that there are those who live in rural locations because the want the peace and tranquility etc, there are those who live there because they "need" to. When I say "need", I mean you can't run a big farm or mine in the middle of the city. Amazingly, the work these people do, affects you directly.
If a farmer (both 1st and 3rd world) has decent communications and internet access, it makes an amazing difference to the efficiency and profitability of his farm. This in turn allows him to reduce his costs, and therefore the final cost (to you) of his produce, be that wheat for the bread that you eat, or the steak for your barbeque.
A small contribution on your part, (multiplied by everyone else in the country), means that improved infrastructure can be provided to those living out in the sticks. (provided of course, that the money is used correctly, and not abused, either by governments, or corporations)
This in turn will provide benefits to you. You may not see the benefits immediately but believe me, they will trickle down eventually.
Not all who live in rural areas are selfish pricks.
Many countries also won't take blood if you have lived in (or been in relationship with someone from) Sub-Saharan Africa
Dirty Hack:
Use numbers, as in 1-Photo's, 2-My Pics, 3-DL, 4-Wallpaper
MP == Member of Parliament
They existed first, Douglas Adams saw the name and liked it, so he asked if he could use it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotblack_Desiato#Hotblack_Desiato
Disarming the population (if done effectively) reduces the number of guns in circulation, making it harder (and more expensive) for criminals to get hold of illegal firearms.
Thanks for replying.
Not into the public domain, but they must release them.
Just trying to understand your point here so bear with me (I'm a bit thick). If you say they don't have to be released into the public domain, then I assume you are ok with them marketing and selling the tracks, and thereby hopefully for them) making a profit. How long after the artists death do you suggest that they have to have released them by?
I ask because as far as I know, they haven't stated that they will never release them, and I assume they are waiting until they feel the market conditions are right for them to achieve the maximum return on their investment.
You can not seriously keep unpublished works of an artist locked away after his death, as they are of common interest.
Just to argue a point:
If an artist creates and records 20 songs, they are free to decide that they would like to release 10 of them today, and the other 10 in five years time, their logic being that they don't want to flood the market with new tracks, as that would affect demand, price & revenue.
They are also free to sell the rights to the extra 10 songs to a third party. Additionally they can make it a conditional sale, that prevents the purchaser from releasing them before a particular date.
Now if the original artist dies before the agreed upon release date, are you suggesting that the new owner MUST forfeit any chance to profit from their investment, and immediately release the songs into the public domain? If you are, do you realise that that would likely prevent artists from selling the rights to their future catalogs, as far fewer investors would take the risk, if their investment was likely to simply disappear, if the artist died.
This is Sony. Their idea of a Captcha is, well, this (Google, BTW, returns the Captcha letters in plaintext if you search for it.
Even worse, the "captcha" is there in plain text if you view the source code, which means that bots (with some simple logic) can just read it plainly.
I'm on the same plan, it's brilliant.
Compared to the other providers, not having to worry about hitting a data cap is such a relief. I don't phone much, so I'll probably never run out of minutes, 2000 sms's is about 10 times what I need, but the data that is simply amazing!
I have a Mac Mini installed in my car, and I can tether, without worry. If passengers want to download they can just go ahead, I can run google maps etc. I spend a lot of time in the car, and it really makes a difference.
See King Mswati III, of Swaziland, who went to school in England from the ages of 14 to 18.
Many thought that his western education would mean he would be a different type of leader to his father, but he doesn't appear to be as progressive as most would wish.
used cell phones were imported and hacked/jailbroken, which created enough subscribers for private sector companies to erect the towers
Doesn't seem to make sense, why would someone import and hack a cellphone into a country with no towers? There is no reason to spend time and resources doing this, if the phones won't work. A few individuals may have done this for their own purposes, but you would never have enough people carrying around useless cellphones, that a company would then say, "hey, let's build a tower/network"
N.B. As I was actually living in an African country when cellphones were introduced, I happen to know that it was private sector companies that built towers first, and the first phones were bloody expensive.
and your kenyan client was probably trolling you!
hmm, their TOS cannot give them ownership of previously published material.
I wonder what would happen if they got a ton (like a slashdotting ton) of posts that contained previously published, and therefore copywritten material.
If enough posts were made, and enough DMCA takedown requests were made, the owner/admin might be forced to take the site down
Alternatively, If we all decided to use it for sharing links to RIAA/MAFIAA content, and simultaneously notified the RIAA/MAFIAA, would it be possible to get their domain seized?
I agree with all the replies that hunting purely for sport is indeed fucked up
I only mentioned what I did because I lived in a country where the elephant population was too large. they were destroying the environment they lived in because there were too many of them for the given land area. Therefore, they HAD to be culled, to prevent the area from turning into a desert that would have been incapable of supporting ANY of the local wildlife, let alone elephants.
Seeing as the elephant had to be culled, why not let someone with more money than sense, shoot them, at least that way, it's less of a waste.
I realise the parent poster was talking about the person.
I was just offering some other information regarding hunting, that in my experience may people have never thought about.
While I agree that it is indeed fucked up to kill animals simply for fun, sensible thinking people can take the foolishness of others and turn it around so it has a net positive effect!
While elephants are endangered globally, they are not always endangered locally if you see what I mean.
Some areas of Africa, have good conservation and wildlife management programs, and actually have too many elephants for their local environment to support. The funds they pull in from rich foreigners who want to kill something for fun, are used to sustain the management programs.
Supposedly they could move the elephants to areas where they are low in numbers, but this is not always sensible. Firstly, it costs money, which they don't have much of. Secondly, there is a reason why some areas have low elephant populations, usually lack of management programs or high numbers of poachers, in which case moving elephants to that location is non-productive, as they will be killed by poachers.
I know it is counter-intuitive, but sometimes killing elephants for fun, actually helps the elephant population to survive.
One way of looking at it, is that sport hunting attaches a monetary value to an elephant, turning it into an asset for people to whom an elephant is usually a liability. (They destroy crops, and large areas of vegetation). People tend to look after their assets.
I agree.
I used to keep an old pizza box on the back seat of my car, slip the laptop in there, and leave a couple of empty, slightly crushed soft drink cans lying next to it, and nobody takes a second look.