I picked one of these up a couple months back, and it's been great so far. I don't have a ton of gear, but that means that I have quite a bit of flexibility in deciding what goes where. I have three main configurations:
Light. This is mostly for around town.
Canon 450D w/ Sigma 50mm 1.4
Canon PowerShot S90
18-55mm kit lens in case I want a wider angle
Luma Loop
iPad in the laptop pouch
MiFi Cables, adapters, etc in the various pockets
Heavy, for when I leave town. All of the above, plus:
15" MacBook Pro, charger, camera battery chargers, and the MiFi charger.
500gb portable disk
Shure earbuds
Diaper. I'm a dad, and this backpack is big enough to hold the light configuration, plus a second iPad, diapers, wipes, a change of clothes, bag of snacks, and a couple books and toys. I sometimes leave the kit lens at home, since the S90 covers most of the same range and it's easier to pull out than swap lenses anyway. I can actually (barely) stuff the laptop, charger, and disk into there, too, but I don't usually need to.
Even loaded to the gills, it's not terribly uncomfortable. My only complaint is that the tripod straps on the side are kind of lame. They'll hold my tripod fine, but it becomes impossible to set the bag down and the balance is totally whacked. Some have a center read-mounted tripod setup, and that would be much preferable — but at the expense of easy access to the contents. The one other thing is that it's hard to use the last couple inches in the bottom because of how the flap opens. I don't mind, I just put the larger / less frequently used stuff down there.
Otherwise, it's been great. I love that it sits upright when I put it down instead of falling over, and I feel much better about having the camera up at the top of the pack instead of on the bottom.
Yeah. I prefer the implementation on eNotes. You can highlight any word, and press Shift-D to get a definition. Shift-T shows the thesaurus entry, and Shift-S brings up a mini-search.
Much less intrusive than repurposing the right mouse button.
Your argument is utter rubbish, and you're probably a troll, but what the hell. RMS uses Debian, and he applied to be a Debian developer.
Debian largely subscribes to the same ideals as RMS. I have no idea how you can legitimately claim that Debian "wants to inflict harm" on anyone, particularly RMS or the FSF. Debian distributes massive amounts of code from the FSF, Emacs (which was written by Stallmann), and a vast collection of GPL'd packages.
The decision to distribute or not is based on the reading and interpretation of the license, and takes place in the open, on debian-legal. So far as I know, Debian has not refused to ship anything unless there was a license issue or a compelling technical argument not to.
It also means that if there's a patch for a critical security issue in a library, you'll have to reinstall (and perhaps recompile) everything which depends on it.
I have 992 packages installed on my Debian system. Let's say that half of those are written in C. That's 496 packages I'd have to reinstall for one change in libc. It's also nearly a gig of disk space wasted, just on libc.
This is not even remotely practical for people who manage multiple machines, and it's really not practical for an average user, either.
Debian 3.1 ships with a set of 'required' packages, which are the same no matter what system you're on.
When Debian 3.1r1 comes around, there will be some changes and fixes, and these will be reflected in the package version numbers. All systems running 3.1r1 will have the same package versions available, and the same set of required packages installed.
Obviously, if you tinker with the stock install, you will have inconsistent results, but you'll have the same problem if you tinker with a Solaris installation, too.
Want to see the version/patchlevel on Debian? cat/etc/debian_version.
Sorry, I don't see the problem here, unless you're talking about differences between different distributions.
Actually, the authors own the copyright to their individual contributions, e.g. Rik van Riel has copyright to the code for the kswapd_ctl changes.
Simply being the last to contribute to something doesn't mean that you gain the copyright over the rest of the code.
The only even semi-legit issue here is that because the code is/may be copyrighted by many people, it becomes hard to sort out who owns what in a particular file. Revision control takes care of that, since you can see the precise changes made by each individual. It may be harder to sort out older (pre-BitKeeper) code, since I don't think the original patches exist anymore, just the aggregate changes from version N to N+1.
It says the materials were delivered "on CD," not "on a CD."
It mentions that the documentation was compressed, and t was probably delivered on several CDs.
Re:They Posted the ISOs? *shakes head*
on
PSP UMD Format Cracked
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Contrary to what the linked article states, "Paradox" isn't a single person, it's a PlayStation warez group. They've been releasing PSX/PS2 stuff for years.
So it's not hard to understand why they released the actual games.
"ok, so go back to my apple comparison... or how about a different one, like gaming consoles..."
It's still a physical object, therefore a flawed comparison.
"it will be available for sale."
So you're ok with giving any media-producing corporation the ability to put someone in jail for three years because they merely need to claim that they plan on releasing it at some point in the future? What if that point isn't for a year? Two? Ten? I don't believe this is specified in the bill. Will this be expanded to apply to people who leak internal government reports to the press before the "approved" version is released?
"so now there are that many more people who are not going to pay for the album, for the rights to the music."
You assume that anyone who downloads something does so instead of buying it. This is a record label/movie studio assumption, and has never been conclusively proved.
"however, they can't get people into theatres if they're selling the DVD at the same time."
While I think this is rubbish, I don't think it's been proved either way. And it's certainly never been tried. And they could be sold at the theaters, for e.g. $5 and your ticket stub.
"it's like an artist paints something and is waiting for hte unveiling to show it..."
No, it's not.
"...steals it...starts selling the prints."
You're talking about physical stealing. Copyright infringement is not physical stealing. You're also talking about selling, i.e. profiting from someone else's work. Dropping a file into a shared folder involves no stealing, no money, and no profit.
Anyways, there's obviously no analogy which describes these scenarios, and you're probably a MPAA astroturfer, so I'm done arguing now.
First- I'm not "stealing" anything in this hypothetical scenario. I'd be infringing, which is altogether different. Stealing is fairly universally agreed to be bad, because it deprives a person of tangible property. Infringement does not.
The 'ingringement is stealing' argument goes: 1. People make copies of our stuff for free 2. People who get those copies for free would have been forced to buy one from us. 3. Therefore, we have been deprived of an $x sale of an item.
However, if that item is not available for sale, it's impossible to have deprived them of that dollar value. I guess what they're saying is that depriving them of a future sale is now a federal crime. What will be made illegal next? Bad reviews causing people not to buy your stuff?
There's no technical reason why a movie-only DVD in plain packaging couldn't be sold at the same time as the theatrical release, much in the same way some bands sell recordings of their performances after the show. Instead, they sit on the releases for ages.
This is an industry legislating a business model, plain and simple. That is wrong.
"...i think they had one of the more "free" taping/trading policies."
Because of the legal gray area bootlegs reside in, I don't believe that many bands have an official "taping policy."
"the blackmarket can be considered the free market at work as well... stolen items from stores or homes. would you consider that legal?" i never said anything about legality, except insofar as it regards this specific law and the bad interactions I see it potentially causing. And yes, the black market is an example of the law of supply and demand at work.
"but the biggest reason people illegally download stuff is because it's too expensive to pay for."
This law specifically addresses works which are not released, and therefor can not be purchased legally at any cost.
"and the reason they work up a "huge" demand for their works is so that they can get people to go out and pay for them." And then they make them wait, sometimes months, for the official release. They've created a demand without an official supply to fill it. Nature abhors a vaccuum.
"it's called marketing. apple does it too, but would you pay someone for a brand new powerbook they stole from an apple store?" Are PowerBooks stored in the back of Apple stores for months before going on sale?
Your argument is flawed in a number of ways. You refer to the "selling" of things, whereas I used the more generic "supply." There is no selling taking place when you drop a film into a shared folder.
Your "stolen goods" argument also holds no weight; there's only one real copy of, say, the Mona Lisa, whereas there's an infinite supply of copies of a movie. A more apt comparison would be people stealing the actual film prints of a movie. Just like with high-value art sales, this is rare, because a lower-quality duplicate (a print in the case of the Mona Lisa, or a DVD in the case of a film) are perfectly adequate for all but the most obsessive fan of a work.
If there is demand, there will be supply. The morality and legality of the goods or services being exchanged have absolutely nothing to do with it, except insomuch as it involves your flawed moral outrage. I think the real point behind the idea of the free market is that the good outweighs the bad. I think this is very much akin to the first amendment- the ability for anyone to say what they want outweighs the detriment of a few vocally offensive.
P.S. I support any credible attempt to legalize drugs and prostitution.
No, I was to Doctor Who, which is broadcast in the UK 6 days before it hits CBC. To my knowledge, no over-the-air network in the US has picked up the show, so it's only available if you have CBC with your cable package.
Also, Stargate SG-1 and Stargate Atlantis are (were) shown in the UK several months ahead of the US.
Alternately, you could argue that since the work isn't available for sale at all, you aren't costing them a dime.
This could also completely stifle online trading of bootlegs (I'm referring to fan-made live concert recordings). Since most of these are never released (if they're recorded in the first place), almost any bootleg would be a "prerelease." The label could theoretically sue someone for distributing a bootleg, seize the copy (and rights to it) in lieu of that $250,000 fine, and sell the work at a profit while the fan sits in jail.
Or consider this: If I download a TV show which is only broadcast overseas (or broadcast overseas before broadcast locally) with BitTorrent, I'm also guilty according to this law. Even though the show would be broadcast for free if/when it does come to my area.
Yes, this seems draconian and excessive to me.
Prereleases are the free market at work- if there's demand, a supply will appear. The movie studios and record labels work up a huge public demand for their works, then act all surprised when an illicit supply appears.
Slashdot Mirror
I picked one of these up a couple months back, and it's been great so far. I don't have a ton of gear, but that means that I have quite a bit of flexibility in deciding what goes where. I have three main configurations:
Light. This is mostly for around town.
Canon 450D w/ Sigma 50mm 1.4
Canon PowerShot S90
18-55mm kit lens in case I want a wider angle
Luma Loop
iPad in the laptop pouch
MiFi
Cables, adapters, etc in the various pockets
Heavy, for when I leave town. All of the above, plus:
15" MacBook Pro, charger, camera battery chargers, and the MiFi charger.
500gb portable disk
Shure earbuds
Diaper. I'm a dad, and this backpack is big enough to hold the light configuration, plus a second iPad, diapers, wipes, a change of clothes, bag of snacks, and a couple books and toys. I sometimes leave the kit lens at home, since the S90 covers most of the same range and it's easier to pull out than swap lenses anyway. I can actually (barely) stuff the laptop, charger, and disk into there, too, but I don't usually need to.
Even loaded to the gills, it's not terribly uncomfortable. My only complaint is that the tripod straps on the side are kind of lame. They'll hold my tripod fine, but it becomes impossible to set the bag down and the balance is totally whacked. Some have a center read-mounted tripod setup, and that would be much preferable — but at the expense of easy access to the contents. The one other thing is that it's hard to use the last couple inches in the bottom because of how the flap opens. I don't mind, I just put the larger / less frequently used stuff down there.
Otherwise, it's been great. I love that it sits upright when I put it down instead of falling over, and I feel much better about having the camera up at the top of the pack instead of on the bottom.
Yeah. I prefer the implementation on eNotes. You can highlight any word, and press Shift-D to get a definition. Shift-T shows the thesaurus entry, and Shift-S brings up a mini-search.
Much less intrusive than repurposing the right mouse button.
NTSC is 720x480, not 640x480.
SCO would ask Novell for the rights, saying they are "necessary to their business," which is (roughly) what the APA says they need to do to get them.
Novell would say, "no, they're not," since they weren't necessary for the prior decade, and they'd be right.
SCO sues Novell for breach of contract, and the fun starts over again.
Nah. I'm hoping that IBM or Novell is awarded the entirety of the SCO business, and that they release the whole of UNIX into the public domain.
Put that silly "who owns what" question to rest.
"it is not beyond the power of Congress..."
Congress had nothing to do with this, it happened at a local level.
"The link editor doesn't let you specify the target for the new link so you have to add it by hand..."
The "target" attribute is deprecated in Strict DTDs, and should not be used.
Your argument is utter rubbish, and you're probably a troll, but what the hell. RMS uses Debian, and he applied to be a Debian developer.
Debian largely subscribes to the same ideals as RMS. I have no idea how you can legitimately claim that Debian "wants to inflict harm" on anyone, particularly RMS or the FSF. Debian distributes massive amounts of code from the FSF, Emacs (which was written by Stallmann), and a vast collection of GPL'd packages.
The decision to distribute or not is based on the reading and interpretation of the license, and takes place in the open, on debian-legal. So far as I know, Debian has not refused to ship anything unless there was a license issue or a compelling technical argument not to.
Debian is definitely pedantic about licenses, but I think that's better than having license issues come back to haunt them in the form of a lawsuit.
I'm putting money on it's name being changed to "Immolated Canid."
That, or Birdfoxthunderphoenix.
It also means that if there's a patch for a critical security issue in a library, you'll have to reinstall (and perhaps recompile) everything which depends on it.
I have 992 packages installed on my Debian system. Let's say that half of those are written in C. That's 496 packages I'd have to reinstall for one change in libc. It's also nearly a gig of disk space wasted, just on libc.
This is not even remotely practical for people who manage multiple machines, and it's really not practical for an average user, either.
Actually, the Debian releases do exactly this.
/etc/debian_version.
Debian 3.1 ships with a set of 'required' packages, which are the same no matter what system you're on.
When Debian 3.1r1 comes around, there will be some changes and fixes, and these will be reflected in the package version numbers. All systems running 3.1r1 will have the same package versions available, and the same set of required packages installed.
Obviously, if you tinker with the stock install, you will have inconsistent results, but you'll have the same problem if you tinker with a Solaris installation, too.
Want to see the version/patchlevel on Debian? cat
Sorry, I don't see the problem here, unless you're talking about differences between different distributions.
Valid != correct.
To center a block-level element in CSS, you need:
margin: auto;
Not margin-left/right.
That's impossible when the underlying architecture is different, as the code is compiled for a specific CPU.
Nothing to do with libraries.
Wire protocols are always big-endian (it's called "network byte order"), otherwise big- and little-endian systems couldn't talk.
Actually, the authors own the copyright to their individual contributions, e.g. Rik van Riel has copyright to the code for the kswapd_ctl changes.
Simply being the last to contribute to something doesn't mean that you gain the copyright over the rest of the code.
The only even semi-legit issue here is that because the code is/may be copyrighted by many people, it becomes hard to sort out who owns what in a particular file. Revision control takes care of that, since you can see the precise changes made by each individual. It may be harder to sort out older (pre-BitKeeper) code, since I don't think the original patches exist anymore, just the aggregate changes from version N to N+1.
It says the materials were delivered "on CD," not "on a CD."
It mentions that the documentation was compressed, and t was probably delivered on several CDs.
Contrary to what the linked article states, "Paradox" isn't a single person, it's a PlayStation warez group. They've been releasing PSX/PS2 stuff for years.
So it's not hard to understand why they released the actual games.
The data format has nothing to do with the physical disc format. DVDs and CDs use ISO-9660, but that doesn't mean you can burn a DVD in a CD-R drive.
"ok, so go back to my apple comparison... or how about a different one, like gaming consoles..."
It's still a physical object, therefore a flawed comparison.
"it will be available for sale."
So you're ok with giving any media-producing corporation the ability to put someone in jail for three years because they merely need to claim that they plan on releasing it at some point in the future? What if that point isn't for a year? Two? Ten? I don't believe this is specified in the bill. Will this be expanded to apply to people who leak internal government reports to the press before the "approved" version is released?
"so now there are that many more people who are not going to pay for the album, for the rights to the music."
You assume that anyone who downloads something does so instead of buying it. This is a record label/movie studio assumption, and has never been conclusively proved.
"however, they can't get people into theatres if they're selling the DVD at the same time."
While I think this is rubbish, I don't think it's been proved either way. And it's certainly never been tried. And they could be sold at the theaters, for e.g. $5 and your ticket stub.
"it's like an artist paints something and is waiting for hte unveiling to show it..."
No, it's not.
"...steals it...starts selling the prints."
You're talking about physical stealing. Copyright infringement is not physical stealing. You're also talking about selling, i.e. profiting from someone else's work. Dropping a file into a shared folder involves no stealing, no money, and no profit.
Anyways, there's obviously no analogy which describes these scenarios, and you're probably a MPAA astroturfer, so I'm done arguing now.
First- I'm not "stealing" anything in this hypothetical scenario. I'd be infringing, which is altogether different. Stealing is fairly universally agreed to be bad, because it deprives a person of tangible property. Infringement does not.
The 'ingringement is stealing' argument goes:
1. People make copies of our stuff for free
2. People who get those copies for free would have been forced to buy one from us.
3. Therefore, we have been deprived of an $x sale of an item.
However, if that item is not available for sale, it's impossible to have deprived them of that dollar value. I guess what they're saying is that depriving them of a future sale is now a federal crime. What will be made illegal next? Bad reviews causing people not to buy your stuff?
There's no technical reason why a movie-only DVD in plain packaging couldn't be sold at the same time as the theatrical release, much in the same way some bands sell recordings of their performances after the show. Instead, they sit on the releases for ages.
This is an industry legislating a business model, plain and simple. That is wrong.
"...i think they had one of the more "free" taping/trading policies."
Because of the legal gray area bootlegs reside in, I don't believe that many bands have an official "taping policy."
"the blackmarket can be considered the free market at work as well... stolen items from stores or homes. would you consider that legal?"
i never said anything about legality, except insofar as it regards this specific law and the bad interactions I see it potentially causing. And yes, the black market is an example of the law of supply and demand at work.
"but the biggest reason people illegally download stuff is because it's too expensive to pay for."
This law specifically addresses works which are not released, and therefor can not be purchased legally at any cost.
"and the reason they work up a "huge" demand for their works is so that they can get people to go out and pay for them."
And then they make them wait, sometimes months, for the official release. They've created a demand without an official supply to fill it. Nature abhors a vaccuum.
"it's called marketing. apple does it too, but would you pay someone for a brand new powerbook they stole from an apple store?"
Are PowerBooks stored in the back of Apple stores for months before going on sale?
Your argument is flawed in a number of ways. You refer to the "selling" of things, whereas I used the more generic "supply." There is no selling taking place when you drop a film into a shared folder.
Your "stolen goods" argument also holds no weight; there's only one real copy of, say, the Mona Lisa, whereas there's an infinite supply of copies of a movie. A more apt comparison would be people stealing the actual film prints of a movie. Just like with high-value art sales, this is rare, because a lower-quality duplicate (a print in the case of the Mona Lisa, or a DVD in the case of a film) are perfectly adequate for all but the most obsessive fan of a work.
If there is demand, there will be supply. The morality and legality of the goods or services being exchanged have absolutely nothing to do with it, except insomuch as it involves your flawed moral outrage. I think the real point behind the idea of the free market is that the good outweighs the bad. I think this is very much akin to the first amendment- the ability for anyone to say what they want outweighs the detriment of a few vocally offensive.
P.S. I support any credible attempt to legalize drugs and prostitution.
No, I was to Doctor Who, which is broadcast in the UK 6 days before it hits CBC. To my knowledge, no over-the-air network in the US has picked up the show, so it's only available if you have CBC with your cable package.
Also, Stargate SG-1 and Stargate Atlantis are (were) shown in the UK several months ahead of the US.
But you're right, it could kill fansubs as well.
Alternately, you could argue that since the work isn't available for sale at all, you aren't costing them a dime.
This could also completely stifle online trading of bootlegs (I'm referring to fan-made live concert recordings). Since most of these are never released (if they're recorded in the first place), almost any bootleg would be a "prerelease." The label could theoretically sue someone for distributing a bootleg, seize the copy (and rights to it) in lieu of that $250,000 fine, and sell the work at a profit while the fan sits in jail.
Or consider this: If I download a TV show which is only broadcast overseas (or broadcast overseas before broadcast locally) with BitTorrent, I'm also guilty according to this law. Even though the show would be broadcast for free if/when it does come to my area.
Yes, this seems draconian and excessive to me.
Prereleases are the free market at work- if there's demand, a supply will appear. The movie studios and record labels work up a huge public demand for their works, then act all surprised when an illicit supply appears.