The newer version of the sheeva plug (forget the name) has gig-e, esata, 802.11g and USB - which seems like a decent set of options. The only thing I'd really like is VGA, they have one coming with HDMI.
Can you explain more about why you think having the roll of film is so important? My wedding was shot digitally, and to be honest I like knowing that there are 5 perfect copies of the original shots in different physical locations so I know I can never lose them. I'd be concerned having only one set of "original" negs - knowing that any copy of them is of lesser quality. I certainly don't think the photos themselves are any worse for being digital.
Well for Ubuntu they're both numbered and named. The numbers are year.month (e.g. 9.10 is October 2009) and therefore go up in the expected manner. For the names, they're alphabetical (or at least have been for the last 5 years), so Intrepid came before Jaunty, which was followed by Karmic.
Oh quit it with the "lap dog" rubbish. I didn't say anything about laws, I simply belive that someone who puts time, effort, skill and money into creating something, and who decides they'd like to be compensated by others who wish to use it, deserves to be given that compensation. If the work is of no benefit, no one will want it, and so they'll get nothing. If they choose to give it away, awesome. If the price is too high, no one will pay it. But if they ask a fair price and people want to make use of it, I think it's fair to pay.
Did Disney lift stuff from all those people you mention? Probably, I have no idea to be honest (and I don't really care as I find almost everything Disney have ever done pretty forgettable). This isn't about defending Disney, it's about supporting the small artists & promoters for whom every CD sale matters and who are going out of business all too frequently due to piracy. And no, selling concert tickets and t-shirts isn't always an option.
A lot of copyright agreements amount to exploitation, and artists enter into these agreements not knowing they are essentially parlaying with pirates.
Then they're stupid. I have no patience for the "artist was tricked into accepting this large amount of money" BS. Before you sign a contract you read it, and if you don't understand it you call a lawyer. That's just common sense.
As for stuff where the artist is dead, I have some sympathy for that and I do think that copyright terms are generally too long. That said, I don't think the OP was talking about pirating Mozart, so the point is moot.
I didn't say anything about the law. It's not about the law. It's about being fair & ethical to the creator and owner of the work, the people who put time, effort and money into it's creation. You know what? Copyright could be cancelled tomorrow and I'd still buy my music, not because it's the law but because I believe it's the right thing to do.
You know what? If you said you disagreed with traditional copyright and so would only listen to copyleft/public domain music, and use open source software, etc, then I'd have a lot of respect for you. But saying you disagree with the mechanism by which a creator has chosen to be compensated and yet still choosing to benefit from their work, well that just makes you a freeloading cheapass.
So you're complaining that if you set a price on an item artifically low it gets bought quickly? Huh? Try selling a Ferrari for $5000 and see what happens. Or maybe you're complaining that multiple sellers tend to push the average price down? Yup, sounds like a market to me - that's how they work. I seriously don't understand the issue here, assuming the desire is for the market to be as efficient as possible - and if that's not the desire - why on earth not?
People still "special order" stuff at stores? Wow. Hard Boiled is $8 from Amazon, no tax and free shipping. How much did B&N charge you?
The indie artists I'll give you, but that's going online too. My mother self-published some books a few years ago and she basically had to walk them into all the bookstores in her area whenever they sold out. Now you can just post the file online and people can order the ebook or a physical copy printed on demand - same applies to music.
No-one's saying you won't be able to buy paper books, just that there won't be a store selling them on every strip mall. I switched to online for all my book purchases years ago - hell there's basically nothing other than food and some impractical-to-ship items I buy in physical stores anymore. Online wins on choice, price and convenience.
I'm the same, I enjoy browsing at B&N. Only problem is when I find a book I like I pull out my phone and order it from Amazon for typically (at least) 20% less. The only thing I tend to actually buy at B&N are magazines - they have a great selection of international and obscure publications which I don't see anywhere else.
Not really. ThinkGeek sells toys - not gadgets (no phones, no ipods/pads, etc). And anything they do sell, they're almost always one or the more expensive places to get it. If I need caffinated shower gel it's my first stop, but not for serious gadget shopping.
Can you give examples? I have a Kindle and while I don't buy a lot of books for it (to be honest I just don't read as much as some people) I don't recall them being overly expensive. I just checked on Amazon, and picking 5 books entirely at random none were more expensive that Amazon's paperback price (note that third party sellers may have it for less but then charge shipping). Now this is obviously fairly new mass market books - maybe it's different for older or more niche titles?
I've seen it all over the world, annoys me too. However the worst spot I've seen recently was Miami, forget letting you read for 30 seconds, they'd be all over you before you even slowed down.
And what force does a law have behind it? The idea that it exists by itself, independently of the power granted it by the consent of its citizens, is beyond laughable. No person is going to submit to a law if it perceives that submission as contrary to its interests.
It's not made for web browsing, I can't see it getting beyond a novelty in the sort to medium term. I carry my Kindle for reading, and my phone for web/email/gaming/etc.
The usual approach is to call someone pretty much at random, and ask to be transferred to the real target. That person then sees an internal number (typically of someone they don't know) calling them and to some degree lets their guard down.
Which has precisely nothing to do with the original comment. The fact that lots of people use a product doesn't mean it's the best on the market - I assume you'd accept Windows as evidence of that:)
I'd be happy to live in a society of perfect law enforcement, provided it was also a society of perfect laws. It's a pipe dream for sure, but I don't think the solution to bad laws is patchy enforcement - that just makes it even more unfair for those who _are_ punished (i.e. "everyone was speeding, how come only I got a ticket?").
If you put cameras everywhere, record everything, and use computers to dig through all that information, we are ALL going to jail for one reason or another
So the answer is "change the law". I agree there are too many, and I agree that in the current system it's virtually impossible not to commit some infraction at some point, but the solution to that is not to artificially hamper enforcement, but to fix what's broken - to get rid of the laws which we don't want to punish people for. If you only want to punish people who habitually run red lights then record every instance but only issue a ticket after 10, or 20, or whatever.
A fair legal system is one where people know what's OK and what's not, and understand (and can predict) the consequences of their actions. That REQUIRES the removal of the random "will I get caught" factor but also requires the laws to be sensible and fair in the first place.
So is your problem with the law in question (stop at a red light) or the fact that people are being caught for breaking it? The OP admitted not stopping, so he's guilty, so which is it? I'd say the lesson is "don't break the law", with a side of "if you don't like the law, lobby to change it", not "only go to places where you can get away with breaking the law". But that's just me.
But they _don't_ mean "stop and yield right of way" they mean "prepare to yield, stopping if necessary". If there's nothing to yield to, you don't have to stop (obviously) - likewise if there is traffic but you can yield without stopping (for example by just slowing down) that's OK too.
It depends on your definition of "merge" but if there's a steady stream of traffic with large enough gaps between the vehicles and I can merge without causing the car approaching to get too close to me or to have to slow down, I think I've satisfied the requirement of yielding.
Slashdot Mirror
The newer version of the sheeva plug (forget the name) has gig-e, esata, 802.11g and USB - which seems like a decent set of options. The only thing I'd really like is VGA, they have one coming with HDMI.
Can you explain more about why you think having the roll of film is so important? My wedding was shot digitally, and to be honest I like knowing that there are 5 perfect copies of the original shots in different physical locations so I know I can never lose them. I'd be concerned having only one set of "original" negs - knowing that any copy of them is of lesser quality. I certainly don't think the photos themselves are any worse for being digital.
Well for Ubuntu they're both numbered and named. The numbers are year.month (e.g. 9.10 is October 2009) and therefore go up in the expected manner. For the names, they're alphabetical (or at least have been for the last 5 years), so Intrepid came before Jaunty, which was followed by Karmic.
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DevelopmentCodeNames
That's only true for non-LTS releases. You can go from one LTS to the next and skip the intermediate releases.
Well of course it depends on your definition of "charity", but under general US/IRS usage, yes they are.
Oh quit it with the "lap dog" rubbish. I didn't say anything about laws, I simply belive that someone who puts time, effort, skill and money into creating something, and who decides they'd like to be compensated by others who wish to use it, deserves to be given that compensation. If the work is of no benefit, no one will want it, and so they'll get nothing. If they choose to give it away, awesome. If the price is too high, no one will pay it. But if they ask a fair price and people want to make use of it, I think it's fair to pay.
Did Disney lift stuff from all those people you mention? Probably, I have no idea to be honest (and I don't really care as I find almost everything Disney have ever done pretty forgettable). This isn't about defending Disney, it's about supporting the small artists & promoters for whom every CD sale matters and who are going out of business all too frequently due to piracy. And no, selling concert tickets and t-shirts isn't always an option.
Then they're stupid. I have no patience for the "artist was tricked into accepting this large amount of money" BS. Before you sign a contract you read it, and if you don't understand it you call a lawyer. That's just common sense.
As for stuff where the artist is dead, I have some sympathy for that and I do think that copyright terms are generally too long. That said, I don't think the OP was talking about pirating Mozart, so the point is moot.
I didn't say anything about the law. It's not about the law. It's about being fair & ethical to the creator and owner of the work, the people who put time, effort and money into it's creation. You know what? Copyright could be cancelled tomorrow and I'd still buy my music, not because it's the law but because I believe it's the right thing to do.
You know what? If you said you disagreed with traditional copyright and so would only listen to copyleft/public domain music, and use open source software, etc, then I'd have a lot of respect for you. But saying you disagree with the mechanism by which a creator has chosen to be compensated and yet still choosing to benefit from their work, well that just makes you a freeloading cheapass.
So you're complaining that if you set a price on an item artifically low it gets bought quickly? Huh? Try selling a Ferrari for $5000 and see what happens. Or maybe you're complaining that multiple sellers tend to push the average price down? Yup, sounds like a market to me - that's how they work. I seriously don't understand the issue here, assuming the desire is for the market to be as efficient as possible - and if that's not the desire - why on earth not?
People still "special order" stuff at stores? Wow. Hard Boiled is $8 from Amazon, no tax and free shipping. How much did B&N charge you?
The indie artists I'll give you, but that's going online too. My mother self-published some books a few years ago and she basically had to walk them into all the bookstores in her area whenever they sold out. Now you can just post the file online and people can order the ebook or a physical copy printed on demand - same applies to music.
No-one's saying you won't be able to buy paper books, just that there won't be a store selling them on every strip mall. I switched to online for all my book purchases years ago - hell there's basically nothing other than food and some impractical-to-ship items I buy in physical stores anymore. Online wins on choice, price and convenience.
I'm the same, I enjoy browsing at B&N. Only problem is when I find a book I like I pull out my phone and order it from Amazon for typically (at least) 20% less. The only thing I tend to actually buy at B&N are magazines - they have a great selection of international and obscure publications which I don't see anywhere else.
Not really. ThinkGeek sells toys - not gadgets (no phones, no ipods/pads, etc). And anything they do sell, they're almost always one or the more expensive places to get it. If I need caffinated shower gel it's my first stop, but not for serious gadget shopping.
Can you give examples? I have a Kindle and while I don't buy a lot of books for it (to be honest I just don't read as much as some people) I don't recall them being overly expensive. I just checked on Amazon, and picking 5 books entirely at random none were more expensive that Amazon's paperback price (note that third party sellers may have it for less but then charge shipping). Now this is obviously fairly new mass market books - maybe it's different for older or more niche titles?
I've seen it all over the world, annoys me too. However the worst spot I've seen recently was Miami, forget letting you read for 30 seconds, they'd be all over you before you even slowed down.
And what force does a law have behind it? The idea that it exists by itself, independently of the power granted it by the consent of its citizens, is beyond laughable. No person is going to submit to a law if it perceives that submission as contrary to its interests.
It's not made for web browsing, I can't see it getting beyond a novelty in the sort to medium term. I carry my Kindle for reading, and my phone for web/email/gaming/etc.
The usual approach is to call someone pretty much at random, and ask to be transferred to the real target. That person then sees an internal number (typically of someone they don't know) calling them and to some degree lets their guard down.
Which has precisely nothing to do with the original comment. The fact that lots of people use a product doesn't mean it's the best on the market - I assume you'd accept Windows as evidence of that :)
Zune HD begs to differ.
I'd be happy to live in a society of perfect law enforcement, provided it was also a society of perfect laws. It's a pipe dream for sure, but I don't think the solution to bad laws is patchy enforcement - that just makes it even more unfair for those who _are_ punished (i.e. "everyone was speeding, how come only I got a ticket?").
So the answer is "change the law". I agree there are too many, and I agree that in the current system it's virtually impossible not to commit some infraction at some point, but the solution to that is not to artificially hamper enforcement, but to fix what's broken - to get rid of the laws which we don't want to punish people for. If you only want to punish people who habitually run red lights then record every instance but only issue a ticket after 10, or 20, or whatever.
A fair legal system is one where people know what's OK and what's not, and understand (and can predict) the consequences of their actions. That REQUIRES the removal of the random "will I get caught" factor but also requires the laws to be sensible and fair in the first place.
So is your problem with the law in question (stop at a red light) or the fact that people are being caught for breaking it? The OP admitted not stopping, so he's guilty, so which is it? I'd say the lesson is "don't break the law", with a side of "if you don't like the law, lobby to change it", not "only go to places where you can get away with breaking the law". But that's just me.
But they _don't_ mean "stop and yield right of way" they mean "prepare to yield, stopping if necessary". If there's nothing to yield to, you don't have to stop (obviously) - likewise if there is traffic but you can yield without stopping (for example by just slowing down) that's OK too.
It depends on your definition of "merge" but if there's a steady stream of traffic with large enough gaps between the vehicles and I can merge without causing the car approaching to get too close to me or to have to slow down, I think I've satisfied the requirement of yielding.