Speaking as someone currently undergoing such a "borrowing" - it sucks.
Please for the love of god people, don't bounce messages back saying "My spam filter has blocked your message". I didn't send it, I don't care. Leave me alone!!!!!
And of course, there's still no point to including Ogg Vorbis in the iPod. The number of additional sales that Apple would get from people who are emotionally committed to a particular file format isn't even a rounding error in a monthly sales report.
Fine by me. There are lots of players out there who do see fit to cater to my needs.
I didn't believe it until I got one (as a gift) but the shuffle has the best audio quality I've heard short of an external DAC into an spdif stream. its noisy (biased transistors in output stage?) but it has actual bass and enough drive to power headphones without distorting. Interesting thread on DAP sound quality : here
If its that important, then merge the files. If it isn't that important, then it isn't that important. Right. Which means I lose (a) the ability to select a specific track (b) the ability to know which track I'm listening to and (c) almost a TB of disk space. Just because Apple can't fix a simple problem.
It's important to me, so important that I won't buy a broken player which doesn't work properly. There are players out there that have solved this problem, it's not rocket science. That's why I buy them over Apple. The nano looks great, I'd buy one in an instant if they did gapless.
If you want it done on arbitrary playlists on the fly, then you can hardly bring CD players into the debate. No, I don't want it on playlists. I don't use playlists. I want it for albums which have no gaps and which I want to listen to in the same way I can listen to the CD.
Like another responder I can also recommend the Zalman coolers, but good luck getting one in a Shuttle. Gigabyte make a passive 6600 - the heatsink on it isn't _too_ huge.
While I don't doubt your experience, it's not universal. I've worked at the same company for 7 years (since graduation) and in that time my overall compensation has roughly quadrupled.
Agreed. I'm a "web developer" for a fortune 100 company (well I was, just switched departments today) - working on our primary B2B client service site. We have a 6 week release cycle, which means we do a full development, integration and QA test cycle, plus release and acceptance test every 6 weeks. It's tough. Our "website" is composed of around 200 individual applications, written in 4 languages deployed over probably 40 or 50 servers running 3 different operating systems. We have multiple databases (I have no idea how many in total), dependencies on probably 20 other apps (with their own release schedules) and of course, we support and test with 4 different browsers on two client operating systems.
Unless something is horribly broken we do not touch the prod boxes. Discipline is the ONLY way to maintain order with the kind of complexity we have - far too often I've seen the "oh it's only a tiny fix" turn into a domino cascade of breaks. With a B2B website like ours it's the clients who see mistakes first, and they are only too happy to go to the competition when that happens.
Incidentally, I agree with him -- designing web sites for broken browsers is like giving illegal immigrants drivers' licenses: it's stupid and it doesn't fix the underlying problem. Terrible analogy. A more accurate one would be your store refusing to serve illegal immigrants while every other store in town still does. You may be standing up for what you see as right, but you'll go bankrupt in the process. A little pragmatism goes a long way.
A Tsunami that wipes out thousands in remote regions of many underdeveloped countries? A volcano that covers a major city not in water but hot lava? How about a chemical plant that explodes in the middle of a city and thousands with a vast cloud of toxic gas?
The fact is that Katarina was:
(a) Predictable. Studies have been done which describe exactly what would happen if a large hurricane hit NO. They were right. We knew NO was at risk, we knew what it could and likely could not survive. (b) Predicted. We knew several days before it hit what was likely to occur. Why wasn't the rescue effort started THEN? (c) In our own backyard. This is not SE Asia. This is not Iraq. This is just down the road. The slowness of response on the part of the government (both local and federal) is both astonishing and unforgivable.
This was a minor disaster that has been blown up to much larger proportions due to a series of momumental fuck ups by those in charge. They should be held accountable.
The first link in your suggested google search confirms exactly what I said. An artist can work under a regular contract and they own what is created. This is normal, and fair. If they want to sell the rights to you, the client, they are free to do so. However they can also choose to sign a Work for Hire contract, in which case that transfer is automatic. There are other minor differences but that's about it.
This is what I said:
In the same way, a programmer owns the rights to every line of code they right, unless they sell the rights to someone else (e.g. to an employer via a contract).
You'll notice the use of the phrase "via a contract". That contract is the Work for Hire contract, and is the mechanism by which the employee signs over their copyright to the employer.
You can ask your photographer to sign a WfH contract, and they might or might not. You can ask them to sign over rights to their photos, and they might or might not. In the same way I could ask my employer to change my WfH contract to one which allows me to keep my copyright. They most likely wouldn't agree, but that's how it is with negotiations.
Whilst WfH makes some transfers automatic in some situations, the overall doctrine that someone who creates something owns that thing unless they give up those rights in some manner still holds.
The person who pays for the work deserves to own the work. This is the same idiotic logic where we have photographers owning the rights to YOUR wedding pics, even though you paid for them. If the creator wants to own the rights, then the creator should PAY for them.
You create something, you own it. That's the "default" legal principle, and I can't see how anyone can disagree with that. You can however, as creator, sell the rights to the thing you create to someone else. If you're paying someone to create something for you, then you better make sure the contract says you own it afterwards. If it doesn't - negotiate a better contract or take your business elsewhere. Caveat emptor.
Then use a different photographer, or offer a better deal, or take the pics yourself. Everything is up for negotiation.
The photographer owns the rights to every picture they take unless they sell the rights to someone else (e.g. you). In the same way, a programmer owns the rights to every line of code they right, unless they sell the rights to someone else (e.g. to an employer via a contract). A musician owns the rights to songs they write, again unless they sell them to a music label. There's no special rule for photographers.
The rights still shouldn't belong to her if it's MY money paying the tab I've never met a photographer who will totally refuse to sell the rights to pics. In fact, for most it's how they make their money. You were either (a) not willing to pay enough or (b) working with an uncooperative photographer. In either case your solution is to go elsewhere.
The wildest thing about this statement is that it buys the *AAs' underlying premise completely, namely that culture is a commodity. It's an absurd notion when seen within the context of human development.
That's a misrepresentation. The RIAA don't seek to own or control "culture" as a whole, just the works their members created. You're free to go out there and create your own culture any time you want. Back in the day, composers would be paid by rich aristocrats to write music for them. They then of course owned that work and would control it. Did that mean the peasant on the street never heard music? Of course not, they wrote and performed their own folk music.
The same holds today, except the aristocrats have been replaced by music industry execs, and they've started exploiting their owned works by selling licenses to listen to them to the peasants. If the peasants don't want to buy, they don't have to, that doesn't deprive them of culture, and they can still create their own. This has happened recently - see the evolution of Rap & Hip Hop for example. However, the unfortunate thing is that whenever one of these cultures gets popular along come the aristocrats with a big bag of gold, and before you know it you have 50 cent. As far as I can tell this is a pretty cyclical pattern...
Hmmmm. I picked a few big movies from the last few months (at random) and looked up the figures on IMDB. These numbers are for US boxoffice only, not international, or DVD etc and are from release to date.
Wedding Crashers - $177m grossed from a $40m budget. Revenge of the Sith - $378m grossed from $115m budget War of the Worlds - $230m grossed from $128m budget The Longest Yard - $157m grossed from $82m budget
So all of these movies made a pretty good return (from 80% to 300% profit), and even the lowest made an actual profit of around $80m. Compared to the Penguin's $40m, that's pretty good (even though the Penguins did have a tiny budget so their ROI is amazing).
Except he didn't and you didn't either. He said you couldn't build a "high-end" machine plus 11 games for $1200. That's "high-end" not "average" - and that makes sense seeing as you're comparing to a Xbox360, which, right now, is a seriously powerful piece of kit. Your machine spec includes a 6600GT, which whilst a fine card (I have one) is entirely outclassed by the graphics hardware in the 360. Your CPU is an Athlon 64 3000+, same argument applies. Your games are also rather "varied", HL2, UT2k4 etc are good choices - but XIII? C&C??????
Adding a few hundred $ for a graphics card, another couple hundred for a faster (dual core) CPU, and you're getting closer. You've also blown your budget.
Some people are lucky - they have good well paying jobs. That doesn't make them "subsidized" (very strange choice of words) just lucky, or smart, or (most likely) both. I certainly don't fit any of your categories, I'm entirely self sufficient (and pay $60k a year in taxes & charitable contributions to help out others), and I work less hours than you. I'm not saying this to boast, but to try and point out that you're being somewhat narrow minded.
Works fine on my Karma. I can browse by Album, Artist or Track Name, all in a nice list which I can scroll through with the wheel. I can also jump to a specific letter of the alphabet if the list is too long.
Slashdot Mirror
Speaking as someone currently undergoing such a "borrowing" - it sucks.
Please for the love of god people, don't bounce messages back saying "My spam filter has blocked your message". I didn't send it, I don't care. Leave me alone!!!!!
ESR? Arrogant? Can't be....
Try this. As mentioned above, you're probably using the wrong hyphen character.
And of course, there's still no point to including Ogg Vorbis in the iPod. The number of additional sales that Apple would get from people who are emotionally committed to a particular file format isn't even a rounding error in a monthly sales report.
Fine by me. There are lots of players out there who do see fit to cater to my needs.
I didn't believe it until I got one (as a gift) but the shuffle has the best audio quality I've heard short of an external DAC into an spdif stream. its noisy (biased transistors in output stage?) but it has actual bass and enough drive to power headphones without distorting.
Interesting thread on DAP sound quality : here
If its that important, then merge the files. If it isn't that important, then it isn't that important.
Right. Which means I lose (a) the ability to select a specific track (b) the ability to know which track I'm listening to and (c) almost a TB of disk space. Just because Apple can't fix a simple problem.
It's important to me, so important that I won't buy a broken player which doesn't work properly. There are players out there that have solved this problem, it's not rocket science. That's why I buy them over Apple. The nano looks great, I'd buy one in an instant if they did gapless.
If you want it done on arbitrary playlists on the fly, then you can hardly bring CD players into the debate.
No, I don't want it on playlists. I don't use playlists. I want it for albums which have no gaps and which I want to listen to in the same way I can listen to the CD.
Like another responder I can also recommend the Zalman coolers, but good luck getting one in a Shuttle. Gigabyte make a passive 6600 - the heatsink on it isn't _too_ huge.
Put your movies on a Memory Stick. Problem solved. You're welcome.
While I don't doubt your experience, it's not universal. I've worked at the same company for 7 years (since graduation) and in that time my overall compensation has roughly quadrupled.
Agreed. I'm a "web developer" for a fortune 100 company (well I was, just switched departments today) - working on our primary B2B client service site. We have a 6 week release cycle, which means we do a full development, integration and QA test cycle, plus release and acceptance test every 6 weeks. It's tough. Our "website" is composed of around 200 individual applications, written in 4 languages deployed over probably 40 or 50 servers running 3 different operating systems. We have multiple databases (I have no idea how many in total), dependencies on probably 20 other apps (with their own release schedules) and of course, we support and test with 4 different browsers on two client operating systems.
Unless something is horribly broken we do not touch the prod boxes. Discipline is the ONLY way to maintain order with the kind of complexity we have - far too often I've seen the "oh it's only a tiny fix" turn into a domino cascade of breaks. With a B2B website like ours it's the clients who see mistakes first, and they are only too happy to go to the competition when that happens.
Incidentally, I agree with him -- designing web sites for broken browsers is like giving illegal immigrants drivers' licenses: it's stupid and it doesn't fix the underlying problem.
Terrible analogy. A more accurate one would be your store refusing to serve illegal immigrants while every other store in town still does. You may be standing up for what you see as right, but you'll go bankrupt in the process. A little pragmatism goes a long way.
If you're looking for value why do you bother mentioning Bose? They just make overpriced junk for people who know nothing about audio.
A Tsunami that wipes out thousands in remote regions of many underdeveloped countries? A volcano that covers a major city not in water but hot lava? How about a chemical plant that explodes in the middle of a city and thousands with a vast cloud of toxic gas?
The fact is that Katarina was:
(a) Predictable. Studies have been done which describe exactly what would happen if a large hurricane hit NO. They were right. We knew NO was at risk, we knew what it could and likely could not survive.
(b) Predicted. We knew several days before it hit what was likely to occur. Why wasn't the rescue effort started THEN?
(c) In our own backyard. This is not SE Asia. This is not Iraq. This is just down the road. The slowness of response on the part of the government (both local and federal) is both astonishing and unforgivable.
This was a minor disaster that has been blown up to much larger proportions due to a series of momumental fuck ups by those in charge. They should be held accountable.
Lead the world in prison population per capita? Figures please?
Here
and here. OK?
The first link in your suggested google search confirms exactly what I said. An artist can work under a regular contract and they own what is created. This is normal, and fair. If they want to sell the rights to you, the client, they are free to do so. However they can also choose to sign a Work for Hire contract, in which case that transfer is automatic. There are other minor differences but that's about it.
This is what I said:
In the same way, a programmer owns the rights to every line of code they right, unless they sell the rights to someone else (e.g. to an employer via a contract).
You'll notice the use of the phrase "via a contract". That contract is the Work for Hire contract, and is the mechanism by which the employee signs over their copyright to the employer.
You can ask your photographer to sign a WfH contract, and they might or might not. You can ask them to sign over rights to their photos, and they might or might not. In the same way I could ask my employer to change my WfH contract to one which allows me to keep my copyright. They most likely wouldn't agree, but that's how it is with negotiations.
Whilst WfH makes some transfers automatic in some situations, the overall doctrine that someone who creates something owns that thing unless they give up those rights in some manner still holds.
The person who pays for the work deserves to own the work. This is the same idiotic logic where we have photographers owning the rights to YOUR wedding pics, even though you paid for them. If the creator wants to own the rights, then the creator should PAY for them.
You create something, you own it. That's the "default" legal principle, and I can't see how anyone can disagree with that. You can however, as creator, sell the rights to the thing you create to someone else. If you're paying someone to create something for you, then you better make sure the contract says you own it afterwards. If it doesn't - negotiate a better contract or take your business elsewhere. Caveat emptor.
Then use a different photographer, or offer a better deal, or take the pics yourself. Everything is up for negotiation.
The photographer owns the rights to every picture they take unless they sell the rights to someone else (e.g. you). In the same way, a programmer owns the rights to every line of code they right, unless they sell the rights to someone else (e.g. to an employer via a contract). A musician owns the rights to songs they write, again unless they sell them to a music label. There's no special rule for photographers.
The rights still shouldn't belong to her if it's MY money paying the tab
I've never met a photographer who will totally refuse to sell the rights to pics. In fact, for most it's how they make their money. You were either (a) not willing to pay enough or (b) working with an uncooperative photographer. In either case your solution is to go elsewhere.
That's 138GBP + VAT, delivery & import duty. My calculations put that at around 175GBP or so, more if you want fast shipping.
The 179.99 price is fully inclusive.
Yes, lots. There are about the same number of games available for PSP as DS.
The wildest thing about this statement is that it buys the *AAs' underlying premise completely, namely that culture is a commodity. It's an absurd notion when seen within the context of human development.
That's a misrepresentation. The RIAA don't seek to own or control "culture" as a whole, just the works their members created. You're free to go out there and create your own culture any time you want. Back in the day, composers would be paid by rich aristocrats to write music for them. They then of course owned that work and would control it. Did that mean the peasant on the street never heard music? Of course not, they wrote and performed their own folk music.
The same holds today, except the aristocrats have been replaced by music industry execs, and they've started exploiting their owned works by selling licenses to listen to them to the peasants. If the peasants don't want to buy, they don't have to, that doesn't deprive them of culture, and they can still create their own. This has happened recently - see the evolution of Rap & Hip Hop for example. However, the unfortunate thing is that whenever one of these cultures gets popular along come the aristocrats with a big bag of gold, and before you know it you have 50 cent. As far as I can tell this is a pretty cyclical pattern...
Hmmmm. I picked a few big movies from the last few months (at random) and looked up the figures on IMDB. These numbers are for US boxoffice only, not international, or DVD etc and are from release to date.
Wedding Crashers - $177m grossed from a $40m budget.
Revenge of the Sith - $378m grossed from $115m budget
War of the Worlds - $230m grossed from $128m budget
The Longest Yard - $157m grossed from $82m budget
So all of these movies made a pretty good return (from 80% to 300% profit), and even the lowest made an actual profit of around $80m. Compared to the Penguin's $40m, that's pretty good (even though the Penguins did have a tiny budget so their ROI is amazing).
Except he didn't and you didn't either. He said you couldn't build a "high-end" machine plus 11 games for $1200. That's "high-end" not "average" - and that makes sense seeing as you're comparing to a Xbox360, which, right now, is a seriously powerful piece of kit. Your machine spec includes a 6600GT, which whilst a fine card (I have one) is entirely outclassed by the graphics hardware in the 360. Your CPU is an Athlon 64 3000+, same argument applies. Your games are also rather "varied", HL2, UT2k4 etc are good choices - but XIII? C&C??????
Adding a few hundred $ for a graphics card, another couple hundred for a faster (dual core) CPU, and you're getting closer. You've also blown your budget.
So I'll need a DX9 video card with 64mb, and more than 256mb of system ram? Check and check.
Some people are lucky - they have good well paying jobs. That doesn't make them "subsidized" (very strange choice of words) just lucky, or smart, or (most likely) both. I certainly don't fit any of your categories, I'm entirely self sufficient (and pay $60k a year in taxes & charitable contributions to help out others), and I work less hours than you. I'm not saying this to boast, but to try and point out that you're being somewhat narrow minded.
Works fine on my Karma. I can browse by Album, Artist or Track Name, all in a nice list which I can scroll through with the wheel. I can also jump to a specific letter of the alphabet if the list is too long.