Opera is pretty good if you don't mind a hideous, cluttered GUI that refuses to conform to the style set by the window manager. It doesn't take too much RAM and is very feature-rich.
BTW, the parent is NOT a flamebait and deserves to modded up, even if he is a little paranoid.
Slashdot has traditionally been very libertarian and pro free market. I don't think there's much sympathy for underpaid workers and economically starved communities.
Microsoft, on the other hand, is destroying the computer world! Off with their heads! Off with their heads!
It depends on the songs. Cross-fading can sound really tacky, especially if the songs are close, but not identically pitched. You're right in that it's one of the least obnoxious analogue copy-protections (lol) that radios apply. Worse is when the last third of the song is chopped in favour advertising. I guess that listeners aren't the radio station's customers.
What's its problem? Does it not browse the web? Is it insecure? Is it unstable? Is it unpleasant to use? Does it lack features? Isn't it expandable or flexible enough? Is it poorly programmed?
For those of you who answered yes on the last count, ask yourselves this: Is it worth dismissing the entire software as junk?
For those of you who answered yes again, ask yourselves this: Why are you so f*****g picky?
You must be new here. It's an old Slashdot tradition to blame corruption on poor or lazy decision-making. It's not quite so easy to face the reality that they (far more often than not) have the power to change things. Voting is cheap, boycotting is cheap, soap-boxing is cheap. Apparently, whining on Slashdot is even cheaper.
I disagree. I, for one, am relieved that such a shocking, gritty expose on Microsoft made it to the Slashdot front page. This important article is the first crack in the perfect veneer of this insidiously evil company. Congratulations to WalterByrd and kdawson for being part of the solution, rather than the problem.:)
Microsoft, if they care so much about copyright infringement, should develop it's own 100%-legal-no-matter-what-you-share-on-there P2P client. The client can apply DRM on all the songs (transcoding if necessary), with the same three play or three day restriction. The P2P client would have to limit the downloading of the same song over and over in short time periods, but hopefully that could provide a legal outlet for the try-before-you-buy pirates (I believe there are quite a few out there).
We will charge whatever we want no matter how cheap it is for us to produce.
Sure. You can choose to pay for it or not. However, I think you'll find that, after factoring in risk management and losses from other failed enterprises, the prices are generally quite reasonable.
Our outrageous prices will not be circumvented by any means. We control the market so there are no competitors that can charge less.
Not quite. They don't control the music market. There are independent labels out there, and you can get your music there.
We think ALL of you are criminals, even if you've been buying music since the 1970s or earlier and never downloaded a single copyrighted song in your entire life.
No. They suspect everyone is a criminal. There's a big difference. One sounds evil, the other sounds pathetically paranoid. Unfortunately it's not exactly paranoia, since there are so many people out to get them.
(We will blame every cent lost on piracy.)
And why not! Even if the revenue wasn't lost directly to piracy, the piracy movement will have played some part. The conflict between the RIAA and pirates has been bad publicity for the RIAA, resulting in less sales. Some of the pirates have justified their takings by declaring that the RIAA produces nothing of quality (and thus doesn't deserve to exist), which would also hurt sales. The RIAA has been producing music as it always has for a large variety of markets, some of which is very good. It makes little sense to blame the drops in revenue on dwindling quality.
Thus, we will load music cds with DRM that will only enable you to play the song on a cd-player (assuming our DRM doesn't somehow muck things up so it won't play -- and if it does, sucks to be you). We will impose any other limitations we want, any time we want to.
Consumers will buy what they want, any time they want to. If they don't like DRM, they don't have to put up with DRM.
We will rip off the artists left and right, so in the end they wind up owing us money.In fact, we're starting to force them to sing contracts that give us a nice, big cut of their concert earnings as well. If they or you don't like it, suck it.
Times have been tough. Anyway, as unfair as they sound, the artist only has themselves to blame if they sign a contract like that. They could always defect to a different label, one that isn't so hell-bent on DRM. Hell, they could even just sign with EMI, and enjoy DRM free distribution through some vendors!
We will pursue any online business model only so far a sit allows to implement stringent DRM and work with companies that will DRM files so they will only play a few times, and then charge you again for the exact same file. And then charge you again. And then charge you gain. And then....
That's unfair. Number one, as I just stated, EMI doesn't stress DRM like it used to. Number two, the restrictions vary from store to store. Some stores do rent music, often at an attractively low price. Others you pay full price for unlimited plays. They are two different things. One is a product, the other is a service. The service, like other services, requires continuous payment.
We own many of your lawmakers and are buying more of them every day. We make the law and will have the most draconian copyright laws enacted before you know it. In fact, we can have any draconian law we want enacted any time we want to.
Well, this is a tricky subject. The corruption of governments and corporations is considered a flat given. Twice recently I've read people claiming that the government is hopelessly corrupt as the unbiased truth, but I'm not so sure. I think the assumption about corruption comes, in part, from a flawed perspective on public opinion. Many people labour under the impression that democracy is designed to do what's best
You do know that downloading music is legal in Canada don't you? It is only illegal to distribute music in Canada.
No, I had no idea. Are you sure that something like P2P, or even just a straight download off a network isn't considered distribution?
Anyway, the legality isn't really the point, rather the effects on music producers and distributors, having to compete with something that's as culturally unsustainable as piracy. If copying laws are indeed as liberal as you make them sound, perhaps it's worth looking at their effect (or lack-thereof) on copyright holders, and the culture in general?
Competition from iTunes and other online stores is good. We can allow newer forms of distribution to compete on equal terms, and hopefully the free market will spit out an amiable compromise between the two, at the price of some of the retailers.
Competition from illegal downloading is not good. There is no way that any music store (online or not) can compete with free works. If they were legal, and the free market worked as it usually does, eventually a huge majority of people would use it, and only a tiny minority would be able to resist the convenience and price in favour of morals. The artists and record companies would pretty much go broke.
A corporation shall not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive.
It's the law here. Google's conduct (running fraudulent advertising) is misleading. They're breaking the law, the ACCC is doing what it's chartered to do. Like the law or not, it's there.
I don't have a licence (as I am not British). I am accustomed to paying for BBC content on a work-by-work basis. What would stop me and my OS from accessing this content without paying for it?
The problem is not that the product is any worse; it's that you don't have a choice but to buy Windows. Sure you get a superior computer for not that much more money, but some of that money will go to MS whether you like it or not (like it has with so many computer purchases in the past). And, if that changes at all, it will be no thanks to you.
Slashdot Mirror
Opera is pretty good if you don't mind a hideous, cluttered GUI that refuses to conform to the style set by the window manager. It doesn't take too much RAM and is very feature-rich.
BTW, the parent is NOT a flamebait and deserves to modded up, even if he is a little paranoid.
Slashdot has traditionally been very libertarian and pro free market. I don't think there's much sympathy for underpaid workers and economically starved communities.
Microsoft, on the other hand, is destroying the computer world! Off with their heads! Off with their heads!
I like a guy who is proud and unashamed of his opinions and his practices. This country needs more people like you, Mr. Coward!
I only got this number :(
09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
It depends on the songs. Cross-fading can sound really tacky, especially if the songs are close, but not identically pitched. You're right in that it's one of the least obnoxious analogue copy-protections (lol) that radios apply. Worse is when the last third of the song is chopped in favour advertising. I guess that listeners aren't the radio station's customers.
Why is the parent post modded flamebait? Is it because he accuses modern women of having low standards? Or are people just jealous?
Yes.
Still funny as hell though.
You think I was referring to IE?
:)
Or to put it another way, if anyone answered yes to more than one or two of those questions, let me ask you this: Why are you so f*****g forgiving?
What's its problem? Does it not browse the web? Is it insecure? Is it unstable? Is it unpleasant to use? Does it lack features? Isn't it expandable or flexible enough? Is it poorly programmed?
For those of you who answered yes on the last count, ask yourselves this: Is it worth dismissing the entire software as junk?
For those of you who answered yes again, ask yourselves this: Why are you so f*****g picky?
You must be new here. It's an old Slashdot tradition to blame corruption on poor or lazy decision-making. It's not quite so easy to face the reality that they (far more often than not) have the power to change things. Voting is cheap, boycotting is cheap, soap-boxing is cheap. Apparently, whining on Slashdot is even cheaper.
I disagree. I, for one, am relieved that such a shocking, gritty expose on Microsoft made it to the Slashdot front page. This important article is the first crack in the perfect veneer of this insidiously evil company. Congratulations to WalterByrd and kdawson for being part of the solution, rather than the problem. :)
The GP was quite evidently parody, as demonstrated by all the +1 Funny mods. Everyone seems to have gotten the joke but you. :)
Here's my solution:
Microsoft, if they care so much about copyright infringement, should develop it's own 100%-legal-no-matter-what-you-share-on-there P2P client. The client can apply DRM on all the songs (transcoding if necessary), with the same three play or three day restriction. The P2P client would have to limit the downloading of the same song over and over in short time periods, but hopefully that could provide a legal outlet for the try-before-you-buy pirates (I believe there are quite a few out there).
Sure. You can choose to pay for it or not. However, I think you'll find that, after factoring in risk management and losses from other failed enterprises, the prices are generally quite reasonable.
Not quite. They don't control the music market. There are independent labels out there, and you can get your music there.
No. They suspect everyone is a criminal. There's a big difference. One sounds evil, the other sounds pathetically paranoid. Unfortunately it's not exactly paranoia, since there are so many people out to get them.
And why not! Even if the revenue wasn't lost directly to piracy, the piracy movement will have played some part. The conflict between the RIAA and pirates has been bad publicity for the RIAA, resulting in less sales. Some of the pirates have justified their takings by declaring that the RIAA produces nothing of quality (and thus doesn't deserve to exist), which would also hurt sales. The RIAA has been producing music as it always has for a large variety of markets, some of which is very good. It makes little sense to blame the drops in revenue on dwindling quality.
Consumers will buy what they want, any time they want to. If they don't like DRM, they don't have to put up with DRM.
Times have been tough. Anyway, as unfair as they sound, the artist only has themselves to blame if they sign a contract like that. They could always defect to a different label, one that isn't so hell-bent on DRM. Hell, they could even just sign with EMI, and enjoy DRM free distribution through some vendors!
That's unfair. Number one, as I just stated, EMI doesn't stress DRM like it used to. Number two, the restrictions vary from store to store. Some stores do rent music, often at an attractively low price. Others you pay full price for unlimited plays. They are two different things. One is a product, the other is a service. The service, like other services, requires continuous payment.
Well, this is a tricky subject. The corruption of governments and corporations is considered a flat given. Twice recently I've read people claiming that the government is hopelessly corrupt as the unbiased truth, but I'm not so sure. I think the assumption about corruption comes, in part, from a flawed perspective on public opinion. Many people labour under the impression that democracy is designed to do what's best
Anyway, the legality isn't really the point, rather the effects on music producers and distributors, having to compete with something that's as culturally unsustainable as piracy. If copying laws are indeed as liberal as you make them sound, perhaps it's worth looking at their effect (or lack-thereof) on copyright holders, and the culture in general?
Competition from iTunes and other online stores is good. We can allow newer forms of distribution to compete on equal terms, and hopefully the free market will spit out an amiable compromise between the two, at the price of some of the retailers.
Competition from illegal downloading is not good. There is no way that any music store (online or not) can compete with free works. If they were legal, and the free market worked as it usually does, eventually a huge majority of people would use it, and only a tiny minority would be able to resist the convenience and price in favour of morals. The artists and record companies would pretty much go broke.
Well, we'd talk, and kiss, and the dark times would come after I reach for the switch.
IANAL
I don't have a licence (as I am not British). I am accustomed to paying for BBC content on a work-by-work basis. What would stop me and my OS from accessing this content without paying for it?
The problem is not that the product is any worse; it's that you don't have a choice but to buy Windows. Sure you get a superior computer for not that much more money, but some of that money will go to MS whether you like it or not (like it has with so many computer purchases in the past). And, if that changes at all, it will be no thanks to you.
I thought Linux used Cron as a scheduler ?