Depends. The HP-branded iPods came pre-formatted VFAT, but those are no longer a concern, I suppose. "Genuine" Apple iPods (not so sure about shuffle/nano) do come formatted HFS+ (the windows version of iTunes will reformat it for you).
It seems far more likely that Apple would just roll an HFS+ driver into the Windows version of iTunes. It'd limit your ability to use it as a portable HD, and it'd lock you into using iTunes, but I suspect that most Windows iPod users don't use them for portable storage and I don't see why you wouldn't want to use iTunes if you've got an iPod.
I know, I know, it's a bit heavy for just playing tracks back and the MP3 encoding isn't as good as LAME, but that's what WinAmp is for. Use iTunes for managing the library and talking to the player, and feel free to use the right tool for the job for other tasks. It's not that hard.
No reprocessing required. Once the engine is up to temp you can run a diesel motor on straight vegetable oil - doesn't even have to be virgin, used fry oil is fine if you filter out the particulate. There's a company in California that makes a kit for most full-size trucks.
In many ways, it's a superior fuel to petroleum-based diesel. The only problem is the oil is too viscous when cold, which means you can't run it full time. In fact, Diesel's original prototypes ran on peanut oil.
There's an article on it in a recent issue of "Diesel Power" magazine, for the curious.
Wow, a genuinely interesting spin on this tired old arugment.
To be sure, record labels screw their artists. Elsewise, why would so many artists form their own labels? Jack Endino (produced Nirvana's first album, among other notables) wrote a fascinating article about the process years and years ago, but a quick look at his web site (http://www.endino.com/) turns up empty. I'm sure it's there somewhere, but I'm too lazy to search for it.
But the parent makes a good point: the supply of musicians vastly outstrips the demand for music (in general, as a commodity). As such, musicians are interchangable parts - it's the value that the labels add (promotion and access) that drives the bulk of sales. Since "artists" are essentially ubiquitous, you can't fault the labels getting the best deal for themselves that they can.
Which is not to excuse the rampant abuses of copyright and the legal system the the labels perpetuate - it makes me sick, too. But the fact that artists get screwed isn't really a valid point of argument. There's nothing stopping you from forming your own label - I should know, I helped a friend do it about 2 years ago.
And just as no one promised the record labels that they could make bazillions selling the same recycled crap in perpetuity, no one promised you that you could earn a living as a musician - only that you'd have the opportunity to give it a try.
So, in summary, if you're going to be mad, be mad that the RIAA is manipulating the law such that protecting their property infringes on your right to use your legitimately purchased goods in a manner that is consistent with the principles of Fair Use. Leave the poor starving artists out of it - they made their choice.
It's entirely reasonable to expect that a group of people with similar cultural backgrounds would arrive at similar readings of a given text, thereby forming a consensus. That doesn't make it correct or what the author "intended". As exhibit A, I offer Rushdie's Satanic Verses. Several million people arrived at the (reasonable, given the text) consensus that it was an anti-islam tirade. This, according to Rushdie, was not his purpose. But absent the direct voice of the author outside of the context of the work itself, how would we know?
Also, ideas != intent. As exhibit B, I offer the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. That people should be able to own firearms is an easily grasped idea. But what was the intent? Was the intent to ensure a functional National Guard? Remember that the Constitution only grants the authority to raise an army and navy, not demand that they exist. Or is it to preserve the threat of violent overthrow if the government gets out of hand? I sure don't know.
Finally, let's consider your post. Of course your intent is clear; you've explicitly stated it. But that's a function of the form - six lines to explicitly state a refutation to my argument. It's not open to interpretation. That's like asking about the authorial intent behind "cheeseburger, fries, and a strawberry shake, please."
As an experiment in apples-to-apples comparisons, why don't you write a 6000 word short story with it's central theme being the existance of authorial intent and have an editor go through it. Six months from now, we'll get it posted on Salon, and then we can take a poll of the people who read it as to what you "really meant". Do you honestly think that the answer will be "authorial intent must exist because people communicate ideas all the time"? Are you willing to wager on it?
We now return you to your regularly schedule topic.
While you present some interesting and valid criticisms, I think you're missing one of the cornerstones of PoMo criticism, namely:
Authorial intent is unknowable.
On the first point: how can anyone (excepting, of course, the author) KNOW (in the savoir sense, not the connaitre sense) what the author's intent really was? And once you've rationalized that, I invite you to explain the effect that the editor and (in some cases) translator have on it. The book that you see on the shelf is NEVER the exact words that the author wrote. It's not possible. On top of that, how do you then account for translations? Is One Hundred Years of Solitude in the original Spanish be the exact same text as One Hundred Years of Solitude in English? No, it can't be. Living languages do not directly map to each other - just run a random document through Babelfish if you want proof. Therefore, the translator has just as much stake in "authorial intent" as the original author, seeing as he becomes the arbiter of idomatic speech and nuance.
But wait, there's more: Reading is an active, not passive, activity. When you read you are, in effect, translating. While language does frame our thought patterns, pure thought is far more expansive that words (Kant calls it the notion of the Sublime). Therefore, when reading you are actively translating the words on the page into the larger meta-language of your own personal experience. So you too are doing your part to obscure authorial intent just be reading. Fun little paradox, no?
Ergo, authorial intent is a sham.
And since it's a sham, why not play games with the text and see what turns up? There are any number of equally valid "truths" contained within a text depending on which way you choose to look at it. The value of PoMo criticism is in exposing yourself to alternate interpretations and viewpoints - you know, broadening your horizons. You don't have to agree with them, but an interesting argument you don't believe in can be one of the best ways to uncover what you really do believe.
*whew*
That said, anyone who attempts to sell ANY piece of literary criticism as "capital T" Truth is full of crap.
End of rant.
Re:Everything is Censorship! The sky is falling!
on
Dirty Domains
·
· Score: 2
Actually, the first amendment has been and is infringed on all the time, in the interest of "public safety" or "community standards". Given that the internet is, like it or not, a PUBLIC space and therefore is subject to "community standards." So in this sense, Rich is probably right.
Problem is, how does one define "community standards" for a community that is so mind-bogglingly diverse? I suppose that you could try the FCC's enforcement model - it's only a problem if someone complains - but odds are someone would complain about almost anything, if for no reason other than spite.
So we're (or, as others have pointed out we WERE) left with NSI as the final arbiter of Good Taste. Unfortunately, NSI's guidelines don't (didn't) make sense to most Americans, let alone any one from anywhere else on the net.
What I'm getting at is that while decency and politeness on the net is a lovely idea, it just won't happen in this type of community. Not because internet users are particularly anti-social, but just because there are too many different ideas about where the boundries of politeness lie.
Do you think this whole global-village sensitivity thing is a load of P.C. crap? Could be. But consider the first rule of politeness: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." You want community standards? Then you start by upholding my right to make an ass of myself by registering a domain name like http://www.watchmefuckmydog.com... You don't have to look at it if you don't want to, and I promise I won't get my left-wing liberal panties in a knot when you register www.rushlimbaughisgod.com.
Deal?
-b. Internet domain names are no exception. If you find the notion of http://www.fuckmydog.com to be offensive, you'll just have to get better filtering software. It's the only just solution. Anything else just leads to the slippery slope of 'no one left to speak for me'.
Fueled by methodologies stolen from Solaris, Linux approaches a 50% share in the small and medium server market.
Microsoft announces Windows03 (not to be confused with 3.0) available Real Soon Now.
2005:
As their share of the server market dips under 30%, panicky MS execs announce the release of Windows Technologies for Linux... Which actually does a clean install of NT 8.2Sp4 with no Linux back end at all. End users are furious when they find that the included uninstall utility renders their machine completely inoperable. A MS spokesperson says: "It worked in '98... We figured 'why not?'"
2007:
Linux has achieved total market domination, holding 95% of the server market and 97% of the embedded systems market.
2008:
Windows03, renamed Windows09, is finally released. It is roundly praised as 'the best thing since cold fusion' by the editors of (insert Ziff-Davis publication here) and the 3 IT managers still using NT5.0.
More seriously, sentient AI is a pipe dream. Don't get me wrong -- no doubt somebody'll hack up something clever enough to fool the Turing test, and expert systems may become advanced enough to truly replace some dangerous/menial human jobs. But a genuinely self-aware AI would never be allowed to exist.
Think about it: an AI could make every paranoid hacker fantasy that the media and/or JIR has come up with come true. Easily. Infinite patience, infinite knowledge, (essentially) infinite computational horsepower...
And what's to stop it? Some flimsy hardcoded "morals"? Please... If the machine is self-aware, it's going to be self-modifying.
Do you really think that the people with the big iron it would take to create something like that are going to be willing to take that risk? Really?
Hope I'm not too late to get in on this... My 3 questions for perhaps the best SF author of the decade (that Gibson guy is pretty good too;) ) 1: Genetic engineering (or re-engineering) is a pervasive bit of tech in a number of your works. I'm sure we're all familiar with 'sticky' from Islands in the Net, but I'm kind of curious about your own views on the ethical|legal issues surrounding human experimentation, particularly cloning, since it seems to be all the rage right now. 2: Having just had a discussion with my wife about the value of televised football as a culturally-sanctioned outlet for supressed aggressive tendancies, it occured to me that the only mention of sport I could think of in your work is the football match in "Deep Eddy". Assuming that advancing technology continues to dis-empower those in the middle of the food chain (anyone who enjoys being 'on call' with a beeper and a cell phone is a sick, sick individual), how do you see these tendancies manifesting themselves in the future? Other authors use street gangs and urban decay, but your societies continue to be rather well put together. Why? 3: How was Cypress? I know it must have been fascinating from a political/theoretical point of view... but did you enjoy the trip?:)
Slashdot Mirror
Depends. The HP-branded iPods came pre-formatted VFAT, but those are no longer a concern, I suppose. "Genuine" Apple iPods (not so sure about shuffle/nano) do come formatted HFS+ (the windows version of iTunes will reformat it for you).
It seems far more likely that Apple would just roll an HFS+ driver into the Windows version of iTunes. It'd limit your ability to use it as a portable HD, and it'd lock you into using iTunes, but I suspect that most Windows iPod users don't use them for portable storage and I don't see why you wouldn't want to use iTunes if you've got an iPod.
I know, I know, it's a bit heavy for just playing tracks back and the MP3 encoding isn't as good as LAME, but that's what WinAmp is for. Use iTunes for managing the library and talking to the player, and feel free to use the right tool for the job for other tasks. It's not that hard.
No reprocessing required. Once the engine is up to temp you can run a diesel motor on straight vegetable oil - doesn't even have to be virgin, used fry oil is fine if you filter out the particulate. There's a company in California that makes a kit for most full-size trucks.
In many ways, it's a superior fuel to petroleum-based diesel. The only problem is the oil is too viscous when cold, which means you can't run it full time. In fact, Diesel's original prototypes ran on peanut oil.
There's an article on it in a recent issue of "Diesel Power" magazine, for the curious.
To be sure, record labels screw their artists. Elsewise, why would so many artists form their own labels? Jack Endino (produced Nirvana's first album, among other notables) wrote a fascinating article about the process years and years ago, but a quick look at his web site (http://www.endino.com/) turns up empty. I'm sure it's there somewhere, but I'm too lazy to search for it.
But the parent makes a good point: the supply of musicians vastly outstrips the demand for music (in general, as a commodity). As such, musicians are interchangable parts - it's the value that the labels add (promotion and access) that drives the bulk of sales. Since "artists" are essentially ubiquitous, you can't fault the labels getting the best deal for themselves that they can.
Which is not to excuse the rampant abuses of copyright and the legal system the the labels perpetuate - it makes me sick, too. But the fact that artists get screwed isn't really a valid point of argument. There's nothing stopping you from forming your own label - I should know, I helped a friend do it about 2 years ago.
And just as no one promised the record labels that they could make bazillions selling the same recycled crap in perpetuity, no one promised you that you could earn a living as a musician - only that you'd have the opportunity to give it a try.
So, in summary, if you're going to be mad, be mad that the RIAA is manipulating the law such that protecting their property infringes on your right to use your legitimately purchased goods in a manner that is consistent with the principles of Fair Use. Leave the poor starving artists out of it - they made their choice.
It's entirely reasonable to expect that a group of people with similar cultural backgrounds would arrive at similar readings of a given text, thereby forming a consensus. That doesn't make it correct or what the author "intended". As exhibit A, I offer Rushdie's Satanic Verses. Several million people arrived at the (reasonable, given the text) consensus that it was an anti-islam tirade. This, according to Rushdie, was not his purpose. But absent the direct voice of the author outside of the context of the work itself, how would we know?
Also, ideas != intent. As exhibit B, I offer the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. That people should be able to own firearms is an easily grasped idea. But what was the intent? Was the intent to ensure a functional National Guard? Remember that the Constitution only grants the authority to raise an army and navy, not demand that they exist. Or is it to preserve the threat of violent overthrow if the government gets out of hand? I sure don't know.
Finally, let's consider your post. Of course your intent is clear; you've explicitly stated it. But that's a function of the form - six lines to explicitly state a refutation to my argument. It's not open to interpretation. That's like asking about the authorial intent behind "cheeseburger, fries, and a strawberry shake, please."
As an experiment in apples-to-apples comparisons, why don't you write a 6000 word short story with it's central theme being the existance of authorial intent and have an editor go through it. Six months from now, we'll get it posted on Salon, and then we can take a poll of the people who read it as to what you "really meant". Do you honestly think that the answer will be "authorial intent must exist because people communicate ideas all the time"? Are you willing to wager on it?
We now return you to your regularly schedule topic.
While you present some interesting and valid criticisms, I think you're missing one of the cornerstones of PoMo criticism, namely:
Authorial intent is unknowable.
On the first point: how can anyone (excepting, of course, the author) KNOW (in the savoir sense, not the connaitre sense) what the author's intent really was? And once you've rationalized that, I invite you to explain the effect that the editor and (in some cases) translator have on it. The book that you see on the shelf is NEVER the exact words that the author wrote. It's not possible. On top of that, how do you then account for translations? Is One Hundred Years of Solitude in the original Spanish be the exact same text as One Hundred Years of Solitude in English? No, it can't be. Living languages do not directly map to each other - just run a random document through Babelfish if you want proof. Therefore, the translator has just as much stake in "authorial intent" as the original author, seeing as he becomes the arbiter of idomatic speech and nuance.
But wait, there's more:
Reading is an active, not passive, activity. When you read you are, in effect, translating. While language does frame our thought patterns, pure thought is far more expansive that words (Kant calls it the notion of the Sublime). Therefore, when reading you are actively translating the words on the page into the larger meta-language of your own personal experience. So you too are doing your part to obscure authorial intent just be reading. Fun little paradox, no?
Ergo, authorial intent is a sham.
And since it's a sham, why not play games with the text and see what turns up? There are any number of equally valid "truths" contained within a text depending on which way you choose to look at it. The value of PoMo criticism is in exposing yourself to alternate interpretations and viewpoints - you know, broadening your horizons. You don't have to agree with them, but an interesting argument you don't believe in can be one of the best ways to uncover what you really do believe.
*whew*
That said, anyone who attempts to sell ANY piece of literary criticism as "capital T" Truth is full of crap.
End of rant.
Problem is, how does one define "community standards" for a community that is so mind-bogglingly diverse? I suppose that you could try the FCC's enforcement model - it's only a problem if someone complains - but odds are someone would complain about almost anything, if for no reason other than spite.
So we're (or, as others have pointed out we WERE) left with NSI as the final arbiter of Good Taste. Unfortunately, NSI's guidelines don't (didn't) make sense to most Americans, let alone any one from anywhere else on the net.
What I'm getting at is that while decency and politeness on the net is a lovely idea, it just won't happen in this type of community. Not because internet users are particularly anti-social, but just because there are too many different ideas about where the boundries of politeness lie.
Do you think this whole global-village sensitivity thing is a load of P.C. crap? Could be. But consider the first rule of politeness: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." You want community standards? Then you start by upholding my right to make an ass of myself by registering a domain name like http://www.watchmefuckmydog.com ... You don't have to look at it if you don't want to, and I promise I won't get my left-wing liberal panties in a knot when you register www.rushlimbaughisgod.com.
Deal?
-b. Internet domain names are no exception. If you find the notion of http://www.fuckmydog.com to be offensive, you'll just have to get better filtering software. It's the only just solution. Anything else just leads to the slippery slope of 'no one left to speak for me'.
Fueled by methodologies stolen from Solaris, Linux approaches a 50% share in the small and medium server market.
Microsoft announces Windows03 (not to be confused with 3.0) available Real Soon Now.
2005:
As their share of the server market dips under 30%, panicky MS execs announce the release of Windows Technologies for Linux... Which actually does a clean install of NT 8.2Sp4 with no Linux back end at all. End users are furious when they find that the included uninstall utility renders their machine completely inoperable. A MS spokesperson says: "It worked in '98... We figured 'why not?'"
2007:
Linux has achieved total market domination, holding 95% of the server market and 97% of the embedded systems market.
2008:
Windows03, renamed Windows09, is finally released. It is roundly praised as 'the best thing since cold fusion' by the editors of (insert Ziff-Davis publication here) and the 3 IT managers still using NT5.0.
More seriously, sentient AI is a pipe dream. Don't get me wrong -- no doubt somebody'll hack up something clever enough to fool the Turing test, and expert systems may become advanced enough to truly replace some dangerous/menial human jobs. But a genuinely self-aware AI would never be allowed to exist.
Think about it: an AI could make every paranoid hacker fantasy that the media and/or JIR has come up with come true. Easily. Infinite patience, infinite knowledge, (essentially) infinite computational horsepower...
And what's to stop it? Some flimsy hardcoded "morals"? Please... If the machine is self-aware, it's going to be self-modifying.
Do you really think that the people with the big iron it would take to create something like that are going to be willing to take that risk? Really?
Just a thought.
Got so wrapped up in what I was thinking that I forgot that these are HTML-formatted.
Please don't flame the newbies.
-b.
Hope I'm not too late to get in on this... My 3 questions for perhaps the best SF author of the decade (that Gibson guy is pretty good too ;) ) 1: Genetic engineering (or re-engineering) is a pervasive bit of tech in a number of your works. I'm sure we're all familiar with 'sticky' from Islands in the Net, but I'm kind of curious about your own views on the ethical|legal issues surrounding human experimentation, particularly cloning, since it seems to be all the rage right now. 2: Having just had a discussion with my wife about the value of televised football as a culturally-sanctioned outlet for supressed aggressive tendancies, it occured to me that the only mention of sport I could think of in your work is the football match in "Deep Eddy". Assuming that advancing technology continues to dis-empower those in the middle of the food chain (anyone who enjoys being 'on call' with a beeper and a cell phone is a sick, sick individual), how do you see these tendancies manifesting themselves in the future? Other authors use street gangs and urban decay, but your societies continue to be rather well put together. Why? 3: How was Cypress? I know it must have been fascinating from a political/theoretical point of view... but did you enjoy the trip? :)