I'm a lot more likely to click through an ad on/. than most other places, but even when I see something that catches my attention, I often don't click on it. It just gets filed away somewhere in my mind until I'm actually looking for the advertised product or service, at which time I'm more likely to remember that company and pay them a visit. I see the ads more like billboards on the side of the road. Sure I don't look at them all the time, but sometimes they make an impression and get some business for that company somewhere down the road.
This just reminded me of an old gameshow from the 80s called Starcade (IIRC). My memory of it is fuzzy now, but I believe the contestants would have to answer game-related questions and play arcade games for points. Was interesting at the time, but I've never seen anything like it since.
So far, things don't seem to be looking so good for fair use. The judge in the 2600 case basically said that Congress overrode fair use with the DMCA since, according to his interpretation, it conflicts with fair use. Since the DMCA is the newer law, it takes precedence. Hopefully this will be overturned. I wouldn't count on it though.
The answer is that the broadcasters need to come up with compelling content.
Or they could just wait 'til the analog signal is shut off in 5-10 years. I personally couldn't care less about HDTV. It seems to me that all the restrictions and expense are not worth the increased image quality. Not by a long shot.
It's not like you have a right to music, or a computer, or games, or net access, or any other goddam thing that you can't produce yourself.
Perhaps not, but we do have the right to demand that corporations adhere to certain rules and principles. It's the price they pay for the protections and benefits that we, the people, grant them through our government.
Besides, these are also business records that can't legally be destroyed for a certain period of time if the company will continue to exist.
Business records are one thing. Marketing data is another. There may be some overlap for essential information, but anything beyond that should be destroyed if customers were promised that the information would not be sold.
The flip side of this is that it denies the ability to sell a company under some circumstances, which would violate all manner of legal and constitutional rights.
What about the contract between the customer and the business? Should that simply be disregarded? Should businesses be allowed to create contracts that violate the Constitution? If they do violate the Constitution, shouldn't the contract be deemed null and void? If so, then the data that the business gained through the contract should be destroyed.
If a company promises not to sell your information, I believe that means they shouldn't be able to sell it as part of the sale of their company as well. It should never be an issue. You simply don't sell the information regardless of circumstances. If your company is bought by another company, then destroying the information is the only way to make sure it is not transferred. It should be made clear to the purchasing company that customer information is not for sale.
Re:Online intellectual property piracy is a fallac
on
Free Books Online
·
· Score: 2
but those are the reasons you bought the book - not some moral obligation you felt to pay a usage fees.
I've purchased CDs from MP3.com for that very reason. I want to support the artists whose music I like. I've downloaded entire albums from mp3.com, yet I still paid for them. Now I'm sure there are a lot of kids out there that download stuff for free and never give it a second thought. But they usually don't have the tons of cash it takes to buy the CDs anyway, I know I never did. It's the post-college crowd that will be more likely to pay I think.
What about the journalists that do hardware and computer reviews? Are they all in somebody's pocket already, or could they help spread the word in mainstream computing mags like PC Magazine and such? Would they do it, or are they beholden to the advertisers?
While it may allow us to do something we couldn't do before, it's also a step in preventing us from doing things that we could do before. For me, the tradeoff is definitely not worth the price.
But since HDTVs are not very consumer friendly either, it'll probably be a while before they catch on. Specifically it probably won't happen until analog signals go away completely. That's probably still 5-10 years away barring any significant protests by consumer groups or unless the HDTVs relax the copy controls. Who wants to buy a brand new tv, dvd player, etc when they cost more and do less than the old ones? So while mpeg might not have the advantages of HDTV, it also lacks the very significant disadvantages as well.
Re:We need to be more like the Europeans
on
"Traffic"
·
· Score: 2
but somehow he managed to turn it into a "See? My family have experience of this thing! I know how evil drugs can be!" political triumph.
Haha.. that line is almost verbatim from the movie "Traffic." What a coincidence:)
They'd probably want equipment and software they are familliar with, since they probably couldn't afford support should their *BSD or *nix knowledge be close to nil, which I imagine it might be.
It's possible, but in my experience, many non-profits don't actually have a real computer support person, especially the smaller organizations, which is apparently who they are planning to deal with. They often have someone who can do basic computer tasks, but don't really have any experience setting up a network or anything like that. You could give them NT and they would probably do a worse job setting it up than they would with Linux, just because they could get NT up and running without much help, but it would be horribly insecure and probably quite unstable as well. Whereas with Linux, they know that they don't know what they're doing and will be likely to find some instructions for doing it right. Additionally, there is tons of free information out there to help you with Linux.
In the end, it's really up to the organization to decide who to go with. If Linux meets their needs as well as Windows (with the positives and negatives of both considered), then there is no reason not to use it.
This guy is probably one of the same people that defends Microsoft whenever they do something wrong by saying, "If you don't like what they're doing, don't buy their product!" Then when someone actually tries to avoid buying Microsoft's product (and thereby make an attempt to vote with their dollars, or in this case, recommend that a non-profit organization do so), this guy attacks that idea as well.
Sure, Linux isn't the answer to every problem, but it's up to the organization to decide. If Linux will suit their needs as well as Windows would, then it probably makes more sense to use it instead of Windows. It may even be worth making a small sacrifice or two, just to avoid having problems in the future and to help open source software to grow and mature so that it becomes a better solution over time, whereas Windows will always be quite expensive to maintain.
No... CDs don't offer the record industry better control. Those were just a ploy to increase profits. Wait for audio dvds. That's where they'll take to take back control. That's when they'll probably lower prices to get people to accept them quicker.
Divx being the failed Pay-Per-View DVD alternative. It had some of the same problems. The funny thing is that this new scheme seems to have even more restrictions and problems and yet lacks any of the arguably positive traits of Divx. They'd better find a damn good way to force this on people or I seriously doubt it'll fly.
I have to agree that this seems pretty suicidal. I certainly don't plan on paying any more than I do now for basic cable (and I only have that because it made my cablemodem service cheaper). I would simply give up tv completely before I'd buy into this scheme. I already only watch a couple of shows semi-regularly. I could live without those.
Yeah, well we're basically allowed to do what we want, as long as it doesn't infringe on the liberty of someone else, negatively impact corporate profits, or offend Christian morality. Which means we're well and truly screwed in the freedom department.
Regardless of whether this guy is a scumbag or not, if he loses this case, it could set a precedent that will harm many non-scumbags as well. I have to hope he wins... then gets tossed in jail for 2 years for spamming;)
Yes, but even some of them seem to have forgotten their history. They still seem to regard the Pope as being one step down from God. In addition, they are taking the same path as the Catholic Church did in their attempts to enforce their beliefs on others. Sure, they don't actually kill people for it right now (or at least they don't take credit for it when their members do). They do certainly try to twist the arms of politicians by labeling them as immoral or unethical if they don't support legislation that is blatantly unconstitutional like the CDA. Get enough of that sort of crap passed into law and I bet texas will be the first state to execute someone for distributing pornography via their website. Sounds like a joke right now, but things don't usually stay the same for very long. All we need is a couple of Columbine-equivalents dealing with porn instead of guns and the politicians will be fighting each other to see who can introduce the most draconian anti-porn legislation.
crucifixion was (and still is, by the way, for many Christians in places such as Sudan) the most painful death imaginable.
Possibly. I know that suffocation is one of the worse ways to go, but I've heard of some grisly forms of torture that eventually lead to death. People can be frighteningly creative sometimes.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm a lot more likely to click through an ad on /. than most other places, but even when I see something that catches my attention, I often don't click on it. It just gets filed away somewhere in my mind until I'm actually looking for the advertised product or service, at which time I'm more likely to remember that company and pay them a visit. I see the ads more like billboards on the side of the road. Sure I don't look at them all the time, but sometimes they make an impression and get some business for that company somewhere down the road.
This just reminded me of an old gameshow from the 80s called Starcade (IIRC). My memory of it is fuzzy now, but I believe the contestants would have to answer game-related questions and play arcade games for points. Was interesting at the time, but I've never seen anything like it since.
So far, things don't seem to be looking so good for fair use. The judge in the 2600 case basically said that Congress overrode fair use with the DMCA since, according to his interpretation, it conflicts with fair use. Since the DMCA is the newer law, it takes precedence. Hopefully this will be overturned. I wouldn't count on it though.
The answer is that the broadcasters need to come up with compelling content.
Or they could just wait 'til the analog signal is shut off in 5-10 years. I personally couldn't care less about HDTV. It seems to me that all the restrictions and expense are not worth the increased image quality. Not by a long shot.
It's not like you have a right to music, or a computer, or games, or net access, or any other goddam thing that you can't produce yourself.
Perhaps not, but we do have the right to demand that corporations adhere to certain rules and principles. It's the price they pay for the protections and benefits that we, the people, grant them through our government.
Besides, these are also business records that can't legally be destroyed for a certain period of time if the company will continue to exist.
Business records are one thing. Marketing data is another. There may be some overlap for essential information, but anything beyond that should be destroyed if customers were promised that the information would not be sold.
The flip side of this is that it denies the ability to sell a company under some circumstances, which would violate all manner of legal and constitutional rights.
What about the contract between the customer and the business? Should that simply be disregarded? Should businesses be allowed to create contracts that violate the Constitution? If they do violate the Constitution, shouldn't the contract be deemed null and void? If so, then the data that the business gained through the contract should be destroyed.
If a company promises not to sell your information, I believe that means they shouldn't be able to sell it as part of the sale of their company as well. It should never be an issue. You simply don't sell the information regardless of circumstances. If your company is bought by another company, then destroying the information is the only way to make sure it is not transferred. It should be made clear to the purchasing company that customer information is not for sale.
but those are the reasons you bought the book - not some moral obligation you felt to pay a usage fees.
I've purchased CDs from MP3.com for that very reason. I want to support the artists whose music I like. I've downloaded entire albums from mp3.com, yet I still paid for them. Now I'm sure there are a lot of kids out there that download stuff for free and never give it a second thought. But they usually don't have the tons of cash it takes to buy the CDs anyway, I know I never did. It's the post-college crowd that will be more likely to pay I think.
Now, *hearing* about Napster is easy. It's in the newspaper all the time...
Of course half the articles I've seen on Napster say that Napster is a website that lets you trade MP3 files with other people.
What about the journalists that do hardware and computer reviews? Are they all in somebody's pocket already, or could they help spread the word in mainstream computing mags like PC Magazine and such? Would they do it, or are they beholden to the advertisers?
Very true. We should not be negotiating on this issue. We should be telling them where they can stick their copy-protected devices.
While it may allow us to do something we couldn't do before, it's also a step in preventing us from doing things that we could do before. For me, the tradeoff is definitely not worth the price.
But since HDTVs are not very consumer friendly either, it'll probably be a while before they catch on. Specifically it probably won't happen until analog signals go away completely. That's probably still 5-10 years away barring any significant protests by consumer groups or unless the HDTVs relax the copy controls. Who wants to buy a brand new tv, dvd player, etc when they cost more and do less than the old ones? So while mpeg might not have the advantages of HDTV, it also lacks the very significant disadvantages as well.
but somehow he managed to turn it into a "See? My family have experience of this thing! I know how evil drugs can be!" political triumph.
Haha.. that line is almost verbatim from the movie "Traffic." What a coincidence :)
They'd probably want equipment and software they are familliar with, since they probably couldn't afford support should their *BSD or *nix knowledge be close to nil, which I imagine it might be.
It's possible, but in my experience, many non-profits don't actually have a real computer support person, especially the smaller organizations, which is apparently who they are planning to deal with. They often have someone who can do basic computer tasks, but don't really have any experience setting up a network or anything like that. You could give them NT and they would probably do a worse job setting it up than they would with Linux, just because they could get NT up and running without much help, but it would be horribly insecure and probably quite unstable as well. Whereas with Linux, they know that they don't know what they're doing and will be likely to find some instructions for doing it right. Additionally, there is tons of free information out there to help you with Linux.
In the end, it's really up to the organization to decide who to go with. If Linux meets their needs as well as Windows (with the positives and negatives of both considered), then there is no reason not to use it.
I'm not saying that Microsoft or anyone else is doing this, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone is suggesting it to them.
I would be completely and utterly amazed if they weren't doing it. Microsoft is known for their creative bookkeeping.
This guy is probably one of the same people that defends Microsoft whenever they do something wrong by saying, "If you don't like what they're doing, don't buy their product!" Then when someone actually tries to avoid buying Microsoft's product (and thereby make an attempt to vote with their dollars, or in this case, recommend that a non-profit organization do so), this guy attacks that idea as well.
Sure, Linux isn't the answer to every problem, but it's up to the organization to decide. If Linux will suit their needs as well as Windows would, then it probably makes more sense to use it instead of Windows. It may even be worth making a small sacrifice or two, just to avoid having problems in the future and to help open source software to grow and mature so that it becomes a better solution over time, whereas Windows will always be quite expensive to maintain.
No... CDs don't offer the record industry better control. Those were just a ploy to increase profits. Wait for audio dvds. That's where they'll take to take back control. That's when they'll probably lower prices to get people to accept them quicker.
Divx being the failed Pay-Per-View DVD alternative. It had some of the same problems. The funny thing is that this new scheme seems to have even more restrictions and problems and yet lacks any of the arguably positive traits of Divx. They'd better find a damn good way to force this on people or I seriously doubt it'll fly.
I have to agree that this seems pretty suicidal. I certainly don't plan on paying any more than I do now for basic cable (and I only have that because it made my cablemodem service cheaper). I would simply give up tv completely before I'd buy into this scheme. I already only watch a couple of shows semi-regularly. I could live without those.
Yeah, well we're basically allowed to do what we want, as long as it doesn't infringe on the liberty of someone else, negatively impact corporate profits, or offend Christian morality. Which means we're well and truly screwed in the freedom department.
Regardless of whether this guy is a scumbag or not, if he loses this case, it could set a precedent that will harm many non-scumbags as well. I have to hope he wins... then gets tossed in jail for 2 years for spamming ;)
Yes, but even some of them seem to have forgotten their history. They still seem to regard the Pope as being one step down from God. In addition, they are taking the same path as the Catholic Church did in their attempts to enforce their beliefs on others. Sure, they don't actually kill people for it right now (or at least they don't take credit for it when their members do). They do certainly try to twist the arms of politicians by labeling them as immoral or unethical if they don't support legislation that is blatantly unconstitutional like the CDA. Get enough of that sort of crap passed into law and I bet texas will be the first state to execute someone for distributing pornography via their website. Sounds like a joke right now, but things don't usually stay the same for very long. All we need is a couple of Columbine-equivalents dealing with porn instead of guns and the politicians will be fighting each other to see who can introduce the most draconian anti-porn legislation.
That's just one more challenge for the crackers.
crucifixion was (and still is, by the way, for many Christians in places such as Sudan) the most painful death imaginable.
Possibly. I know that suffocation is one of the worse ways to go, but I've heard of some grisly forms of torture that eventually lead to death. People can be frighteningly creative sometimes.
Heh... well.. if Black and White plays as good as it looks, I'd vote for him/them :)