Can't they just all use servers in Belize or Tonga?
Why should I go to Belize just so I can broadcast legal and free music over the internet? Why should the RIAA be allowed to charge people for internet use that has nothing to do with them? I don't have to justify my freedom, you have to justify taking it away.
This is a blatant attempt to quash the issue through confusion. Most people don't know about the Copyright Review Board or what a bad deal it's just created for everyone. What they are hearing is a mixed signal. What people need to hear is,
"Streaming music from your computer is about to be expensive and/or illegal for the benefit of big publishers." Corporate media, even Slashdot, are blaring out "Internet Radio Royalty Hikes Delayed" as if the RIAA had force of law and this temporary reprieve had any meaning.
They might as well have that. The whole thing is so unAmerican, most have a hard time believing it when they do learn. That a group of unelected could make such a fundamental decision boggles the mind. How is it that legislation has to be passed to keep an arm of government from creating an all encompassing monster like SoundExchange?
The end game is the destruction of Internet Radio and the internet itself. They want to go back to 1911 where you and me were not part of popular culture.
They are poor businessmen if they think the way to get the most profits is to scare everyone out of the business with ridiculous fees.
The industry is based on the once high costs of recording, broadcast and physical distribution. Now that all of those things are cheap, they have to create expenses to maintain their position. In a free market, the value of recorded music will fall below that of a performance - in other words, you will be able to get it for a song. Perpetual copyright laws to control the history of music, antiquated spectrum allocation, and judicial extortion all create costs where none should exist. The measure of their success is that better than 90% of music is sold by two or three companies.
Linked here. They called it a "stay of execution" but underestimated the $6000 per channel fee as $500. The deal stinks no matter how much it costs because it forces participation and creates a government privileged middleman.
Posting anonymously under a pseudonym, bah. Gill Bates.
He generally pays people to do that or to be Apple switchers, outraged voters and Slashdot posters. At the same time, you have to wonder how much of his "email time" is actually... Slashdot time.
Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Google is absolutely angelic next to ATT and friends. Really though, the problem is not capitalism so much as it is corporate government interference. There would not be a problem if auctions were not rigged or did not exist to begin with.
But the auctions have serious flaws that allow the incumbents to rig them. Google is trying to reduce ATT and Verizon's ability to co-operate and screw others like Google. It would lower the price of spectrum to something more like a free market value. What you have now is more like a monopoly price from the people who fought tooth and nail against analog modems. I can correct the assertion of ATT reps to make it more like reality:
By its own admission, Google's request is intended to diminish the value of those licenses, thus preventing wireless service providers such as AT&T from bidding on them and clearing the path for Google to obtain them at below-racket rates.
Ha, ha, AC. They don't act like the things you see in porn flicks. You might know that if you ever talked to women. You could do that if you had self respect and a future, but those things don't go along with being a M$ PR whore do they?
"It would be an extremely difficult and laborious process for an organization trying to patch Java Runtime across the enterprise," he said.
It's like Windows!
Non free FUD wars are so entertaining. The war on Java will get twice as hot now that Sun is freeing it. ZDNet won't know if they should call it Dangerous or Cancer.
Our users don't seem to care, but the big-wigs writing the checks do.
That would be because they have more than one computer and are tired of M$'s lack of sharing tools. The lack of simple tools becomes apparent when you use a laptop or home system for work. Emailing stuff to yourself gets old fast. As little as grsync would make these people happy.
Anyway, it'll be interesting to see how they pull this off.
It's going to be clumsy because they won't just work with other people. They could just make some utilities to work with samba, but they are going to make something of their own or steal some other non free tool.
Customers would guess that they had 15 or 20 open source products on their networks only to discover that workers were using 200 or more open source applications, she said.
Knowledge is your friend. If their intention is to root the applications out, they will discover how expensive non free software really is. Awareness always leads to more free software use.
I'll settle for a link to an authoritative source with an analysis of how ACPI is broken and how it was made so by Microsoft.
You got plenty of them from other people, "the last time" you doubted Bill Gate's word. This person seems to know what they are talking about and has links to back it up. Of course, you only have to type this into Google to get a list of doozies because everyone else in the world seems to have been able to judge Mr. Gates intent from his words and knows that he carried through. In short, you did not get it then and don't want to get it now so I'll keep hearing from you.
I've had a much easier time getting my boss to look at it because when I install it, it just works..
All the distributions are like that these days, despite Bill Gate's best efforts.
What you noticed though raises the more important issue. It's not if Ubuntu is gaining share from other distributions, it's if Ubuntu is gaining users from non free software. Once the user goes free they lose their M$ bad habits and blinders and then can move to other distributions without problems.
The functions are consistent, they use the same units. YOU, as a programmer, AS YOU SHOULD, should not imply conversions in units that are not implied in the functions, or otherwise.
They are neither defined nor consistent and God help you if you try using the OOXML conversion function because it too is ill defined and wrong. They got it wrong BECAUSE they assumed so much and did not document any of it. Rob Weir documents the mistakes he found in painstaking detail. There will surely be more.
Someone failed the math class where they explained that an angle is a "dimensionless derived unit"
When you give the user the choice of commonly used alternatives, your program should remember what they chose. Overloading functions has been around for a very long time and it's shocking that M$ could screw something so fundamental.
It's not in the article, or the Wiki, but the Bill Gate's let's break Linux ACPI memo should be. He begrudges the hard work of his competitors and would deny them results by technical and legal abuse. This is why ACPI is the complex, impossible to conform to and "extensible" non standard that it is.
The whole thing is "cleverly" designed to make sure that you end up looking like you're attacking free software or defending Microsoft when you try to question his bullshit.
There's nothing really clever about it. I advocate software freedom and show how M$ fights it. When you engage in your typical, straw men and M$ style name calling:
the implication that free software is absolutely perfect and everything else is absolutely useless, the ever so odious "GNU/Linux" Stallmanite koolaid push and empty promises of nirvana if only everyone would just be reasonable and see the world in the same "join us or die" black and white shades as him.
You are indeed attacking free software to defend M$ and that's what you are paid to do. That and your silly mod point game. I doubt it's much of a living, because talk is cheap, and I know it's a complete waste of life.
Desktop liberation is important because it prevents sabotage in other seemingly unrelated areas like, power management and portable music players. As long as M$ has the lion's share of desktops, they can put pressure on vendors, equipment makers and even on line service providers like Google. Everyone else loses when M$ wins.
This power is severely degraded now, thanks to Vista and Apple. When you combine Apple's 10% share with the GNU/Linux 5%, you get numbers that have bottom line implications. That goes double when all the "decision makers" are in that 15%. The bottom line is performance. M$ suffers as much or more than anyone else from their attempts at sabotage because the kludges add up to workarounds, bloat and instability. These things show painfully in Vista and it's hurt sales.
Despite the attempts at sabotage, GNU/Linux continues to work better than other software. This is key to both adoption and motivation. Desktop adopters get systems that are light years ahead of others for networking and stability, without losing applications and features. Vista is not much better than XP, but the average GNU/Linux distribution is better than both. The average Windoze user has a spectrum of ageing, non free software that has trouble talking to itself, much less sharing files across a home network or the internet. Purchasing Vista and a $400 office suits does not improve the situation for them, it just adds another box that won't talk to the others. Replacing everything with free software fixes every computer in the house. The sooner the end user moves, the better off they are.
The question is how are they capturing the IP addresses? If they're capturing the packets, that's the same as a wiretap.
That's a valid point, supported by disturbing evidence. What I think they want you to think is that they can require ISPs to keep the information and demand it at any time. TIA was planned before 911 and is largely in place, despite overwhelming popular objections and Congressional disaproval.
There are objections to the other practices as well.
Slashdot Mirror
did you even read the article title?
There's hardly anything new about protection money. The dialog to unPirate goes like this:
It will be a miracle if the RIAA sees a penny of it, and the artist slice will be even smaller, of course, so this hardly unpirates anything.
To use Ballmer language, they got a patent on "squirting" into "the social". It's just as dishonest as it sounds.
Can't they just all use servers in Belize or Tonga?
Why should I go to Belize just so I can broadcast legal and free music over the internet? Why should the RIAA be allowed to charge people for internet use that has nothing to do with them? I don't have to justify my freedom, you have to justify taking it away.
This is a blatant attempt to quash the issue through confusion. Most people don't know about the Copyright Review Board or what a bad deal it's just created for everyone. What they are hearing is a mixed signal. What people need to hear is, "Streaming music from your computer is about to be expensive and/or illegal for the benefit of big publishers." Corporate media, even Slashdot, are blaring out "Internet Radio Royalty Hikes Delayed" as if the RIAA had force of law and this temporary reprieve had any meaning.
They might as well have that. The whole thing is so unAmerican, most have a hard time believing it when they do learn. That a group of unelected could make such a fundamental decision boggles the mind. How is it that legislation has to be passed to keep an arm of government from creating an all encompassing monster like SoundExchange?
The end game is the destruction of Internet Radio and the internet itself. They want to go back to 1911 where you and me were not part of popular culture.
They are poor businessmen if they think the way to get the most profits is to scare everyone out of the business with ridiculous fees.
The industry is based on the once high costs of recording, broadcast and physical distribution. Now that all of those things are cheap, they have to create expenses to maintain their position. In a free market, the value of recorded music will fall below that of a performance - in other words, you will be able to get it for a song. Perpetual copyright laws to control the history of music, antiquated spectrum allocation, and judicial extortion all create costs where none should exist. The measure of their success is that better than 90% of music is sold by two or three companies.
No, the artists are not rewarded.
Linked here. They called it a "stay of execution" but underestimated the $6000 per channel fee as $500. The deal stinks no matter how much it costs because it forces participation and creates a government privileged middleman.
Someone going the the pen name eht asks:
If you're not willing to take a stand for what you say, why are you even bothering to say it?
Because the truth is more important than taking credit for it. Often, the credit is punishment and the anonymous accuser always runs this risk.
Posting anonymously under a pseudonym, bah. Gill Bates.
He generally pays people to do that or to be Apple switchers, outraged voters and Slashdot posters. At the same time, you have to wonder how much of his "email time" is actually ... Slashdot time.
Liberate your code, Bill.
We lose either way of course. Capitalism rocks.
Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Google is absolutely angelic next to ATT and friends. Really though, the problem is not capitalism so much as it is corporate government interference. There would not be a problem if auctions were not rigged or did not exist to begin with.
But the auctions have serious flaws that allow the incumbents to rig them. Google is trying to reduce ATT and Verizon's ability to co-operate and screw others like Google. It would lower the price of spectrum to something more like a free market value. What you have now is more like a monopoly price from the people who fought tooth and nail against analog modems. I can correct the assertion of ATT reps to make it more like reality:
A fair auction is in everyone's best interest.
A better system would completely eliminate government interference, because it there is not spectrum scarcity and it's regulation no longer serves a purpose.
Ha, ha, AC. They don't act like the things you see in porn flicks. You might know that if you ever talked to women. You could do that if you had self respect and a future, but those things don't go along with being a M$ PR whore do they?
It's like Windows!
Non free FUD wars are so entertaining. The war on Java will get twice as hot now that Sun is freeing it. ZDNet won't know if they should call it Dangerous or Cancer.
Our users don't seem to care, but the big-wigs writing the checks do.
That would be because they have more than one computer and are tired of M$'s lack of sharing tools. The lack of simple tools becomes apparent when you use a laptop or home system for work. Emailing stuff to yourself gets old fast. As little as grsync would make these people happy.
Anyway, it'll be interesting to see how they pull this off.
It's going to be clumsy because they won't just work with other people. They could just make some utilities to work with samba, but they are going to make something of their own or steal some other non free tool.
FTFA:
Customers would guess that they had 15 or 20 open source products on their networks only to discover that workers were using 200 or more open source applications, she said.
Knowledge is your friend. If their intention is to root the applications out, they will discover how expensive non free software really is. Awareness always leads to more free software use.
You never can tell where the lie ends and the truth starts.
One of my biggest fans claims:
I'll settle for a link to an authoritative source with an analysis of how ACPI is broken and how it was made so by Microsoft.
You got plenty of them from other people, "the last time" you doubted Bill Gate's word. This person seems to know what they are talking about and has links to back it up. Of course, you only have to type this into Google to get a list of doozies because everyone else in the world seems to have been able to judge Mr. Gates intent from his words and knows that he carried through. In short, you did not get it then and don't want to get it now so I'll keep hearing from you.
I've had a much easier time getting my boss to look at it because when I install it, it just works..
All the distributions are like that these days, despite Bill Gate's best efforts.
What you noticed though raises the more important issue. It's not if Ubuntu is gaining share from other distributions, it's if Ubuntu is gaining users from non free software. Once the user goes free they lose their M$ bad habits and blinders and then can move to other distributions without problems.
The functions are consistent, they use the same units. YOU, as a programmer, AS YOU SHOULD, should not imply conversions in units that are not implied in the functions, or otherwise.
They are neither defined nor consistent and God help you if you try using the OOXML conversion function because it too is ill defined and wrong. They got it wrong BECAUSE they assumed so much and did not document any of it. Rob Weir documents the mistakes he found in painstaking detail. There will surely be more.
Someone failed the math class where they explained that an angle is a "dimensionless derived unit"
When you give the user the choice of commonly used alternatives, your program should remember what they chose. Overloading functions has been around for a very long time and it's shocking that M$ could screw something so fundamental.
It improves Vista's sales numbers while showing that the Linux product has very weak sales.
If true, it also indirectly shows that Dell pays M$ a fee per PC regardless of OS. That's the usual screw.
ACPI sucks because Bill Gates made it that way. You can blame Intel for co-operating, but it looks like M$ made it even worse.
Here it is.
It's not in the article, or the Wiki, but the Bill Gate's let's break Linux ACPI memo should be. He begrudges the hard work of his competitors and would deny them results by technical and legal abuse. This is why ACPI is the complex, impossible to conform to and "extensible" non standard that it is.
Dedicated Twitter attack bot dedazo claims:
The whole thing is "cleverly" designed to make sure that you end up looking like you're attacking free software or defending Microsoft when you try to question his bullshit.
There's nothing really clever about it. I advocate software freedom and show how M$ fights it. When you engage in your typical, straw men and M$ style name calling:
the implication that free software is absolutely perfect and everything else is absolutely useless, the ever so odious "GNU/Linux" Stallmanite koolaid push and empty promises of nirvana if only everyone would just be reasonable and see the world in the same "join us or die" black and white shades as him.
You are indeed attacking free software to defend M$ and that's what you are paid to do. That and your silly mod point game. I doubt it's much of a living, because talk is cheap, and I know it's a complete waste of life.
Desktop liberation is important because it prevents sabotage in other seemingly unrelated areas like, power management and portable music players. As long as M$ has the lion's share of desktops, they can put pressure on vendors, equipment makers and even on line service providers like Google. Everyone else loses when M$ wins.
This power is severely degraded now, thanks to Vista and Apple. When you combine Apple's 10% share with the GNU/Linux 5%, you get numbers that have bottom line implications. That goes double when all the "decision makers" are in that 15%. The bottom line is performance. M$ suffers as much or more than anyone else from their attempts at sabotage because the kludges add up to workarounds, bloat and instability. These things show painfully in Vista and it's hurt sales.
Despite the attempts at sabotage, GNU/Linux continues to work better than other software. This is key to both adoption and motivation. Desktop adopters get systems that are light years ahead of others for networking and stability, without losing applications and features. Vista is not much better than XP, but the average GNU/Linux distribution is better than both. The average Windoze user has a spectrum of ageing, non free software that has trouble talking to itself, much less sharing files across a home network or the internet. Purchasing Vista and a $400 office suits does not improve the situation for them, it just adds another box that won't talk to the others. Replacing everything with free software fixes every computer in the house. The sooner the end user moves, the better off they are.
The question is how are they capturing the IP addresses? If they're capturing the packets, that's the same as a wiretap.
That's a valid point, supported by disturbing evidence. What I think they want you to think is that they can require ISPs to keep the information and demand it at any time. TIA was planned before 911 and is largely in place, despite overwhelming popular objections and Congressional disaproval.
There are objections to the other practices as well.