Tying one product to another (i.e., making you pay for one procuct in order to use another that you would otherwise not need or want) in order to enforce a monopoly is illegal under antitrust laws, and this is what is being done with DVDs and playback software.
OK, this I can understand but, isn't that sort of like the same thing that happens with VHS players? I know it's probably an apples/oranges kind of comparison but, don't you have to purchase a VHS player to view VHS tapes?
I'm not trying to be dense, I just don't see the big difference. I mean, what about the option of not bying the DVD disk in the first place... couldn't they argue that you already know that you must have a DVD player to view the movie on the disk? Granted software is not the same thing as hardware but, if you view them both as just another product, isn't it the same?
Also, CSS disallows fair use--and this is deffinitely wrong. You have the right to make backup copies of software, and copy protection alienates this right. This is why you don't see copy protection schemes in use with commercial software--because this has already been fought over in the courts back in the eighties. This is not a proprietary standard that only the DVD Consortium uses; it's an IEEE hardware standard I'm sure. Therefore, it must be treated as such.
If you're right about this part, then I can understand about the fair use thing. Is it an IEEE standard though? And assuming it is, does that mean that you would have to license it from IEEE or that it's a public domain thing?
This is not intended as flaimbait but, I just don't understand what the big deal is... so they want money for licensing their product. What makes this any different from CD players? Don't the makers of CD players have to license the technology from Sony/Phillips or whoever? The fee might be a lot more but, what's the difference?
Maybe I'm totally misinformed and don't really understand what's going on but, I don't see the problem here.
They don't want to support DVD players on LINUX. Where does it say that they have to? I agree that their decision to not do it is a tremendously stupid thing but, what law says that you have to be intelligent?
If they ignore us, they lose in the long run. I wish they wouldn't but, just like I have the right to use LINUX (and the right to not be forced to use it), they have the right to support it and to not support it if they so choose.
Just my $0.02
If you beleive I'm mistaken, please let me know by responding with a decent answer to my question (flames &>/dev/null &).
If you had to design (or you just felt like it) a computer again, what hardware would you chose (from whatever's available now; or whatever you designed/will design)? What standards (I/O, networking, memory), if any, would you decide to support?
More important, what OS would you use? Or would you write your own?
8) Clarence Johnson - (creator of the Skunk Works)
I'd have to agree with this one... not only did he create the SkunkWorks, he was also the creator (AFAIK) of the SR-71. Designed, tested, and put into production in less than a year, and still the record-holding marvel of the paranoid US government.:)
Even if I'm wrong on the exact details... you have to agree, the SR-71 is a way-cool peice of engineering.
Well, he might != geek, but he is another master of Social Engineering...
I mean, come on! Anybody who could become one of (if not the) wealthiest individuals on the planet by selling pure unadulterated BullShit has got to be a good (social engineering) hacker...
Was it just me or did those space babies look like EVIL Smurfs on crack?
BTW: My favorite scene is when The Expendable One sees the engineer getting it on with the alien chick and says: "That's not right!"
I love the fact that the director decided to not show it to us and instead left it up to the imagination of the audience... my imagination went into overtime on that one.;)
It depends on their intentions... if they get the patent and then 'open source' it (i.e. make the license $0.00 to prevent others from doing what Amazon.com did), then it's a good idea. On the other hand, if they're planning on doing something like what Amazon.com did, then I say fuck 'em. queco
So maybe you're right... I'm no expert and I don't know who is the market leader but, you're missing the point.
What I'm saying is that Linux on the S/390 (and other mainframes) is a good idea... for online stock trading and e-comerce solutions and all kinds of other stuff. If IBM does it (and it actually works), then others will do it too.
Are you high? Besides the fact that Linux can easily outperform NT, Linux on the S/390 is a very smart move on IBMs part. Think about all those online stock trading companies.
Most of the old-school stock trading companies that are now offereing online services have mainframes doing all the backend stuff. Get Apache (running on Linux) to run on the same mainframe and you get a very powerful combination. Add to that all those systems that handle those big customer databases, and you have an all around e-comerce solution.
In the next conflict, the US should go for it and try to crack the other country's systems. Hell, it should even offer a prize (lots of cash--tax free:) to the hacker that brings down a specific system (some are more important than others). The offer should go out to hackers world wide. Think about it... the US can offer (US)$1,000,000 to the guy (or gal) that brings down the other country's military network, or something.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, I think I get it now... thanks for the info. :)
q
Tying one product to another (i.e., making you pay for one procuct in order to use another that you would otherwise not need or want) in order to enforce a monopoly is illegal under antitrust laws, and this is what is being done with DVDs and playback software.
OK, this I can understand but, isn't that sort of like the same thing that happens with VHS players? I know it's probably an apples/oranges kind of comparison but, don't you have to purchase a VHS player to view VHS tapes?
I'm not trying to be dense, I just don't see the big difference. I mean, what about the option of not bying the DVD disk in the first place... couldn't they argue that you already know that you must have a DVD player to view the movie on the disk? Granted software is not the same thing as hardware but, if you view them both as just another product, isn't it the same?
Also, CSS disallows fair use--and this is deffinitely wrong. You have the right to make backup copies of software, and copy protection alienates this right. This is why you don't see copy protection schemes in use with commercial software--because this has already been fought over in the courts back in the eighties. This is not a proprietary standard that only the DVD Consortium uses; it's an IEEE hardware standard I'm sure. Therefore, it must be treated as such.
If you're right about this part, then I can understand about the fair use thing. Is it an IEEE standard though? And assuming it is, does that mean that you would have to license it from IEEE or that it's a public domain thing?
q
This is not intended as flaimbait but, I just don't understand what the big deal is... so they want money for licensing their product. What makes this any different from CD players? Don't the makers of CD players have to license the technology from Sony/Phillips or whoever? The fee might be a lot more but, what's the difference?
Maybe I'm totally misinformed and don't really understand what's going on but, I don't see the problem here.
They don't want to support DVD players on LINUX. Where does it say that they have to? I agree that their decision to not do it is a tremendously stupid thing but, what law says that you have to be intelligent?
If they ignore us, they lose in the long run. I wish they wouldn't but, just like I have the right to use LINUX (and the right to not be forced to use it), they have the right to support it and to not support it if they so choose.
Just my $0.02
If you beleive I'm mistaken, please let me know by responding with a decent answer to my question (flames &> /dev/null &).
q
Yeah... it would make a cool voodoo doll. ;)
q
If you had to design (or you just felt like it) a computer again, what hardware would you chose (from whatever's available now; or whatever you designed/will design)? What standards (I/O, networking, memory), if any, would you decide to support?
More important, what OS would you use? Or would you write your own?
q
Remember... this article is about the top ten geeks of the millenium. NOT the ten best (or worst).
Include your top ten... best and/or worst.
queco
8) Clarence Johnson - (creator of the Skunk Works)
:)
I'd have to agree with this one... not only did he create the SkunkWorks, he was also the creator (AFAIK) of the SR-71. Designed, tested, and put into production in less than a year, and still the record-holding marvel of the paranoid US government.
Even if I'm wrong on the exact details... you have to agree, the SR-71 is a way-cool peice of engineering.
queco
Well, he might != geek, but he is another master of Social Engineering...
I mean, come on! Anybody who could become one of (if not the) wealthiest individuals on the planet by selling pure unadulterated BullShit has got to be a good (social engineering) hacker...
Just my $0.02...
The man was a master of the art of Social Engineering. Don't know if he ever put it into actual practice but, he did get the theory right.
Was it just me or did those space babies look like EVIL Smurfs on crack?
;)
BTW: My favorite scene is when The Expendable One sees the engineer getting it on with the alien chick and says: "That's not right!"
I love the fact that the director decided to not show it to us and instead left it up to the imagination of the audience... my imagination went into overtime on that one.
queco
It depends on their intentions... if they get the patent and then 'open source' it (i.e. make the license $0.00 to prevent others from doing what Amazon.com did), then it's a good idea. On the other hand, if they're planning on doing something like what Amazon.com did, then I say fuck 'em. queco
So maybe you're right... I'm no expert and I don't know who is the market leader but, you're missing the point.
What I'm saying is that Linux on the S/390 (and other mainframes) is a good idea... for online stock trading and e-comerce solutions and all kinds of other stuff. If IBM does it (and it actually works), then others will do it too.
Are you high? Besides the fact that Linux can easily outperform NT, Linux on the S/390 is a very smart move on IBMs part. Think about all those online stock trading companies.
Most of the old-school stock trading companies that are now offereing online services have mainframes doing all the backend stuff. Get Apache (running on Linux) to run on the same mainframe and you get a very powerful combination. Add to that all those systems that handle those big customer databases, and you have an all around e-comerce solution.In the next conflict, the US should go for it and try to crack the other country's systems. Hell, it should even offer a prize (lots of cash--tax free :) to the hacker that brings down a specific system (some are more important than others). The offer should go out to hackers world wide. Think about it... the US can offer (US)$1,000,000 to the guy (or gal) that brings down the other country's military network, or something.
Now why do say that?