A Microsoft Netherlands spokesman claims that Microsoft's Office productivity suite will still be used widely in the Dutch government until April, and that Microsoft Office will comply with the new Dutch rules if Microsoft's so-called "Office Open XML" standard is approved as an international ISO standard in February." Fixed.
One minute, it seems like the industry finally gets it. The next, they immediately revert back to their old ways. I wouldn't be surprised if the same thing happens here.
With an antenna and DVR, I can record it and replay without their express permission. So if someone else does it for me, is it still pirating? Yes, actually.
What kind of games were you playing? Mostly those games that General Mills used to throw in with their cereals a few years before. It wasn't really me so much as it was my younger sister that wanted these on the computer. I have since found out that she doesn't seem to care anymore, so there's no reason anymore to have the 98 partition. I also thought I needed it for SimCity 3000 Unlimited, because the box said Windows 2000 was not supported and XP didn't exist at the time of publication, but I managed to install it in XP without issues and without the compatibility layer.
Oh, and Office 97. I tried installing it on Windows XP and the installer just crapped out on me, even in compatibility mode. This is no longer a problem as my father's company adopted Microsoft's home licensing program for Office 2003 shortly after I built the machine, granting us a copy.
Oh I don't actually install it anymore. I just pop the disc in whenever the Windows XP Setup asks for it. But I intended for the system to run legacy 98 programs that tended to not work right in the Windows XP compatibility layer (mostly games).
What a shame too. It ran blazingly fast on my Pentium 4.
That's how I switched from being an ATI customer to a nVidia one. I installed a game and it's brain dead installer screwed up my graphics drivers for the ATI card I had trying to install an outdated version of DirectX. When I went to ATIs website to download new drivers they had screwed up the driver downloads so you couldn't actually download any of them (the link from the download driver page redirected you back to the main homepage, which then linked back to the download driver page). This being one of several problems I had run across with ATI lately I finally said screw it and just went out and bought an nVidia card. It's even worse when Windows 98 is your OS. I bought an ATI 9600XT for the dual-boot Win98/WinXP I built in 2004 (now WinXP/Ubuntu for the reason below). At one point it worked perfectly, but after a format due to some DirectX problem I couldn't install the drivers along with the SoundMAX drivers. Either the system would hang or I would get a BSOD of both were installed at the same time. I contacted ATI and SoundMAX about this. One of them never replied, the other said to install the sound drivers last. When I got the same problem I e-mailed the person back and never got a reply. I eventually gave up, conceded that my family would probably not run anything that needed Windows 98 anyway (it was built for the family, not me), and wiped the partitions to start over. The only reason I even keep Windows 98 around is because the Windows XP version is an upgrade (I used it on an earlier PC that came with Windows 98 preinstalled) and I needed the Windows 98 disc to install it. I believe I ended up talking my parents into spending $130 for the OS, and now it sits on the shelf. I'd give it another go, but ATI of course doesn't support Windows 98 anymore.
I'm actually a second-year college student, and therefore usually fall somewhere between the "Know-It-All" and "Twentysomething Whiz Kid" categories.
In my defense, most of my family is computer illiterate. The incompetence of my high school's IT department and their terrible computer classes (VB6 and some class that just taught Microsoft Office) didn't exactly force me to be modest either.
Most of the teachers in my classes where I got the material faster than the others were likewise generally understanding of me not paying attention, but I sill think that either way the system is utterly broken for advanced students. I did well enough in all of my classes (except English) that I just didn't bother to go ahead and took the slow pace of the rest of the class for granted, eventually settling in with said pace but never having to do much studying anyway. I took an almost fatal blow (academic-wise) once I got into college because of this, now that I was actually expected to learn the material myself instead of it being force-fed to the class. This was partially my fault for falling into this trap; my parents had offered to put me into a private high school, but I declined because I wanted to be with my friends. It was not until now that I realized that they wanted me in there because the pace was probably faster and the material more challenging, thus preventing me from inevitably slacking off. Because of high school, I now prefer stuff that's easy and simple rather than complicated but with long-term rewards.
You can't tell people that. if they know it, then they lose that right. So in other words. people only lose rights if they believe that they no longer have them, but if they can be convinced that those rights haven't been taken away yet, then they do have them.
I believe that's a textbook definition of deception.
"If you have one clock... you are peaceful and have no worries. If you have two clocks... you start asking, 'What time is it, really?'" If you have an entire garage of clocks, you can scare the shit out of your teenage neighbor when they all strike 8:00 AM.
For extra fun, tell him that they are all twenty minutes slow, making him late for school.
I know. The way he wrote his post sounded like he thought that copyright was beneficial primarily for the artist (despite his mention of "label" as well), so I provided a counterexample to indicate that that isn't always the case.
And what if the artist isn't authorized to share his or her music because it technically belongs to the label and he or she didn't get permission from the label first. Then what?
Or we could just, you know, educate people on the consequences of Internet use and let them know that they alone are responsible for what they do online. Placing that responsibility on the ISPs sets a bad prescient. The ISP won't be able to protect against user error, at least not perfectly and not without causing a major annoyance. Users will become dependent on others to hold their hand and steer them clear from the Internet's worst hazards, and sooner or later they will find themselves having to use a service without such protections and will easily fall victim to whatever was being blocked from them earlier. Even if users are educated about safe browsing, chances are that they might let their guard down when promised with services such as these, instead preferring to put their faith in a faulty filtering mechanism.
Now I may not agree that censoring movies like this is a good social move, but I am sympathetic to the idea. For persons who do not own the technology or have the known-how to auto-skip over parts of movies they do not want to see (blame the DMCA from banning such tools), such persons should be able to enlist someone else to do this editing (on a personal copy of the movie) as much as they damn well please (Doctrine of First-Sale, where did you go?). They already have this. It's called ClearPlay, and it's protected by the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act.
The premise is correct to a point -- most people don't pay attention to what they're agreeing to, and in that environment ISP's have and will continue to write agreements that give them more and more freedom to do whatever they want. But can you really blame people for doing so? Almost all websites have a TOS as well that you immediately agree to just by browsing the site (which is a Catch-22 because the terms are hosted on the same site, meaning you have to agree to them before you can even view them). Slashdot has a TOS as well, but I bet most of us didn't bother reading it. Why? Because it's full of legalese, is too long, and is confusing. Most of what is in a typical TOS appears to me to be disclaimers to prevent lawsuits, common sense, and stuff you can't do anyway (such as using the service for "illegal activities.") While this does create a dangerous situation in which the service can get away with almost anything they want in the TOS and then enforce that provision to the dismay of the customers, most TOS's appear to just be a byproduct of this age of frivolous lawsuits.
Because it's not their network. DSL providers especially have a bigger incentive to call you on your required basic phone installation if outages occur, since that's a guaranteed method of contact for their customers. Failing that they would probably send a letter to the billing address.
Slashdot Mirror
Um, Family Guy is not shitty TV?
Maybe when they started out, sure. But not now. Now it's just the same old premise over and over.
One minute, it seems like the industry finally gets it. The next, they immediately revert back to their old ways. I wouldn't be surprised if the same thing happens here.
Oh, and Office 97. I tried installing it on Windows XP and the installer just crapped out on me, even in compatibility mode. This is no longer a problem as my father's company adopted Microsoft's home licensing program for Office 2003 shortly after I built the machine, granting us a copy.
Oh I don't actually install it anymore. I just pop the disc in whenever the Windows XP Setup asks for it. But I intended for the system to run legacy 98 programs that tended to not work right in the Windows XP compatibility layer (mostly games).
What a shame too. It ran blazingly fast on my Pentium 4.
Has anyone gotten their OLPC from the "Give One Get One" program in the mail yet? I have yet to receive mine.
Yeah, I also heard about that on a blog somewhere, but I can't seem to find the link anymore.
I'm actually a second-year college student, and therefore usually fall somewhere between the "Know-It-All" and "Twentysomething Whiz Kid" categories.
In my defense, most of my family is computer illiterate. The incompetence of my high school's IT department and their terrible computer classes (VB6 and some class that just taught Microsoft Office) didn't exactly force me to be modest either.
Most of the teachers in my classes where I got the material faster than the others were likewise generally understanding of me not paying attention, but I sill think that either way the system is utterly broken for advanced students. I did well enough in all of my classes (except English) that I just didn't bother to go ahead and took the slow pace of the rest of the class for granted, eventually settling in with said pace but never having to do much studying anyway. I took an almost fatal blow (academic-wise) once I got into college because of this, now that I was actually expected to learn the material myself instead of it being force-fed to the class. This was partially my fault for falling into this trap; my parents had offered to put me into a private high school, but I declined because I wanted to be with my friends. It was not until now that I realized that they wanted me in there because the pace was probably faster and the material more challenging, thus preventing me from inevitably slacking off. Because of high school, I now prefer stuff that's easy and simple rather than complicated but with long-term rewards.
Actually they can. Tech support: "OK, first click on 'My Computer'" User: "How am I supposed to click on your computer?"
Or we could just go with the original assumption and say that all crooked politicians are terrorists.
The MP3 patents should expire at around 2010, and I imagine the other MPEG-1 patents will expire sometime around that time, if they haven't already.
For extra fun, tell him that they are all twenty minutes slow, making him late for school.
I know. The way he wrote his post sounded like he thought that copyright was beneficial primarily for the artist (despite his mention of "label" as well), so I provided a counterexample to indicate that that isn't always the case.
Well you will certainly never buy a used car ever again.
And what if the artist isn't authorized to share his or her music because it technically belongs to the label and he or she didn't get permission from the label first. Then what?
Sorry, there was supposed to be a link in that sentence.
Was it from here?
Or we could just, you know, educate people on the consequences of Internet use and let them know that they alone are responsible for what they do online. Placing that responsibility on the ISPs sets a bad prescient. The ISP won't be able to protect against user error, at least not perfectly and not without causing a major annoyance. Users will become dependent on others to hold their hand and steer them clear from the Internet's worst hazards, and sooner or later they will find themselves having to use a service without such protections and will easily fall victim to whatever was being blocked from them earlier. Even if users are educated about safe browsing, chances are that they might let their guard down when promised with services such as these, instead preferring to put their faith in a faulty filtering mechanism.
Because it's not their network. DSL providers especially have a bigger incentive to call you on your required basic phone installation if outages occur, since that's a guaranteed method of contact for their customers. Failing that they would probably send a letter to the billing address.