How timely that/. would (re)post a portable mp3 player article on the same day I received this email:
D'music MP3/CD Player - http://www.pineusa.com
Dear All the SM-200C fans:
Pine Technology USA apologizes for the delay of releasing the D'music SM-200C Portable MP3/CD Player. At this point, we need to announce that the release date will be delayed one more time to the middle of April.
The only reason due to the delay again is that the player has some minor technical issues happened in the final stage of testing. In order to giving our valuable customers the best quality product, we need some time to find out the solutions. We will try to correct them and release the product to the public as soon as possible.
In the recent trade show, CeBIT 2000 held in Hannover, Germany starting from February 24th to March 1st, we had already displayed and demonstrated the SM-200C at our booth (Hall 13, Booth F20), but the player could not work perfectly due to the minor technical issues.
PINE hopes all of the SM-200C fans would understand this situation. And, one more time, we apologize for any inconvenience because of the delay.
(Same article, just better formatting; had it on html by mistake:) )
Let's look at the two primary motivations identified in Wankel's "statement" web page:
1. "Users change their nick after someone else disconnects to impersonate them make humorous statements for the purpose of entertaining other users." (sic)
Practical jokes have a time and a place. Among friends in an IRC #? Sure. At your best friend's bachelor party? Sure. While he's at the altar, taking his vows? Uh uh. Social etiquette - and not Zone Alarm/Black Ice - constrains our actions. We could behave like jerks, but out of respect we don't.
Wankel and everyone else in the channel were given an opportunity to participate in a groundbreaking event - an IRC channel interview with the President - but with clear and explicit limitations on their participation. They were not given "voice" precisely because this was to be a moderated discussion. Clearly this was not your basic IRC chat, and Wankel could have shown a little more respect for the event by not taking advantage of a server crash in such a manner. I can toss a sarcastic barb at a friend, but I wouldn't at a prospective employer I'm being interviewed by - or for that matter a potential employee I was interviewing - for the first time.
2. "I hope that this harmless prank has served to let CNN know that this system is insecure and needs to be overhauled before someone does actual harm to them or one of their guests. "
Oh, give me a break. Was this really the only way to serve notice to CNN of his concerns? Couldn't he have just given them a little feedback afterwards? Did Wankel really have to disrupt the tone of the interview with such a moronic comment about porn to get across his "point"?
Just as in real life, not all "online outlets" have to be Cryptonomicon secure; for example, the very IRC channels Wankel mentioned where friends can congregate and, when a server crashes, play pranks on one another. And when you do come across a situation which _you_ think would benefit from additional security measures, is it asking so much to display a little maturity?
Wankel is asking CNN to think a little before the next time they play with technology. So why couldn't he?
Let's look at the two primary motivations identified in Wankel's "statement" web page: 1. "Users change their nick after someone else disconnects to impersonate them make humorous statements for the purpose of entertaining other users." (sic) Practical jokes have a time and a place. Among friends in an IRC #? Sure. At your best friend's bachelor party? Sure. While he's at the altar, taking his vows? Uh uh. Social etiquette - and not Zone Alarm/Black Ice - constrains our actions. We could behave like jerks, but out of respect we don't. Wankel and everyone else in the channel were given an opportunity to participate in a groundbreaking event - an IRC channel interview with the President - but with clear and explicit limitations on their participation. They were not given "voice" precisely because this was to be a moderated discussion. Clearly this was not your basic IRC chat, and Wankel could have shown a little more respect for the event by not taking advantage of a server crash in such a manner. I can toss a sarcastic barb at a friend, but I wouldn't at a prospective employer I'm being interviewed by - or for that matter a potential employee I was interviewing - for the first time. 2. "I hope that this harmless prank has served to let CNN know that this system is insecure and needs to be overhauled before someone does actual harm to them or one of their guests. " Oh, give me a break. Was this really the only way to serve notice to CNN of his concerns? Couldn't he have just given them a little feedback afterwards? Did Wankel really have to disrupt the tone of the interview with such a moronic comment about porn to get across his "point"? Just as in real life, not all "online outlets" have to be Cryptonomicon secure; for example, the very IRC channels Wankel mentioned where friends can congregate and, when a server crashes, play pranks on one another. And when you do come across a situation which _you_ think would benefit from additional security measures, is it asking so much to display a little maturity? Wankel is asking CNN to think a little before the next time they play with technology. So why couldn't he?
Crusoe replacing "E-" as the buzzword in 2000
on
Darwin on Crusoe?
·
· Score: 2
While it's great to see more competition in Apple's processor market, one has to question their true motivations. That is, are there real concerns with the future outcome of project V'Ger, or do they feel they have to jump onto the incredibly hyped bandwagon that is Transmeta? These days, I feel that Apple is less of a computer company, and more of a clothing brand.
It's nice to see a number of intelligent contributions to this thread already, and hope I can bring more of the same. To begin, what exactly does a lawyer do? Many things, but essentially it's about formalizing relationships between people, to ensure that all interested parties know as best they can what their respective responsibilities are. The lawyer's job is to clarify the relationship that is being entered into, to mediate when it is in need of repair, and to litigate when it has finally broke. In the non-business world, our relationships with others often don't need to be so formal (friends, neighbours), but sometimes they do (divorce, estate battles, fences encroaching on another's property). In the business world, the same holds true. You can walk up to a garage sale and close a deal with cash and a handshake. Or make an online auction purchase, without worrying to much over the "click-wrapped" contract you've just entered into. But what if that great old chair you just bought has a structural defect neither the vendor nor the purchaser was aware of? What if someone had asked the vendor to hold the chair for him yesterday, and had given him $1.00 "as good and sufficient consideration"? In this relatively new world of high tech, there seem to be a lot of lawsuits being tossed around. Some are frivolous, some are valid, and most are about parties not be suring of what their rights and responsibilities are. Recall that lawyers don't sue; their clients do. Why do parties sue? Uncertainty. They don't know where they stand in law. And for that, don't blame the lawyers. Laws are constructed mainly in parliament, and some by judges. The lawyers themselves only try to navigate through all of this, and again only in the directions that their clients have requested them to take. Lawyers are agents, not principals. Finally, and off-topic from my above explanation, I don't think the problem here is one of geeks failing to understand lawyers, or vice-versa. There are many geeks-turned lawyers (just finished law school myself) to protect the/. interests. The _real_ problem is in the diversity of those interests. As a society, we're still trying to understand this phenomenon called intellectual property: what is it, whether it needs actual legal protection, what form, etc. You want to provide incentives to the geniuses out there who come up with the truly great ideas. But a great idea is not enough; in high tech, it's the proper execution of the idea that brings the benefit to society. Society v. the individual all over again. I think Plato had a few words on that:) Clearly some kind of legal framework is necessary. If I've got a great idea but can't protect it in law, M$ wins. As soon as a "deep pockets" high tech business gets a whiff of it, they can immediately direct more resources to it than I ever could. Very few first-to-market battles will be won by the little guy in the years to come.
Slashdot Mirror
How timely that /. would (re)post a portable mp3 player article on the same day I received this email:
D'music MP3/CD Player - http://www.pineusa.com
Dear All the SM-200C fans:
Pine Technology USA apologizes for the delay of releasing the D'music
SM-200C Portable MP3/CD Player. At this point, we need to announce that
the release date will be delayed one more time to the middle of April.
The only reason due to the delay again is that the player has some minor
technical issues happened in the final stage of testing. In order to
giving our valuable customers the best quality product, we need some time
to find out the solutions. We will try to correct them and release the
product to the public as soon as possible.
In the recent trade show, CeBIT 2000 held in Hannover, Germany starting
from February 24th to March 1st, we had already displayed and demonstrated
the SM-200C at our booth (Hall 13, Booth F20), but the player could not
work perfectly due to the minor technical issues.
PINE hopes all of the SM-200C fans would understand this situation. And,
one more time, we apologize for any inconvenience because of the delay.
Sincerely,
Pine Technology
(Same article, just better formatting; had it on html by mistake :) )
Let's look at the two primary motivations identified in Wankel's "statement" web page:
1. "Users change their nick after someone else disconnects to impersonate them make humorous statements for the purpose of entertaining other users." (sic)
Practical jokes have a time and a place. Among friends in an IRC #? Sure. At your best friend's bachelor party? Sure. While he's at the altar, taking his vows? Uh uh. Social etiquette - and not Zone Alarm/Black Ice - constrains our actions. We could behave like jerks, but out of respect we don't.
Wankel and everyone else in the channel were given an opportunity to participate in a groundbreaking event - an IRC channel interview with the President - but with clear and explicit limitations on their participation. They were not given "voice" precisely because this was to be a moderated discussion. Clearly this was not your basic IRC chat, and Wankel could have shown a little more respect for the event by not taking advantage of a server crash in such a manner. I can toss a sarcastic barb at a friend, but I wouldn't at a prospective employer I'm being interviewed by - or for that matter a potential employee I was interviewing - for the first time.
2. "I hope that this harmless prank has served to let CNN know that this system is insecure and needs to be overhauled before someone does actual harm to them or one of their guests. "
Oh, give me a break. Was this really the only way to serve notice to CNN of his concerns? Couldn't he have just given them a little feedback afterwards? Did Wankel really have to disrupt the tone of the interview with such a moronic comment about porn to get across his "point"?
Just as in real life, not all "online outlets" have to be Cryptonomicon secure; for example, the very IRC channels Wankel mentioned where friends can congregate and, when a server crashes, play pranks on one another. And when you do come across a situation which _you_ think would benefit from additional security measures, is it asking so much to display a little maturity?
Wankel is asking CNN to think a little before the next time they play with technology. So why couldn't he?
Let's look at the two primary motivations identified in Wankel's "statement" web page: 1. "Users change their nick after someone else disconnects to impersonate them make humorous statements for the purpose of entertaining other users." (sic) Practical jokes have a time and a place. Among friends in an IRC #? Sure. At your best friend's bachelor party? Sure. While he's at the altar, taking his vows? Uh uh. Social etiquette - and not Zone Alarm/Black Ice - constrains our actions. We could behave like jerks, but out of respect we don't. Wankel and everyone else in the channel were given an opportunity to participate in a groundbreaking event - an IRC channel interview with the President - but with clear and explicit limitations on their participation. They were not given "voice" precisely because this was to be a moderated discussion. Clearly this was not your basic IRC chat, and Wankel could have shown a little more respect for the event by not taking advantage of a server crash in such a manner. I can toss a sarcastic barb at a friend, but I wouldn't at a prospective employer I'm being interviewed by - or for that matter a potential employee I was interviewing - for the first time. 2. "I hope that this harmless prank has served to let CNN know that this system is insecure and needs to be overhauled before someone does actual harm to them or one of their guests. " Oh, give me a break. Was this really the only way to serve notice to CNN of his concerns? Couldn't he have just given them a little feedback afterwards? Did Wankel really have to disrupt the tone of the interview with such a moronic comment about porn to get across his "point"? Just as in real life, not all "online outlets" have to be Cryptonomicon secure; for example, the very IRC channels Wankel mentioned where friends can congregate and, when a server crashes, play pranks on one another. And when you do come across a situation which _you_ think would benefit from additional security measures, is it asking so much to display a little maturity? Wankel is asking CNN to think a little before the next time they play with technology. So why couldn't he?
While it's great to see more competition in Apple's processor market, one has to question their true motivations. That is, are there real concerns with the future outcome of project V'Ger, or do they feel they have to jump onto the incredibly hyped bandwagon that is Transmeta? These days, I feel that Apple is less of a computer company, and more of a clothing brand.
It's nice to see a number of intelligent contributions to this thread already, and hope I can bring more of the same. To begin, what exactly does a lawyer do? Many things, but essentially it's about formalizing relationships between people, to ensure that all interested parties know as best they can what their respective responsibilities are. The lawyer's job is to clarify the relationship that is being entered into, to mediate when it is in need of repair, and to litigate when it has finally broke. In the non-business world, our relationships with others often don't need to be so formal (friends, neighbours), but sometimes they do (divorce, estate battles, fences encroaching on another's property). In the business world, the same holds true. You can walk up to a garage sale and close a deal with cash and a handshake. Or make an online auction purchase, without worrying to much over the "click-wrapped" contract you've just entered into. But what if that great old chair you just bought has a structural defect neither the vendor nor the purchaser was aware of? What if someone had asked the vendor to hold the chair for him yesterday, and had given him $1.00 "as good and sufficient consideration"? In this relatively new world of high tech, there seem to be a lot of lawsuits being tossed around. Some are frivolous, some are valid, and most are about parties not be suring of what their rights and responsibilities are. Recall that lawyers don't sue; their clients do. Why do parties sue? Uncertainty. They don't know where they stand in law. And for that, don't blame the lawyers. Laws are constructed mainly in parliament, and some by judges. The lawyers themselves only try to navigate through all of this, and again only in the directions that their clients have requested them to take. Lawyers are agents, not principals. Finally, and off-topic from my above explanation, I don't think the problem here is one of geeks failing to understand lawyers, or vice-versa. There are many geeks-turned lawyers (just finished law school myself) to protect the /. interests. The _real_ problem is in the diversity of those interests. As a society, we're still trying to understand this phenomenon called intellectual property: what is it, whether it needs actual legal protection, what form, etc. You want to provide incentives to the geniuses out there who come up with the truly great ideas. But a great idea is not enough; in high tech, it's the proper execution of the idea that brings the benefit to society. Society v. the individual all over again. I think Plato had a few words on that :) Clearly some kind of legal framework is necessary. If I've got a great idea but can't protect it in law, M$ wins. As soon as a "deep pockets" high tech business gets a whiff of it, they can immediately direct more resources to it than I ever could. Very few first-to-market battles will be won by the little guy in the years to come.