If you're so good at interpretting this kind of content, why aren't we reading a story submitted by Mr Matticus?
Not a troll, a genuine question. Ray puts his point across eloquently, as do you. Perhaps between you both we could get a more rounded interpretation of these proceedings.
From the article: "Space Cadets was a British television program made by Zeppotron..."
Hmmm... Unbiased, accurate, significant scientific research there. Perhaps you're not a good candidate for this mission to Mars; You might confuse the landing system for an old MS Flight Sim game.
It's to leaverage IE onto Vista systems. If "E" ("European Edition" - No IE) is clean install only, then people won't buy "E". It's a marketing ploy to keep IE as top dog. They want people to complain about the internet being broken.
DRM only affects those who use DRM protected products. My un-DRM'd MP3 files aren't locked down, and I don't have Blu-Ray on my PC (in fact, at all). DRM doesn't affect me in the slightest; I forget it's there.
Just for info, I use a WinMobile smartphone, have an iPod Nano and a Sanza Fuze, and my g/f has an iPod Classic. We both put video and music on the devices, and neither of us has had any issue with DRM or other restrictions in Win7. In fact, my biggest issue is that I had to install iTunes for the g/f (I use a different application).
As for the rest, couldn't agree more. The reorganised Control Panel takes some getting used to, but apart from that it's all plain sailing.
"reinstalling and restoring linux just works" - I have a restore DVD for that. "moving user and data to a different machine just works" - I don't need to do that. "thin client linux just works" - What's a thin client? A dietician application?
Can you help me get my printer, wireless connection, 3D graphics, digital camera, webcam, and iPod connected and working please? They don't "just work."
Your first mistake was attempting to boot an infected Windows installation.
Where was your BartPE / Linux LiveCD? If you can mount NTFS and the registry, you can remove pretty much anything you want on the partition. Hell, download ClamAV and create a new repair disk every week; Most readers will boot from CDRW now. Once you've cleaned it out, run a Windows repair from the installation disk if it won't boot, check if the processes return, and you're done.
No, you think you have the right to do anything you want with it, when in fact you have the right to either agree to the terms, or to not use the product.
You always have the right to walk away and use another product; S&W Ts&Cs state you can't shoot rabbits with their gun? Fine! Go buy from H&K instead!
You change the terms by limiting the revenue. When they can't sell because the terms are too restrictive, the terms will change or the company will die. It's that simple (or should be; Consider point two in my GP post).
Or the alternative; Don't give them your money, don't use their product.
Am I speaking voodoo here? It's not rocket science: You want my product, you abide by my rules. You don't want it? Piss off and spend your money elsewhere.
Imagine every retailer you buy from is saying this directly to your face; You'll probably find you save quite a lot of cash, and realise just how draconian some of these restrictions can be. But, you always have the right to walk away and never talk to them again.
if you want to listen to a track by your favourite band, being offered the choice between that band and one you don't want to listen to, is no real choice at all.
It is the bands choice to join a label which attempts to limit the rights of those who with to listen to their music.
If they choose to go with an RIAA-supporting record lable, let them rot. When the cash (what cash there is for artists) stops, they'll leave. When they see the successes of Trent Reznor releasing two albums without a lable behind him, they'll imitate, innovate, or deteriorate into nothing. Lable promotion will be pointless; I've found plenty of bands on CC listed websites, and paid money for the privilage (in the form of donations, usually a little over half of what a recent release retail CD would cost). Jamendo is my homepage at home.
Once again, if a corporation tries to impose tight controls which you don't agree with, you can walk away. That applies to creators as well as consumers; The internet allows for distance selling of physical as well as intellectual property, so don't think that you're limited to a choice few sources.
If you can do that, wonderful. You could sell your skills as a car manufacturer, and sell them.
This is where the car analogy fails, though, as car manufacture requires raw materials which duplication of information does not. That's why I didn't talk about copying the car; It falls out of the scope of the issue at hand.
All the more reason to not give them a penny, and not consume their resources. The more we duplicate and distribute their creative works, the more strings to the "We are still commercially viable" bow they have.
What we should really do is allow MediaSentry and all of the other investigative folks onto the file sharing networks, but share CC licensed or free music instead. There's plenty of it, bands who just want exposure. You can send them a few dollars by googling their name, plenty have MySpace pages with PayPal links.
Like I said, naive as it is (as I know people want their Beetles back-catologue and their latest Metallica album) we should just ignore everything they touch. Make the corporate whore music indistry commercial pariahs. It's the only way to bring back the Free Market.
Without an unsandboxed version of the win32 api, which is what ActiveX is, they would be unable to deny the ability to use the internet to those without a recent version of windows and office.
With a sandboxed version of the win32 api, which is what ActiveX is, they would be able to allow the ability to deny the internet to those with a recent version of windows and office.
To paraphrase: "IE plugins from Office won't work without Win32 API running with increased privilages"
A point I missed: Spotify links to Amazon music store for certain tracks in order to purchase them. They may make money out of this referral service, and this may also make Spotify a choice as a sort-of music store (even though it's only a referral service being offered).
I did know this was offered, but I've never needed to use it.
No, I'm saying that believing that you have a right to someone elses property or creation without being expected to adhere to their terms is ok, and that just so happens to be how these laws are worded.
The issue here is that people believe that they are entitled to so much, when in fact it's up to the creator / owner how much use / ownership you get of his works.
I can advertise a car for sale which clearly has stated in its terms and conditions that you don't own the car, you're paying a rental and I retain full ownership. You have the choice to then either: - Accept the terms and buy (lease) the car, or - Find another car salesman.
That's the beauty of a Free Market; You can walk away, and take your money with you. Don't expect me to smile sweetly when you try and steal my car, though, just because you think you're entitled to it.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're so good at interpretting this kind of content, why aren't we reading a story submitted by Mr Matticus?
Not a troll, a genuine question. Ray puts his point across eloquently, as do you. Perhaps between you both we could get a more rounded interpretation of these proceedings.
So this is a clear demonstration of which side the Judge is on, then?
The side with the money.
The only time 4Chan is useful...
They didn't go insane.
From the article: "Space Cadets was a British television program made by Zeppotron..."
Hmmm... Unbiased, accurate, significant scientific research there. Perhaps you're not a good candidate for this mission to Mars; You might confuse the landing system for an old MS Flight Sim game.
FWIW, if 3D gaming worked on Linux I'd have dumped Windows long ago. Further, was playing devils' advocate.
She's your ex-wife. What do you care if she's mouthy?!
Send your girlfriend!
Breast sounds like rest, indicating that they are indeed man-pillows.
"It has a six in it, but it's not six thousand."
[citation needed]
It's to leaverage IE onto Vista systems. If "E" ("European Edition" - No IE) is clean install only, then people won't buy "E". It's a marketing ploy to keep IE as top dog. They want people to complain about the internet being broken.
It's actually quite ingenious.
DRM only affects those who use DRM protected products. My un-DRM'd MP3 files aren't locked down, and I don't have Blu-Ray on my PC (in fact, at all). DRM doesn't affect me in the slightest; I forget it's there.
Just for info, I use a WinMobile smartphone, have an iPod Nano and a Sanza Fuze, and my g/f has an iPod Classic. We both put video and music on the devices, and neither of us has had any issue with DRM or other restrictions in Win7. In fact, my biggest issue is that I had to install iTunes for the g/f (I use a different application).
As for the rest, couldn't agree more. The reorganised Control Panel takes some getting used to, but apart from that it's all plain sailing.
"reinstalling and restoring linux just works" - I have a restore DVD for that.
"moving user and data to a different machine just works" - I don't need to do that.
"thin client linux just works" - What's a thin client? A dietician application?
Can you help me get my printer, wireless connection, 3D graphics, digital camera, webcam, and iPod connected and working please? They don't "just work."
Your first mistake was attempting to boot an infected Windows installation.
Where was your BartPE / Linux LiveCD? If you can mount NTFS and the registry, you can remove pretty much anything you want on the partition. Hell, download ClamAV and create a new repair disk every week; Most readers will boot from CDRW now. Once you've cleaned it out, run a Windows repair from the installation disk if it won't boot, check if the processes return, and you're done.
There you have it, folks! Slashdot nerds do use Bookface!
Pics or it didn't happen! >_
Ah, complacency... Don't get me started on that particular bugbear.
No, you think you have the right to do anything you want with it, when in fact you have the right to either agree to the terms, or to not use the product.
You always have the right to walk away and use another product; S&W Ts&Cs state you can't shoot rabbits with their gun? Fine! Go buy from H&K instead!
You change the terms by limiting the revenue. When they can't sell because the terms are too restrictive, the terms will change or the company will die. It's that simple (or should be; Consider point two in my GP post).
Or the alternative; Don't give them your money, don't use their product.
Am I speaking voodoo here? It's not rocket science: You want my product, you abide by my rules. You don't want it? Piss off and spend your money elsewhere.
Imagine every retailer you buy from is saying this directly to your face; You'll probably find you save quite a lot of cash, and realise just how draconian some of these restrictions can be. But, you always have the right to walk away and never talk to them again.
if you want to listen to a track by your favourite band, being offered the choice between that band and one you don't want to listen to, is no real choice at all.
It is the bands choice to join a label which attempts to limit the rights of those who with to listen to their music.
If they choose to go with an RIAA-supporting record lable, let them rot. When the cash (what cash there is for artists) stops, they'll leave. When they see the successes of Trent Reznor releasing two albums without a lable behind him, they'll imitate, innovate, or deteriorate into nothing. Lable promotion will be pointless; I've found plenty of bands on CC listed websites, and paid money for the privilage (in the form of donations, usually a little over half of what a recent release retail CD would cost). Jamendo is my homepage at home.
Once again, if a corporation tries to impose tight controls which you don't agree with, you can walk away. That applies to creators as well as consumers; The internet allows for distance selling of physical as well as intellectual property, so don't think that you're limited to a choice few sources.
You're still thinkingin the "old way", man.
If you can do that, wonderful. You could sell your skills as a car manufacturer, and sell them.
This is where the car analogy fails, though, as car manufacture requires raw materials which duplication of information does not. That's why I didn't talk about copying the car; It falls out of the scope of the issue at hand.
All the more reason to not give them a penny, and not consume their resources. The more we duplicate and distribute their creative works, the more strings to the "We are still commercially viable" bow they have.
What we should really do is allow MediaSentry and all of the other investigative folks onto the file sharing networks, but share CC licensed or free music instead. There's plenty of it, bands who just want exposure. You can send them a few dollars by googling their name, plenty have MySpace pages with PayPal links.
Like I said, naive as it is (as I know people want their Beetles back-catologue and their latest Metallica album) we should just ignore everything they touch. Make the corporate whore music indistry commercial pariahs. It's the only way to bring back the Free Market.
Without an unsandboxed version of the win32 api, which is what ActiveX is, they would be unable to deny the ability to use the internet to those without a recent version of windows and office.
With a sandboxed version of the win32 api, which is what ActiveX is, they would be able to allow the ability to deny the internet to those with a recent version of windows and office.
To paraphrase: "IE plugins from Office won't work without Win32 API running with increased privilages"
Took me a while to work it out, though.
A point I missed: Spotify links to Amazon music store for certain tracks in order to purchase them. They may make money out of this referral service, and this may also make Spotify a choice as a sort-of music store (even though it's only a referral service being offered).
I did know this was offered, but I've never needed to use it.
No, I'm saying that believing that you have a right to someone elses property or creation without being expected to adhere to their terms is ok, and that just so happens to be how these laws are worded.
The issue here is that people believe that they are entitled to so much, when in fact it's up to the creator / owner how much use / ownership you get of his works.
I can advertise a car for sale which clearly has stated in its terms and conditions that you don't own the car, you're paying a rental and I retain full ownership. You have the choice to then either:
- Accept the terms and buy (lease) the car, or
- Find another car salesman.
That's the beauty of a Free Market; You can walk away, and take your money with you. Don't expect me to smile sweetly when you try and steal my car, though, just because you think you're entitled to it.
Exactly my point, thanks for the clarification!