Well, I hope we can all give them their support anyway.
I wonder how much money they've saved switching over to Linux/OSS? Certainly more than enough to cover any potential legal costs. I think the best way to support them is to keep creating great software and to keep trying to educate the media on these issues.
Call me crazy, but I think the US having the ability to rain down death and destruction on anyone who gets in our way does make the world a safer place. For Americans. And those are the only people our tax dollars should be protecting in the first place.
Don't like it? Go get your own military for once.
Just who do you think your going to rain your death and destruction down on when someone floats a nuke into New York Harbour in a shipping container? Have you learned nothing from 7/11? This kind of big-budget boondogle is useless against the kind of threats the U.S. is facing.
I'd be more interested to know what companies are going to profit from this and who is on their board of directors and who will be on that board after they leave public office.
Thanks for the link. I look at your data and see a nice expodential curve up to about 1945 and then a dramatic decrease. Thanks for proving my point. dumbass.
What I see are the two world wars causing two big spikes on the graph. Remove those and what do you see? Also note the increase in the quantity of wars. With nuclear proliferation this is a bad thing that just may lead to another really big spike down the road.
Also note the following text from below the graph:
Historically, as many civilians as soldiers have been killed in wars. In the 18th, 19th and most of the 20th century, civilians represented some 50% of war related deaths. In the 1960's civilians accounted for 52% of deaths; in the 1970's, for 73%; in the 1980's, for 85% and at the close of the century for over 95%.
You want to treat me like a criminal then why should I spend my money in your country?
How is being identified at a border being treated like a criminal? Have you ever even left your country anyway? Have you ever even been on an airplane? When the airline asks to see your passport while bording is that treating you like a criminal?
Still, all these methods do nothing to prevent terrorism. They only validate that the person shoving their eye into the reader, terrorist or innocent, matches with the passport. Done properly, it should be incredibly difficult to forge a passport without having someone high up on the inside with access to the private encryption key. But it won't stop terrorists.
It would sure slow them down once identified and on the run that's for sure. It would also allow spooks to track them around the world. For example... let's say a suspected terrorist is identified meeting with a known terrorist. The guy meeting with the known terrorist is followed to the airport where his retina is scanned and passport checked. The spooks make inquiries to find out who this guy is and where he is going and pass that on to the security services in the next country. In the next country the suspect is scanned and tailed to a meeting with more terrorists. The more the guy moves around the easier he becomes to trace and the more acquaintances of his wind up on the watch list. Sounds like a good way to catch terrorists to me.
Sheesh.. whatever happened to Godwins Law? What's with all this NAZI shit? As a previous poster pointed out: is it fair to blame people for the actions of their forefathers? Personally I think it's dangerous to do such a thing - and borders on racist.
Europe, unlike North America, has more or less open borders. Millions of people cross between European borders every day with more than a cursory check by border control (and sometimes - none). Frankfurt Airport is the second largest airport in Europe (the biggest on The Contintent, the largest rail transit point on The Continent, and a major transit point to points east (Eastern Europe, far east, and middle east). In short, if I was a terrorist, organised crime figure, drug dealer, war criminal or some other kind of international desirable, it would be my chosen point of entry. I do not begrudge the German governments desire to make an effort to secure the area to the best of their ability. Unlike you and the rest of the slashdot pundits, they have a responsibility to their European neighbours and the international community to do so. They are trying to avoid a repeat of the Hamburg Cell.
I am sure they also wish to keep traffic flowing through this transit area as quickly and as smoothly as possible for economic reasons. Iris scans, while they may or may not be infallible, seem to work well and they are *fast*. Certainly faster then having some US immigration agent question you about every minutae of your life to the point where they ask to see photos of your loved ones (as happpend to me pre-9/11 while I was in-transit through JFK to visit a European girl friend).
The fact is, I dread passing through the US cuz it's tedious, they ask a lot of questions that are none of their damn business, and (though I don't care about this part) they enter your name into a database anyway. Most people I know who travel internationally don't even fly through the US anymore because they think it's going to be a pain in the butt. Personally, if it gets me through immigration and customs in a timely manner (as has always been the case in Europe - I've gone through CDG without them even openning my passport) I will happily submit to a retinal scan. I've got nothing to hide. I just want to get where I am going.
While some may claim that this is open to abuse, as it is I suppose, I don't really see a better way to balance the desire to secure that airport (and Europe) with the desire to keep people moving through it as quickly as possible - and last time I was there - it moved.
Unless one is to claim that identification isn't a necessity at border crossings and international airports. I really don't see what the fuss is about. If you don't want to be identified at the border - stay home. Some countries want to secure their borders and citizens, and as I have mentioned above, European countries have to worry about every other EC countries border being secure as well.
I hope you pointed out the fact that in the 48 hours previous to those remarks approx. 100 people were killed by car bombers in America's new protectorate, Iraq. If Didio was aware of that when she made those statements she's a tastless nutcase. If she was unaware then she's clueless. Either way she looks like she has her head up her a**.
Hey, in the end she did us a favour I suppose by showing everyone her true colours in such a garish manner that nobody can miss it.
All this is notwithstanding the fact that as with remarks she previously made vis-a-vis the Open Source movement and MyDoom there is no evidence whatsoever that the Open Source movement or anyone affiliated with the movement has anything whatsoever to do with either incident.
My point in posting the quote is not to sit on slashdot and bitch, but to point out to slashdot readers the misinformation about OSS sometimes propogated by mainstream media and analysts. The motivations behind same are up to you to decide for yourself
I, and likely others as well, expressed our dissatisfaction by writing the editor instead and now the comments have been yanked and I suspect the editor will be keeping a closer eye on Miss Didio in the future - as she cannot help but lose credibility which such nastiness. Which action do you think is more usefull to the OSS community? Preaching to the converted or pointing out to an often lazy media that yes, maybe you have easy access to this person, but they are obviously a fool with an axe to grind.
Call her on her remarks yes, but do it with somebody who can actually do something about it as well. This was the perfect opportunity to make the media aware of just what a kook she is. Some of us took advantage of that and it appears to have worked.
Has it ever occured to you that the reason that small print is small is that the corporate entities that include it in their rental contracts *do not* want you to read it? Don't you think that corporate entities have *any* responsibility towards notifying their customers of any *major changes* to their standard rental agreement? Shouldn't all the fee's and charges be clearly spelled out?
Is this not why things like milage charges are generally clearly marked (and I have even seen highlighted) on the front page of the agreement. Don't you think that signing away your privacy by allowing a car rental firm to track your every movement with spy sattelites is a major enough change to the standard rental agreement that it deserves prominent display on the front page of the contract? In the case in question was it even mentioned *anywhere* in the contract? Doesn't look like it.
Will Budget USA ever be including this info on the front page of their contract? It doesn't look like it since they apparently don't even agree with the practice of spying on their customers whereabouts.
Let's not forget btw that the rental companies in question were likely offering "unlimited" kilometers and then burying the restrictions in small print. While I agree that it is buyer beware and consumers do need to check on these things I do disagree with the world "unlimited" being used and then various limitations being tacked on in small print. It's a very common practice and is highly dishonest and sleazy in my view.
People here are most pissed off because they got busted when they weren't expecting it. Clearly, Budget should and will most likely put a 3 sentences in their contract saying they can monitor their car with GPS, but its not going to change anything in the long run.
Clearly, you have not read the article either:
Most rental-car companies - including Budget's corporate-owned locations - use tracking systems mainly to recover stolen cars, but some monitor where customers drive because liability laws vary from state to state, said Cathy Stephens, editor of Auto Rental News.
Jenny Sullivan, director of public relations for Budget Rent a Car Corp., said the company-owned rental agencies use GPS tracking systems only to recover missing cars, not to enforce operating boundaries.
"We don't believe it's a consumer-friendly policy," Sullivan said. "The only time the GPS is turned on is when the vehicle is missing
Cute, even the Corporate head office isn't defending this practice yet still we have corporate sycophants in here doing so.
I don't think the storefront analogy really works here - after all a competitor can easily open up a competing storefront across the street and start a price war(as they often do). A railway operator would be a better analogy - tho openining that area up for competition is much more complex than simply forcing telecoms to rent out their switches.
That said, as a monopolist I probably wouldn't like it at all.. that doesn't meant that it would be better for the consumer and industry to have some healthy competition. I am sure that Bell Canada initially didn't like the idea of openning up their switches but now that they have they've discovered that they can make big bux renting them out to other isps with little or no support costs.
After all, were I to try and sell something like a printer and promise a "lifetime supply of color ink", you can bet there'd be a stink if when the printer ran out I come back and say, "Sorry, we sell that with the implicit assumption that you'll only use the black ink.."
This discussion is beginning to dovetail nicely with the many discussions on here about "fair use" of purchased media. I guess this is no surprise considering that the same compnay that is trying to tell you what do with your music purchases and claims that you are stealing from them if you go to the kitchen to make a sandwich during a commercial break is now trying to tell you what you can do with your internet connection.
Anyone who gives their money to these pricks deserves what they get. If there are no alternatives then complain to you congesscritter. Cuz it doesn't have to be this way.
Up in the Peoples Republic of Canada there was recently ahuge auproasr (sson to grow larger as ppl get their bills) about the introduction of bandwidth caps by the nations largest dsl provider (also the major phone monopoly in central Canada). Fortunately it seems that the government had found a good solution to the high bandwidth competition problem. They had forced the telcos to:
Split off their ISP service from their telecom and network connectivity service.
The network connectivity service *has* to allow outside isps to sell internet access (for a fee of course).
ISPs offering a better deal then the telco started popping up like mushrooms and now this has resulted in a situation in Canada where there is now more competition in isps then we've seen in years. The major highband isps are instituting bandwidth caps and smaller operators are pilling into the market offering cheaper service.
I have the choice right now of probably a dozen dsl providers in my area. At all kinds if different price ranges offering a range of services. Apperantly some are even making money:-) In order to sample them all I have to do is get an account change the login on my dsl bridge - it's actually even easier than in the days of dialup.
This seems to be turning into a win-win situation for all involved. Users have a choice as there's lots of competition, The telco makes lots of money renting out bandwidth and connectivity in bulk to all these isps (with comparitively cheap support costs) and we are seeing a resurgence in the small, independent garage ISP. Something that I thought was gone forever.
Don't let Roadrunner walk all over u folks. It doesn't have to be that way.
Those that want to make a kick ass PVR and sell it face the daunting certainty of being sued into oblivion by such household cartels as the MPAA and, if the device allows the sharing of music, the RIAA. So long as these monopolists can send their IP lawyer/thugs around shutting down businesses they don't like, intimidating the rest, and even absorbing the more successful (mp3.com), no free market will ever really exist because consumers will be prevented from having the choice of buying what they want altogether.
Nah, they'll just have to wait a bit longer till some Korean company comes out with the gear. The Asian Tigers are called "Tigers" for a reason. They will go wherever there is money to be made and they *will* fill any comsumer demand while the lawyers bicker stateside. There is a huge demand for an easy to use, restriction free, powerfull PVR - it has imo the potential to be "the next big thing" in comsumer electronics. If American companies are unable or unwilling to provide one than the Asians will. They don't give a fuck about the MPAA RIAA BSA et al.
check that their browser sends a referrer url from your site
...and watch as people stop linking to you at all, your google-ranking plummets, and your visitors disappear
Attempting to drag everyone who deep links to your site to court will have the same effect. Either way, this whole "deep-linking" issue is just a make work project for corporate legal teams. A project that threatens to make both the net and the companies that fall for it much poorer.
Obviously they want to wring as much cash as possible out of you. Nothing more nothing less. They see a perceived threat to their revenue stream so they are going ballistic. At the moment they have you paying twelve bux a pop for a movie ticket, then paying 15 bux+ for the soundtrack and then finally buying the DVD for 30 bux. In some cases they are also selling you your cable tv, your dvd machine and you internet access. Creating a vertical monoply is part of their real plan.
The only answer I can think of is very, very frightening. They realize that their billion-dolar studio lots could very easily be turned into housing subdivisions right now, because computer technology has advanced so far that anyone with a decent new machine and some rather easily obtained software & hardware can make movies to the same quality as they do
This is black helicopter stuff and
Not likely... As I stated above their real plan is to empty your pockets. Besides it takes a lot more than off the shelf gear to make a major motion picture. Anyhow, if all it took was some geek with a peecee to make a hit movie then you can believe that the studios would be more than happy to pack all of their beloved "artists" off to the unemployment line and give the geek a bimbo and put him/her on payroll like they did with talent in the old days.
The real joke here is that the film industry is riddled with software piracy on a scale that I am sure is unheard if in most other industries. I have worked on a number of large Hollywood films and I bet none of the production offices would pass a software audit - hell most of the time there's only one copy of MS Office for the whole office! On the few occasions that I have needed to get a production to purchase a software package the first response is - "go down the hall and see if so-and-so has a copy"... They don't seem to care that software is the product of many artists and craftsmen. Software costs money - and film productions will never pay for anything they can get for free.
So in the end this has nothing to do with protecting artists rights. Anyone who knows anything about the movie industry knows that the studios don't give a f*ck about "the artists" - hell if they could get away with it they wouldn't have any artists- cuz artists cost money and the only thing film studios care about is money. They try to screw artists out of money all the time - Their infamous accounting system is designed to screw artists and anyone affiliated individual film productions out of money. This is why a film can cost $30,000,000 to make (lots of that money going right back into the studios coffers as equipment rentals and/or other services, and producers and Studio execs pockets) and do $50,000,000 in sales and still be pronounced a flop - so that they don't have to pay anyone who was supposed to get a slice of the profits).
The Studios are, by far, the greediest mo-fos to ever walk the earth and anything they say about "artists" should be taken with a grain of salt.
I use XManager to run an X-Client on my Windows box that connects to my linux box (actually a windows 2000 box running vmware:-). This gives me:
A) Two linux boxes w/ x interfaces
B) Two Windows boxes for running those tools
that are only available for windows
and last but not least:
C) two hot gaming machines.
Another thing to keep in mind is that this idea is being sprouted in Sweden - a country where nobody sees anything wrong with paying a premium for anything - and the local phone call to the isp(used to at least)was metered and cost more than the internet access.
I seriously doubt that this kind of model will fly in America/Canada - any more than metered local phone service.
Re:This could be bad news for manned space travel.
on
Life On Mars: ALH84001
·
· Score: 1
I think the discoveries and new possibilities that arise from exploration vastly outweigh any fear of destroying an ecosphere.
Imagine those (or similar) words coming out of Christopher Columbus's mouth, and then think back to your 16th-19th century American history...
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder how much money they've saved switching over to Linux/OSS? Certainly more than enough to cover any potential legal costs. I think the best way to support them is to keep creating great software and to keep trying to educate the media on these issues.
Whoops.. 6:05 AM.. getting tired and hungry :-) That should of course read 9/11.
Just who do you think your going to rain your death and destruction down on when someone floats a nuke into New York Harbour in a shipping container? Have you learned nothing from 7/11? This kind of big-budget boondogle is useless against the kind of threats the U.S. is facing.
I'd be more interested to know what companies are going to profit from this and who is on their board of directors and who will be on that board after they leave public office.
What I see are the two world wars causing two big spikes on the graph. Remove those and what do you see? Also note the increase in the quantity of wars. With nuclear proliferation this is a bad thing that just may lead to another really big spike down the road.
Also note the following text from below the graph:
We're not out of the woods yet bud.And you most certainly would not be permitted to travel to the U.S.
How is being identified at a border being treated like a criminal? Have you ever even left your country anyway? Have you ever even been on an airplane? When the airline asks to see your passport while bording is that treating you like a criminal?
It would sure slow them down once identified and on the run that's for sure. It would also allow spooks to track them around the world. For example... let's say a suspected terrorist is identified meeting with a known terrorist. The guy meeting with the known terrorist is followed to the airport where his retina is scanned and passport checked. The spooks make inquiries to find out who this guy is and where he is going and pass that on to the security services in the next country. In the next country the suspect is scanned and tailed to a meeting with more terrorists. The more the guy moves around the easier he becomes to trace and the more acquaintances of his wind up on the watch list. Sounds like a good way to catch terrorists to me.
Sheesh.. whatever happened to Godwins Law? What's with all this NAZI shit? As a previous poster pointed out: is it fair to blame people for the actions of their forefathers? Personally I think it's dangerous to do such a thing - and borders on racist.
Europe, unlike North America, has more or less open borders. Millions of people cross between European borders every day with more than a cursory check by border control (and sometimes - none). Frankfurt Airport is the second largest airport in Europe (the biggest on The Contintent, the largest rail transit point on The Continent, and a major transit point to points east (Eastern Europe, far east, and middle east). In short, if I was a terrorist, organised crime figure, drug dealer, war criminal or some other kind of international desirable, it would be my chosen point of entry. I do not begrudge the German governments desire to make an effort to secure the area to the best of their ability. Unlike you and the rest of the slashdot pundits, they have a responsibility to their European neighbours and the international community to do so. They are trying to avoid a repeat of the Hamburg Cell.
I am sure they also wish to keep traffic flowing through this transit area as quickly and as smoothly as possible for economic reasons. Iris scans, while they may or may not be infallible, seem to work well and they are *fast*. Certainly faster then having some US immigration agent question you about every minutae of your life to the point where they ask to see photos of your loved ones (as happpend to me pre-9/11 while I was in-transit through JFK to visit a European girl friend).
The fact is, I dread passing through the US cuz it's tedious, they ask a lot of questions that are none of their damn business, and (though I don't care about this part) they enter your name into a database anyway. Most people I know who travel internationally don't even fly through the US anymore because they think it's going to be a pain in the butt. Personally, if it gets me through immigration and customs in a timely manner (as has always been the case in Europe - I've gone through CDG without them even openning my passport) I will happily submit to a retinal scan. I've got nothing to hide. I just want to get where I am going.
While some may claim that this is open to abuse, as it is I suppose, I don't really see a better way to balance the desire to secure that airport (and Europe) with the desire to keep people moving through it as quickly as possible - and last time I was there - it moved.
Unless one is to claim that identification isn't a necessity at border crossings and international airports. I really don't see what the fuss is about. If you don't want to be identified at the border - stay home. Some countries want to secure their borders and citizens, and as I have mentioned above, European countries have to worry about every other EC countries border being secure as well.
I hope you pointed out the fact that in the 48 hours previous to those remarks approx. 100 people were killed by car bombers in America's new protectorate, Iraq. If Didio was aware of that when she made those statements she's a tastless nutcase. If she was unaware then she's clueless. Either way she looks like she has her head up her a**.
Hey, in the end she did us a favour I suppose by showing everyone her true colours in such a garish manner that nobody can miss it.
All this is notwithstanding the fact that as with remarks she previously made vis-a-vis the Open Source movement and MyDoom there is no evidence whatsoever that the Open Source movement or anyone affiliated with the movement has anything whatsoever to do with either incident.
I, and likely others as well, expressed our dissatisfaction by writing the editor instead and now the comments have been yanked and I suspect the editor will be keeping a closer eye on Miss Didio in the future - as she cannot help but lose credibility which such nastiness. Which action do you think is more usefull to the OSS community? Preaching to the converted or pointing out to an often lazy media that yes, maybe you have easy access to this person, but they are obviously a fool with an axe to grind.
Call her on her remarks yes, but do it with somebody who can actually do something about it as well. This was the perfect opportunity to make the media aware of just what a kook she is. Some of us took advantage of that and it appears to have worked.
Ok folks... you can put down your pitchforks. Her ugly comments appear to have been snipped from the article.
The Independent ran a great expose on all this a few days back. Scary reading... and like the memos, the more you read the worse it gets
Cool! It's the mp3 equivalent of a 21 year old virgin!
Has it ever occured to you that the reason that small print is small is that the corporate entities that include it in their rental contracts *do not* want you to read it? Don't you think that corporate entities have *any* responsibility towards notifying their customers of any *major changes* to their standard rental agreement? Shouldn't all the fee's and charges be clearly spelled out?
Is this not why things like milage charges are generally clearly marked (and I have even seen highlighted) on the front page of the agreement. Don't you think that signing away your privacy by allowing a car rental firm to track your every movement with spy sattelites is a major enough change to the standard rental agreement that it deserves prominent display on the front page of the contract? In the case in question was it even mentioned *anywhere* in the contract? Doesn't look like it.
Will Budget USA ever be including this info on the front page of their contract? It doesn't look like it since they apparently don't even agree with the practice of spying on their customers whereabouts.
Let's not forget btw that the rental companies in question were likely offering "unlimited" kilometers and then burying the restrictions in small print. While I agree that it is buyer beware and consumers do need to check on these things I do disagree with the world "unlimited" being used and then various limitations being tacked on in small print. It's a very common practice and is highly dishonest and sleazy in my view.
Clearly, you have not read the article either:
Cute, even the Corporate head office isn't defending this practice yet still we have corporate sycophants in here doing so.
I don't think the storefront analogy really works here - after all a competitor can easily open up a competing storefront across the street and start a price war(as they often do). A railway operator would be a better analogy - tho openining that area up for competition is much more complex than simply forcing telecoms to rent out their switches.
That said, as a monopolist I probably wouldn't like it at all.. that doesn't meant that it would be better for the consumer and industry to have some healthy competition. I am sure that Bell Canada initially didn't like the idea of openning up their switches but now that they have they've discovered that they can make big bux renting them out to other isps with little or no support costs.
This discussion is beginning to dovetail nicely with the many discussions on here about "fair use" of purchased media. I guess this is no surprise considering that the same compnay that is trying to tell you what do with your music purchases and claims that you are stealing from them if you go to the kitchen to make a sandwich during a commercial break is now trying to tell you what you can do with your internet connection.
Anyone who gives their money to these pricks deserves what they get. If there are no alternatives then complain to you congesscritter. Cuz it doesn't have to be this way.
Up in the Peoples Republic of Canada there was recently ahuge auproasr (sson to grow larger as ppl get their bills) about the introduction of bandwidth caps by the nations largest dsl provider (also the major phone monopoly in central Canada). Fortunately it seems that the government had found a good solution to the high bandwidth competition problem. They had forced the telcos to:
Split off their ISP service from their telecom and network connectivity service.
The network connectivity service *has* to allow outside isps to sell internet access (for a fee of course).
ISPs offering a better deal then the telco started popping up like mushrooms and now this has resulted in a situation in Canada where there is now more competition in isps then we've seen in years. The major highband isps are instituting bandwidth caps and smaller operators are pilling into the market offering cheaper service.
I have the choice right now of probably a dozen dsl providers in my area. At all kinds if different price ranges offering a range of services. Apperantly some are even making money :-) In order to sample them all I have to do is get an account change the login on my dsl bridge - it's actually even easier than in the days of dialup.
This seems to be turning into a win-win situation for all involved. Users have a choice as there's lots of competition, The telco makes lots of money renting out bandwidth and connectivity in bulk to all these isps (with comparitively cheap support costs) and we are seeing a resurgence in the small, independent garage ISP. Something that I thought was gone forever.
Don't let Roadrunner walk all over u folks. It doesn't have to be that way.
They have another advantage. Their news headline search is top notch.
-fNah, they'll just have to wait a bit longer till some Korean company comes out with the gear. The Asian Tigers are called "Tigers" for a reason. They will go wherever there is money to be made and they *will* fill any comsumer demand while the lawyers bicker stateside. There is a huge demand for an easy to use, restriction free, powerfull PVR - it has imo the potential to be "the next big thing" in comsumer electronics. If American companies are unable or unwilling to provide one than the Asians will. They don't give a fuck about the MPAA RIAA BSA et al.
Obviously they want to wring as much cash as possible out of you. Nothing more nothing less. They see a perceived threat to their revenue stream so they are going ballistic. At the moment they have you paying twelve bux a pop for a movie ticket, then paying 15 bux+ for the soundtrack and then finally buying the DVD for 30 bux. In some cases they are also selling you your cable tv, your dvd machine and you internet access. Creating a vertical monoply is part of their real plan.
This is black helicopter stuff and Not likely... As I stated above their real plan is to empty your pockets. Besides it takes a lot more than off the shelf gear to make a major motion picture. Anyhow, if all it took was some geek with a peecee to make a hit movie then you can believe that the studios would be more than happy to pack all of their beloved "artists" off to the unemployment line and give the geek a bimbo and put him/her on payroll like they did with talent in the old days.
The real joke here is that the film industry is riddled with software piracy on a scale that I am sure is unheard if in most other industries. I have worked on a number of large Hollywood films and I bet none of the production offices would pass a software audit - hell most of the time there's only one copy of MS Office for the whole office! On the few occasions that I have needed to get a production to purchase a software package the first response is - "go down the hall and see if so-and-so has a copy"...
They don't seem to care that software is the product of many artists and craftsmen. Software costs money - and film productions will never pay for anything they can get for free.
So in the end this has nothing to do with protecting artists rights. Anyone who knows anything about the movie industry knows that the studios don't give a f*ck about "the artists" - hell if they could get away with it they wouldn't have any artists- cuz artists cost money and the only thing film studios care about is money. They try to screw artists out of money all the time - Their infamous accounting system is designed to screw artists and anyone affiliated individual film productions out of money. This is why a film can cost $30,000,000 to make (lots of that money going right back into the studios coffers as equipment rentals and/or other services, and producers and Studio execs pockets) and do $50,000,000 in sales and still be pronounced a flop - so that they don't have to pay anyone who was supposed to get a slice of the profits).
The Studios are, by far, the greediest mo-fos to ever walk the earth and anything they say about "artists" should be taken with a grain of salt.
I use XManager to run an X-Client on my Windows box that connects to my linux box (actually a windows 2000 box running vmware :-). This gives me:
A) Two linux boxes w/ x interfaces
B) Two Windows boxes for running those tools
that are only available for windows
and last but not least:
C) two hot gaming machines.
Not bad for only two boxes and no rebooting.
best of both worlds imo.
-f
Another thing to keep in mind is that this idea is being sprouted in Sweden - a country where nobody sees anything wrong with paying a premium for anything - and the local phone call to the isp(used to at least)was metered and cost more than the internet access.
I seriously doubt that this kind of model will fly in America/Canada - any more than metered local phone service.
I think the discoveries and new possibilities that arise from exploration vastly outweigh any fear of destroying an ecosphere.
Think smallpox and American Indian history