Actually Lindows was implying a partnership with AOL by focusing on the ability for AOL software (the Windows version) to run under Lindows. The page is gone from the Lindows site now, apparently because of this legal threat but it prominent (big and flashing graphics) and on the homepage.
Have you seen the Lindows website? They're already a couple steps in the right direction if their next goal is to piss off Apple. Open Apple.com and Lindows.com side-by-side and compare them.
Ummm...perhaps he was trying out a few different distros? You did know there were different ones didn't you? It's not uncommon for one distro to have 2, sometimes 3 ISO's either so this could only represent two distros he was trying out.
So Microsoft can now use GPL'ed software without adhering to the GPL because IP doesn't exist? You did know that the only thing protecting the GPL is copyright, right? Or were you fooled, like so many other slashbots that copyleft was actually a legal principle completely opposite to copyright? GPL requires copyright to exist otherwise it is a meaningless contract over, as you put it, a non-existent "thing", that cannot be enforced.
My definition of portable is to throw it into one of the bags designed to carry the XBOX and a couple of games and take it with me to the ski chalet or when I visit home on occasion. It's not heavy but then again, I don't think the XBOX controllers are all that bad. I might give the new S controllers a shot but I don't see the need to sink $30 into a new controller at the moment.
The XBOX controllers allow for to memory cards to be used with it. The XBOX is also quite portable and the drive doesn't generate much heat at all. The benefit of the hrad drive on the XBOX ha syet to be fully realized but so far developers can design games which allow for saving without hoping people have the memory card. I believe an upcoming game for the XBOX, Blinx, is supposed to utilize the hard drive in new and interesting ways but details have not been forthcoming as of yet. Another use of the hrad drive is to allow gamers to rip their CDs to the box and play their tune in games such as Project Gotham Racing and Amped instead of having to listen to the canned tunes shipping with these games. Granted Microsoft got some big names to write or offer songs for these games but I don't care for the genre. I'd rather have Metallica or King's X blaring on the Ferrari's stereo while I'm tearing through downtown New York city. Beyond that, it't up to the developers to come up with more creative uses of the hard drive.
Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em.
on
Microsoft Buys Rare
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
One use of this feature can be found in Project Gotham Racing. I can rip my favorine tunes from my CD collection and build a custom playlist. Instead of listening to the crappy in-game music and mindless radio DJs, I can drive to King's X, Van Halen or whatever I want. I think it was a brilliant feature with a promising future.
...how one day you people rail against the RIAA's attempts to shut down P2P, claiming that P2P has other uses than intellectual property theft. On the very same day, and quite often in the same thread, you can argue that Palladium is "evil" and it must die, regardless of the other uses of the technology to secure systems against unauthorized software such as viruses, worms and trojans. You have absolutely no concept what Palladium is but you have no problems condemning the technology. Either make up your mind of STFU. Enough of the hypocrisy.
You apparently have never been in the Air Force. On my first assignment in 1990 at NORAD they were just replacing a series of punch card machines. The graphics systems for generating real-time and excercise data on the big screens in the command center were running off of old Honeywell mainframes obtained second hand from the Army.
on your point 2, DVD hardware manufacturers could not care less whether or not you chip your DVD player. They make back every cent and then some when they sell you the hardware. If Hollywood never sold a DVD it wouldn't matter, in the short term anyway. In the long term it would definitely be less of an incentive for people to buy DVD players now wouldn't it?
Anyway, my point is, console manufacturers count on games being sold. Sony does it, Nintendo does it, Sega used to do it and not Microsoft does it. This isn't some dirty little secret of the console industry nor it is some new conspiracy of Microsoft's. When you allow consoles to me modded you offer fewer reasons for the users to purchase the games and you wind up losing money. When you allow DVD players to be modded you don't lose anything at all.
There's no misinformation, they're just not highlighting some things Palladium might be used for that some might find objectionable. However, Microsoft is NOT setting the rights. Let me repeat that again so it sinks in. Microsoft is NOT setting the rights of intellectual property (other than their own). Palladium is technology, it is amoral. It is up to the content creators to determine what level of DRM, if any, will be set on their works. Personally I see a lot of good coming from Palladium your dad highlighting one of them. Perhaps you should listen more and stop preaching. My guess is your dad is smarter than you think.
This practive is covered under copyright law. It's called "parody". You can look it up yourself but basically this allows the public the right to use copyrighted works in a manner similar to what Woody Allen and MST3K did and not fear any retribution form the copyright holders. You have to be careful how you parody the work though. While Lither Campbell won his lawsuit from Acuff-Rose, he was brought into court to defend his version of Pretty Woman.
No, I never said that. In your example Person A never granted Person B access, explicitly or implicitly. They left a particular port open for the reason of Person A being able to access their system remotely, not for the entire world to be able to rifle through their files and establish the system as a DoS zombie.
But the purpose of an OS is NOT to broadcast open ports, the purpose of P2P apps is. If you had said web server, perhaps but even then you have explicitly allowed guests through a single doorway. If they choose to use the backdoor, they have illegally entered your system, regardless of whether or not the front door is open. If an OS does this it is an unintended result and is not implicitly or explicitly inviting unwanted "guests". If you knowingly fail to patch a system you might not get to throw the proverbial book at the hacker but there is the possibility of some punishment being imposed.
'However, if this was a valid legal/ethical statement, then that would be the perfect justification for any electronic crime. A hacker says, "I wasn't doing anything illegal! I was only probing the ports that they made public!"'
The differenc being that when one leaves a port opened unintentionally they are not explicetely or implicitely inviting in unwanted "guests".
By using Napster, Gnutella or a slew of other P2P apps which open ports on your computer for sharing files, you are explicitely inviting guests, wheher wanted (other P2P file sharers) or unwanted (BayTSP spiders, FBI). You have knowingly opened ports on your system and allowed files to be shared. Even if you don't understand how P2P applications and networks actually work you aren't shielded from the responsibilities of having the files available to be illegally copied.
FINALLY!!! Someone who saw the humor in this. I was beginning to think the slashbot moderators were asleep at the wheel again, letting their autonomous anti-linx comment 'bots scour slashdot for negative comments regardless of humor value.
"There have been a few articles now in the press that state there could easily be a terrorist attack on the internet which I merly laughted at but it seems that average joe in the street thinks that a bunch of Afganistan cavemen could seriously achive this."
With comments like this it's no wonder why we underestimated the capabilities of Al Queda. And to think/. moderators could mod up such vitrol and bigotry. Not to mention your rather self-centered wrap-up comment. Since when did the internet exist for your own personal pleasure? While you might pleasure yourself while on the internet, this is not the same thing as the internet existing to pleasure you personally. I think it's time to change the tin-foil on your head. The mind-beams are starting to seep in.
"Since the radio reaches nearly every corner of our country and nearly everone owns the technology to record that music, I don't see a difference between that and sharing an mp3 file with your friends, other than you get to cut out the retarded DJ who always talks over the song like some dimwit fart."
For starters you could never record the entire album off the radio. Radio stations rarely spin the entire album and when I say rarely I mean rarely.
Next, even with radios using CDs and you recording onto the bext tape possible you still had an inferior copy which would degrade over time. MP3s can be recorded at high bitrates making them effectively equivalent to CD and they do not degrade over time.
This doesn't even go over the copyright issues you face. Radio stations pay licensing fees to broadcast the music they play. Napster and their kin did not. They would have never taken off if they had to. Individuals do not license the rights to distribute music, they are only allowed to make personal copies for themselves. When you place a song onto Napster or soem other P2P network you are distributing intellectual property illegally.
The songs are public domain and you can purchase the songsheets and perform the work yourself all you want. However, something like the recording of the Boston Symphony Orchestra performing Bach and Beethoven is copyrighted as it is the interpretation of the music, not the music itself. Same goes for any classical music CD available today. The performances are copyrighted but you are free to grab the songsheets and perform it yourself all you want.
Wrong, wrong, wrong and twice more wrong. Photographers are typically freelancers. In this case (wedding photographer) they are anyway. And as such they maintain the copyrights on ANY work they do, it doe snot transfer unless EXPLICITLY states in the contract.
A work for hire photographer is someone working for a newspaper or other news source and are paid a salary. You can also fall under work for hire if you work with one company for an extended period of time (typically over 3 months) but by doing so the company has to pay you benefits and cover your taxes and other expenses typically paid by an employer. In this latter case you can agree before hand to void this situation but you should have this written into your contract.
How do I know all this? I'm currently a freelance graphic designer and you better believe I know my shit when it comes to copyright. I've been burned once too often by a client trying to take ownership of the work when they had not negotiated this with me nor had they compensated me enough to even consider letting them have complete ownership of the work.
...I found express what I feel quite nicely. The first article was found through Kuro5hin. The second article is from The Onion. The scary thing about The Onion article is how close to the truth they came this time while still maintaining the parody. I guess the only thing that dies on 9/11 is irony. Go figure.
You CLEARLY have not used InDesign. InDesign 2.0 does EVERYTHING Quark Xpress does and then some. To boot, it has EXCELLENT integration between other Adobe apps allowing for things like native Photoshop and Illustrator images to be dropped into InDesign, no need for TIFFs, and you can still maintain your masks, transfer modes and opacity settings.
Now, if you had said InDesign 1.0 or 1.5 I might have agreed with you.
Do yourself a favor and dump Quark for InDesign. At the very least you should grab the tryout of InDesign 2.0 and do a couple small projects with it. InDesign is a dream to work with and once you use it you won't want to go back to Quark.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually Lindows was implying a partnership with AOL by focusing on the ability for AOL software (the Windows version) to run under Lindows. The page is gone from the Lindows site now, apparently because of this legal threat but it prominent (big and flashing graphics) and on the homepage.
Have you seen the Lindows website? They're already a couple steps in the right direction if their next goal is to piss off Apple. Open Apple.com and Lindows.com side-by-side and compare them.
Ummm...perhaps he was trying out a few different distros? You did know there were different ones didn't you? It's not uncommon for one distro to have 2, sometimes 3 ISO's either so this could only represent two distros he was trying out.
So Microsoft can now use GPL'ed software without adhering to the GPL because IP doesn't exist? You did know that the only thing protecting the GPL is copyright, right? Or were you fooled, like so many other slashbots that copyleft was actually a legal principle completely opposite to copyright? GPL requires copyright to exist otherwise it is a meaningless contract over, as you put it, a non-existent "thing", that cannot be enforced.
Because my XBOX is using my stereo system so I can get the 5.1 audio some games offer :)
My definition of portable is to throw it into one of the bags designed to carry the XBOX and a couple of games and take it with me to the ski chalet or when I visit home on occasion. It's not heavy but then again, I don't think the XBOX controllers are all that bad. I might give the new S controllers a shot but I don't see the need to sink $30 into a new controller at the moment.
The XBOX controllers allow for to memory cards to be used with it. The XBOX is also quite portable and the drive doesn't generate much heat at all. The benefit of the hrad drive on the XBOX ha syet to be fully realized but so far developers can design games which allow for saving without hoping people have the memory card. I believe an upcoming game for the XBOX, Blinx, is supposed to utilize the hard drive in new and interesting ways but details have not been forthcoming as of yet. Another use of the hrad drive is to allow gamers to rip their CDs to the box and play their tune in games such as Project Gotham Racing and Amped instead of having to listen to the canned tunes shipping with these games. Granted Microsoft got some big names to write or offer songs for these games but I don't care for the genre. I'd rather have Metallica or King's X blaring on the Ferrari's stereo while I'm tearing through downtown New York city. Beyond that, it't up to the developers to come up with more creative uses of the hard drive.
One use of this feature can be found in Project Gotham Racing. I can rip my favorine tunes from my CD collection and build a custom playlist. Instead of listening to the crappy in-game music and mindless radio DJs, I can drive to King's X, Van Halen or whatever I want. I think it was a brilliant feature with a promising future.
...how one day you people rail against the RIAA's attempts to shut down P2P, claiming that P2P has other uses than intellectual property theft. On the very same day, and quite often in the same thread, you can argue that Palladium is "evil" and it must die, regardless of the other uses of the technology to secure systems against unauthorized software such as viruses, worms and trojans. You have absolutely no concept what Palladium is but you have no problems condemning the technology. Either make up your mind of STFU. Enough of the hypocrisy.
You apparently have never been in the Air Force. On my first assignment in 1990 at NORAD they were just replacing a series of punch card machines. The graphics systems for generating real-time and excercise data on the big screens in the command center were running off of old Honeywell mainframes obtained second hand from the Army.
on your point 2, DVD hardware manufacturers could not care less whether or not you chip your DVD player. They make back every cent and then some when they sell you the hardware. If Hollywood never sold a DVD it wouldn't matter, in the short term anyway. In the long term it would definitely be less of an incentive for people to buy DVD players now wouldn't it?
Anyway, my point is, console manufacturers count on games being sold. Sony does it, Nintendo does it, Sega used to do it and not Microsoft does it. This isn't some dirty little secret of the console industry nor it is some new conspiracy of Microsoft's. When you allow consoles to me modded you offer fewer reasons for the users to purchase the games and you wind up losing money. When you allow DVD players to be modded you don't lose anything at all.
There's no misinformation, they're just not highlighting some things Palladium might be used for that some might find objectionable. However, Microsoft is NOT setting the rights. Let me repeat that again so it sinks in. Microsoft is NOT setting the rights of intellectual property (other than their own). Palladium is technology, it is amoral. It is up to the content creators to determine what level of DRM, if any, will be set on their works. Personally I see a lot of good coming from Palladium your dad highlighting one of them. Perhaps you should listen more and stop preaching. My guess is your dad is smarter than you think.
This practive is covered under copyright law. It's called "parody". You can look it up yourself but basically this allows the public the right to use copyrighted works in a manner similar to what Woody Allen and MST3K did and not fear any retribution form the copyright holders. You have to be careful how you parody the work though. While Lither Campbell won his lawsuit from Acuff-Rose, he was brought into court to defend his version of Pretty Woman.
No, I never said that. In your example Person A never granted Person B access, explicitly or implicitly. They left a particular port open for the reason of Person A being able to access their system remotely, not for the entire world to be able to rifle through their files and establish the system as a DoS zombie.
But the purpose of an OS is NOT to broadcast open ports, the purpose of P2P apps is. If you had said web server, perhaps but even then you have explicitly allowed guests through a single doorway. If they choose to use the backdoor, they have illegally entered your system, regardless of whether or not the front door is open. If an OS does this it is an unintended result and is not implicitly or explicitly inviting unwanted "guests". If you knowingly fail to patch a system you might not get to throw the proverbial book at the hacker but there is the possibility of some punishment being imposed.
'However, if this was a valid legal/ethical statement, then that would be the perfect justification for any electronic crime. A hacker says, "I wasn't doing anything illegal! I was only probing the ports that they made public!"'
The differenc being that when one leaves a port opened unintentionally they are not explicetely or implicitely inviting in unwanted "guests".
By using Napster, Gnutella or a slew of other P2P apps which open ports on your computer for sharing files, you are explicitely inviting guests, wheher wanted (other P2P file sharers) or unwanted (BayTSP spiders, FBI). You have knowingly opened ports on your system and allowed files to be shared. Even if you don't understand how P2P applications and networks actually work you aren't shielded from the responsibilities of having the files available to be illegally copied.
FINALLY!!! Someone who saw the humor in this. I was beginning to think the slashbot moderators were asleep at the wheel again, letting their autonomous anti-linx comment 'bots scour slashdot for negative comments regardless of humor value.
...I saw all the torches and hayforks. Is this the Frankenstein lynching party or is that one two villages over?
"There have been a few articles now in the press that state there could easily be a terrorist attack on the internet which I merly laughted at but it seems that average joe in the street thinks that a bunch of Afganistan cavemen could seriously achive this."
/. moderators could mod up such vitrol and bigotry. Not to mention your rather self-centered wrap-up comment. Since when did the internet exist for your own personal pleasure? While you might pleasure yourself while on the internet, this is not the same thing as the internet existing to pleasure you personally. I think it's time to change the tin-foil on your head. The mind-beams are starting to seep in.
With comments like this it's no wonder why we underestimated the capabilities of Al Queda. And to think
"Since the radio reaches nearly every corner of our country and nearly everone owns the technology to record that music, I don't see a difference between that and sharing an mp3 file with your friends, other than you get to cut out the retarded DJ who always talks over the song like some dimwit fart."
For starters you could never record the entire album off the radio. Radio stations rarely spin the entire album and when I say rarely I mean rarely.
Next, even with radios using CDs and you recording onto the bext tape possible you still had an inferior copy which would degrade over time. MP3s can be recorded at high bitrates making them effectively equivalent to CD and they do not degrade over time.
This doesn't even go over the copyright issues you face. Radio stations pay licensing fees to broadcast the music they play. Napster and their kin did not. They would have never taken off if they had to. Individuals do not license the rights to distribute music, they are only allowed to make personal copies for themselves. When you place a song onto Napster or soem other P2P network you are distributing intellectual property illegally.
The songs are public domain and you can purchase the songsheets and perform the work yourself all you want. However, something like the recording of the Boston Symphony Orchestra performing Bach and Beethoven is copyrighted as it is the interpretation of the music, not the music itself. Same goes for any classical music CD available today. The performances are copyrighted but you are free to grab the songsheets and perform it yourself all you want.
Wrong, wrong, wrong and twice more wrong. Photographers are typically freelancers. In this case (wedding photographer) they are anyway. And as such they maintain the copyrights on ANY work they do, it doe snot transfer unless EXPLICITLY states in the contract.
A work for hire photographer is someone working for a newspaper or other news source and are paid a salary. You can also fall under work for hire if you work with one company for an extended period of time (typically over 3 months) but by doing so the company has to pay you benefits and cover your taxes and other expenses typically paid by an employer. In this latter case you can agree before hand to void this situation but you should have this written into your contract.
How do I know all this? I'm currently a freelance graphic designer and you better believe I know my shit when it comes to copyright. I've been burned once too often by a client trying to take ownership of the work when they had not negotiated this with me nor had they compensated me enough to even consider letting them have complete ownership of the work.
...I found express what I feel quite nicely. The first article was found through Kuro5hin. The second article is from The Onion. The scary thing about The Onion article is how close to the truth they came this time while still maintaining the parody. I guess the only thing that dies on 9/11 is irony. Go figure.
You CLEARLY have not used InDesign. InDesign 2.0 does EVERYTHING Quark Xpress does and then some. To boot, it has EXCELLENT integration between other Adobe apps allowing for things like native Photoshop and Illustrator images to be dropped into InDesign, no need for TIFFs, and you can still maintain your masks, transfer modes and opacity settings.
Now, if you had said InDesign 1.0 or 1.5 I might have agreed with you.
Do yourself a favor and dump Quark for InDesign. At the very least you should grab the tryout of InDesign 2.0 and do a couple small projects with it. InDesign is a dream to work with and once you use it you won't want to go back to Quark.