The mac has AOL, Netscape and Internet Explorer available as browsers... And there are huge amounts more of pluggins available for the Mac version of Netscape in comparrison to the Linux version of the same program...
SSH was quite easy for me to find (there was a link to one program right from the openssh.org website, as a matter of fact)...
Outlook, I think, is the best email client in the world. Not only does it not crash my Mac, it offers many features that seem to be forgotten about by Netscape/Mozilla (namely, the ability to check multiple POP mailboxes and send email from different accounts without quitting the application...)
Even though the Mac OS doesn't include Eudora, it's quite easy to get... Yes, the free version has an ad, but so far (i've only been playing with it since it was recommended to me a few days ago on here) it still seems to beat out Netscape Messenger and Pine.
There are proxy servers available fro the mac. There's also routing software. Server software (no Apache for another 9 months or so, but if you absoulutely must use it, you can buy webten and have your apache, afterall). As for clients, there are clients for just about any service you could reasonably want available for the Mac.
I think overall the reveiew was geared towards home users who want to be able to buy a computer, do some work and surf the net... Face it... Though (some) people around here are either bright enough or dilegent enought to do it, Linux really isn't ready for wholesale consumption... There are just too many sharp corners left on it.
I've never been aware of any limits pertaining to the strength of domestic encryption software. The regulations have always been about regulating how strong the software can be that's destined to leave the country. So far as 500 bit keys... 128 bits seems more than strong enough right now for just about any purpose. If you desire stronger, you can get stronger, but you're really just shifting the bottle neck even more towards the password (if your password is 10 characters (80 bits) and your key is 500 bits which one do you think people will attack?)
I wish there was some study that showed peoples average PGP password lengths.... But it's kind of hard to get even that much information out of them!:)
I don't mean this to sound like flamebait, but it always seems that the PowerPC is playing second or third fiddle.
I think this is flamebait...
It gets knocked aside by x86 users on the desktop due to lack of applications.
Same thing always happens to Linux around here, but everyone seems to defend that OS.
Yeah, sure, it's nifty to do graphics/desktop publishing, but if you're serious about that, you're running an Amiga or BeOS anyway.
The Mac decimates both the Amiga and BeOS in the graphics and desktop publishing arena's. The Amiga used to be (and still is somewhat) a wonderous machine to work with video with, but it's been floundering the past several years due to not really having an owner that's been willing to pour money into it. The BeOS, yes, has a more elegant architecture, but alas, it lacks color management, postscript font support, and applications from Quark, Adobe, and Macromedia. Until it gets more apps, the BeOS will remain an oddity to everyone except it's core users.
I recall reading once that a Mac makes a nice webserver because it's too dumb to really break into or do any damage.
Well, that's true, but if you're buying a mac specifically to serve web pages, in most cases I'd say that you just wasted a pile of money... Or else you're limiting your sites functionality serverly. The mac is missing a lot of support i the server arena. Doubtless, that will change when OS X arrives, but until then.
So why do people insist on using the Power PC?
Because 99% of the computers that use PowerPC's run the Mac OS. And some people prefer that OS to those available from Microsoft, IBM, Redhat, Be, or any other. They even like it enough to spend a few more dollars on the hardware i nwhich to run it.
Why do companies like IBM spend development dollars trying to push an outdated chip architecture, when they could be pushing next generation technologies.
With Apple shipping nearly a million iMacs and G3/G4's per quarter and with Power PC chips selling for (a complete stab in the dark) $250 a piece, that translates to a BILLION dollars a year of business for IBM and Motorolla. If you ran a company, would you turn down that much money?
The PowerPC chip isn't geared towards "PC's" as it's name implies... At least in my world, i equate PC with "x86 compatible". People shouldn't be buying Power PC based computers unless (for now) they want to run the Mac OS, or for the small percentage of folks (Linux PPC users) they value to superior hardware designs enough that a few more dollars doesn't hurt. Asd for your 3 year time limit, I don't quite get it. Are you suggesting that Mac users should abandon the platform they chose and switch to Windows or Linux after 3 years for no reason? I've been computing for 15 or so years and the Mac is still my favorite platform for getting work done on and I'm sure plenty of other/. readers will agree..
Although I do think that copyright is corrupt in America. The original spirit of fostering innovation has been replaced with lining corporation's pockets. I think ~15-20 years (for corporate copyrights), and the lifetime of the author (for individual copyrights) would be ideal.
PATENTS were/are about fostering innovation COPYRIGHTS have always been about lining the copyright holders pockets. That's their entire point, to prevent unauthorized copying, to guarentee that the author has control over their works, etc....
As for your ingenious idea about copyright lives... you've just created a cottage industry of people being hired by corporations in oder to have copyrights assigned to them. And what about the individual on the other end of the scale that's doing really good withtheir business and forms a corporation to separate his affairs... Would that make his or her work less valuable and therefore lose protection in a shorter period of time?
Corporations are individuals in the eyes of the law. And there's so much grey area between multinational corporation and the writer who lives in the woods of montana, that really, the law is right in being crafted equally across all the spectrum. Otherwise, would a single person corporations property be worth less than a private partnership comprising several dozen employees and grossing $20 million a year?
Why? Copyrights are only placed on finished works... How is a book that was written 50 years ago any less relevant today than when it was first published? How is a musical work any less inspiring simply because it's old? Copyrights are not akin to patents where patents protect implentations and idea's, where as copyrights protect finished works.
If someone has copyrighted something, it's very difficult for that copyright to prevent you from creating something of your own unless you were copying directly from the copywritten material. Software (source code) has been deteremined to be "speech", and therefore its' afforded all the protections as such.
At that price, it's cheap enough I wouldn't mind, and expensive enough that the artist still gets a similar amount to the figure they'd get if I bought the CD - but without the middleman taking his 95% cut. The `radio sites', meanwhile, could use banner ads, subscriptions, etc. to cover their costs.
You're forgetting that recordings take time and money. Equipment costs money. Studio expertise costs money. Promotion costs money. That's what the labels supply. Yeah, artists like Metallica, U2, Dr. Dre, and Chuck D can all live quite fine without labels at this point in their careers, would any of them have gotten to where they are today without the labels backing and support? Doubtfully.
Yes there is something fucked up about the music industry... But it's not our issue. It's the issue of each successive generation of artists that signs away their lives for a check without bothering to ever read the contract. You're in no way helping the up and coming artists by downloading mp3'ed versions of their songs without their consent and "promising" to attend more of their shows or buy more of their t-shirts. You're just making life harder on them, and in the short term, could even squelch a lot of music that might come out in the next few years...
Just buy the CD's, unless the artists (via their websites, interviews, liner notes, etc...) explicitly state that they are pro-MP3. Otherwise you're stealing from them... And leave it up to them to negotiate better deals.
Command line BSD apps should have no problem running across platforms, once they're recompiled. Apps that need access to non-standard libraries won't run across platforms. For instance, you can't very well run Netscape on Linux unless you've got X installed. Likewise, you won't be able to run Mac OS X binaries on Free or NetBSD because they won't have access to the Carbon, Cocoa, or Quartz API's...
And besides that, OS X isn't built around a BSD kernel, as far as i knew... I thought it was the Mach kernel running a BSD personality? Don't know if that makes much of a difference, though, except to further illustrate that OS-X and *BSD might be related, but they're definetly not twins or anything like that, if that makes any sense.
If adobe wanted their apps to run under Linux, they would already have them there... A number of their products run under various unixes, such as Acrobat Reader, Framemaker, Document Server, etc...
In the past they had Photoshop (either version 2.5 or 3.0, I forgot which) available for IRIX (at the very least. I think it might have been available for Solaris as well)... So all the works been done... The jump from X/Solaris or X/Irix to X/Linux should be much easier to make than the leap from Quartz/OS X to X/Linux.
I guess the point is that just because OS X is based on BSD/Mach, that only affects the very low level pieces of the Apps... And since Adobe has ported their applications to Unix as it's seen fit, they're either preparing to port their apps, or they simply don't see much of a market for their stuff at this point.
Maybe if any of the registered adobe photoshop owners around here started (kindly) stating their interest in a port to Linux, some progress would be made on that front.
For one, how can you have an opinion of the performance of the Duron chip, being that it's not yet availabe and you don't have an @amd.com in your email address?:)
The difference between Celerons and Pentium III's at the same speed is minimal, unless you work with data that's too large for the Celeron's cache but small enough to fit into the Pentium III's... That's probably a very small subset of the population... It's either small enough, or it isn't. If you're working with word documents, it will probably fit. If you're editing graphics or video, or if you're writing large programs, it probably won't.
The reason that Celeron's at this point appear inferior to P-III's is simply that Intel refuses to let Celeron's be released at speeds that might compete with the Pentium family. The moment that Duron chips march into the Celeron's market, watch as Intel hurriedly rushes faster and faster chips out the door. Not saying that my fingers aren't crossed for the Duron to be successful. I just think it's inappropriate to make presumptions on non-shipping products based on information that the manufacturer supplies (and that holds true for everyone, Intel, Apple, Microsoft, Transemeta, etc...)
2 more questions... How much does it cost (I'm just curious... if it's actually useful, i have no problem paying for it), and can it syncronize with my Palm?
I do believe I've found a version of Eudora that was integrated with PGP, though... That was really cool... if you had a key for a given recipient it would automatically encrypt the message for that person. Much better than outlooks insistance on using only certificates that come from a "trusted" source and therefore cost $$$.
Of course the Mac version of Outlook doesn't seem to want to support any signing/encryption schemes, so it's a moot point.
Eudora Pro, you said? Maybe i'll go check it out....
But all those apps should run under OS X with no difficulties... And if the developers want to (Adobe's already done it, AFAIK) they can Carbonize their apps to take advantage of all that OS X has to offer. But, basically any app that runs under OS 9 will run under OS X... That gives apple a HUGE leg up on application availability in comparison to BeOS and even Win2000...
Thanks to Apple for having so much experience with huge achitectural shifts (68k to PowerPC, Nubus to PCI - that wasn't so drastic, but it was still seemless, and now OS 7-->9 to X) they know exactly what it takes to make the transitions work, and as a result have raised the bar as to what's expected of them when they make these transitions.
Face it... It's not feasible yet... The apps just aren't there, unless you want to try really really hard. And most users don't want to. They just want a computer to turn on and do what they want it to do. So maybe, if you want to be helpful, have your friends switch to Macs... In a few months or a few years (whenver they're ready), they can either step up to OS X, or LinuxPPC.
Besides that, I'm willing to bet that there are just as many insecurities in Linux as there are in NT.... It's just NT's a lot more hated and more popular than linux so everyone spends all their time hunting for ways to hack NT. Yes, Linux fixes come faster, but what good is that if you tried to compile an app you heard about only to find that the makefile was actually a shell script that removed all of the files in your/home/~ directory?
I ctually like Outlook Express more than any other mail reader... Compared to say netscape messenger, Outlook can: Recieve mail from multiple POP boxes without needing to change identities, let you decide which account you'd like to send each mail from from the message composition window, has a much better rule system for filing messages, and it just plain looks nicer than any of the other apps i've used.
Too bad, though, that all these macro virus' don't seem to want to infect Mac's.... I get to use good software without all the worries that go along with MSFT.... As a matter of fact, it seems that all of Microsoft's apps for the Mac are much better built than the same exact ones for Windows. How can Microsoft explain that, while also explaining that being broken up would destroy their "synergy", etc...?
MD5 shouldn't ever output the same signature for two different files... And the volume of metallica songs isn't that large... even with all the variations of encoders and quality, etc... there would probably only end up being 10,000 or so unique signatures that needed to be blocked... As they found more, they could add those on to the list, and still be possitive that they weren't blocking anything that shouldn't be blocked.
Thinking about it, if Napster really wanted to try to show itself as being responsible, they should start incorporating the signatures into their software to make it easier for artists to opt themselves out of their "service". An artist could just call them up and say hi, i'm so and so and i'd like you to block all of my songs from being downloaded, except for these 3 specific ones, which i want to distribute on Napster.
IF you did nothing illegal (not making their songs available for others to download), then appealing would not put you in any bad position, because they'ed have no premise to sue you on. But if you have songs of theirs in your napster directory, then you are doing something wrong and shouldn't bother appealing.
Version 1.0 on the Mac did play pirated games. Sony yelled and jumped up and down a little bit, and Connectix rolled out version 1.01 which supported a few more games (i believe) but refused to play pirated games anymore... Since then, I don't think that there's been a commercial emulator that can play pirated games. Something about an intentionally messed up checksum on one of the CD sectors that gets fixed when the CD is copied and lets the playstation know not to play it.
I don't know if you're trying to be funny or what... But the internet is hardly the PC's territory as compared to Playstation games being Sony's territory.
The internet existed for years before PC's even existed. Right now, the majority of machines connected to the internet are "PC's", but when the day comes taht everyone's alarm clocks, refridgereators, TV's, coffee makers, refridgerators, and home security systems (Hello, George Orwell!) are all connected to the internet, the PC will be relegated to a much smaller percentage of systems out there.
Not that I'm saying that Sony should be allowed to bar a clean-room reverse engineered title from the market (in fact, I'd think they'ed want to encourage it... Developers need to buy pricey systems from them to develop games, they need to get license SDK's from them, they need to pay them royalties, while sony apparently loses money on each playstation it sells...). I just don't think that anyone should say that the internet is the territory of the PC...
Keep walking in that direction and you'll find yourself saying that the internet is in fact the territory of Windows... Which is owned by Microsoft, which would in fact make the internet Microsoft's territory. No... The internet was developed as a heterogenious (sp?) network.
That's all for now...
Re:Artists need to protect their livelihoods
on
An MP3 Update
·
· Score: 1
Just for the record, Redhat's lost several million dollars selling something that's free in the past few quarters... Whereas the labels pay everyone involved with the creation of a CD, Redhat pays only it's staffers, who, by themselves, create a very minimal part of the Redhat Linux distribution. They're also moving away from a model of selling the boxed software to a software support model. That can work for software, but not for music. It's not like you can sell a support contract for the CD you just released.
Re:Artists need to protect their livelihoods
on
An MP3 Update
·
· Score: 1
You can't be serious. Test people to see if they are suitable to access the net? Who would decide who is suitable. You? what if I don't like your requirements. We happen to live in free society, where all speech is supposed to be allowed, whether it be anti christian diatribes, or coporate indignation over copyright infringement. If you don't like whats on the net don't read it.
Well, i see someone else broughtup the comparison to driving... But one could be made about haiving kids... like it can happen by accident to anyone in the world, but if a couple decides they want to adopt, they have to withstand a barrage of paperwork , questions, etc, as they prove that they are fit to be parents.
As for MP3's free distibution of them on the net is not robbing artists of their lively hood. If anything it is increaseing it.
How can taking something that was once sold and depended on for income and giving it way for free stand the chance of increasing their livilehoods? I'm completely stumped on that one.
Oh, it's because People who down load mps3's and like the music are going to support the band by attending concerts, buying merchandise, and even purchasing cd's.
Touring costs money for a band... some bands live only in the studio... some bands are just too old to handle a prolonged tour, so they play mostly the studio and the occassional show... As far as merchandising goes... i'm a fan of quite a few bands, but i've only ever purchased their CD's and records... okay, no. I've bought one tshirt and one poster. Hmmmm... what works out better for the artists? someone buying their CD, or 1 in 20 people that would have bought their CD buying their shirt?
Admittedly this may mean a change in the business model for the industry, but as far as I'm concerned any band that doesn't like it can stop producing music.
And are you an economics major? Yeah... the business model needs a revamping... but what napster doing is stamping out the artists as well as the labels... labels do serve some purposes, most notably for the fans, paying the artists and fronting them money to do nifty stuff like make CD's, buy studio time, put on tours, etc... How are they going to be able to do that stuff in your world?
I can't imagine that anything in one can do in HTML is novel enough to warrant copyright.
That's akin to saying that anything you type on a typewriter is not worthy of a copyright. A typewriter is (in my eyes) a much more cludgy tool than a computer, but works created off of that are copywritten all the time. I also placed a copyright on my homepage. Not like it matters much... But the point is that was done in HTML...
Included on that list was "mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring." That's a pretty good description of what HTML does. Essentially HTML is a programming language, as is Postscript... HTML could be considered to "run" inside the browser to create what you see on the screen. In that context, programs and source code are definetly without a doubt copyrightable. Further, anything you type or write down or otherwise "communicate", you can copyright. The use of sourcecode as communcation is how things like PGPI appeared, under the premise that source code is speech.
lso on the list was "works consisting entirely of information that is common property and containing no original authorship." HTML code would seem to fall into that category as well. I seriously doubt that anyone was trying to copyright the tags themselves (I don't even know how to type them in here so they won't just become tags)... They were copyrighting the entire page.... That's permissible... Just as copyrighting a design is.
In all actualality the graph designers guild raised a LOT of flack about the concept of works for hire... It's so easy for an employer to exploit someone whose done their work as a work for hire... in most cases, you need permission to even display a work for hire in your portfolio, etc...
At an agency i used to work at, if someone wanted a magazine ad it cost them x dollars for film delivered to them... if they wanted the computer files it was 3x. Seemed simple. Most people just wanted the final film, anyhow.
I can't imagine that anything in one can do in HTML is novel enough to warrant copyright.
That's akin to saying that anything you type on a typewriter is not worthy of a copyright. A typewriter is (in my eyes) a much more cludgy tool than a computer, but works created off of that are copywritten all the time. I also placed a copyright on my homepage. Not like it matters much... But the point is that was done in HTML...
Included on that list was "mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring." That's a pretty good description of what HTML does. Essentially HTML is a programming language, as is Postscript... HTML could be considered to "run" inside the browser to create what you see on the screen. In that context, programs and source code are definetly without a doubt copyrightable. Further, anything you type or write down or otherwise "communicate", you can copyright. The use of sourcecode as communcation is how things like PGPI appeared, under the premise that source code is speech.
lso on the list was "works consisting entirely of information that is common property and containing no original authorship." HTML code would seem to fall into that category as well. I seriously doubt that anyone was trying to copyright the tags themselves (I don't even know how to type them in here so they won't just become tags)... They were copyrighting the entire page.... That's permissible... Just as copyrighting a design is.
In all actualality the graph designers guild raised a LOT of flack about the concept of works for hire... It's so easy for an employer to exploit someone whose done their work as a work for hire... in most cases, you need permission to even display a work for hire in your portfolio, etc...
At an agency i used to work at, if someone wanted a magazine ad it cost them x dollars for film delivered to them... if they wanted the computer files it was 3x. Seemed simple. Most people just wanted the final film, anyhow.
*: To get the four to six dollar estimate, I am considering a $0.50-$1.00 cost of manufacturing and then a much larger advertising and distribution budget.
tell me this: Why does a red hat CD cost $50-$120, depending on the version? Why does a Windows 2000 CD cost $300? And why does Netscapes Application Server run $35,000 for the CD? They all cost exactly as much as a music CD to produce, except some of them come in bigger boxes and have manuals... so add $.50 for the box, $1.00 for the manual, and that means that we should be seeing all software sold at Cheapbytes prices.
I mean, you're completely forgetting all the people involved in the CD... Go learn more about the record industry, or at least exactly what it takes to produce a CD, before you make up figures, please.
I was just showing where the money goes on a typical, non-platinum CD... Of course, everything varies slightly and wildly... Some producers demand percentages of sales, while other demand cash up front. Same goes with almost everyone else in the industry... But one thing is for sure... You need to forget about the nonsense of a tour paying for itself... That just doesn't happen unless the band in question is among the elite 1% of stardom... The Grateful dead made money touring, yes... but they had some of the most rabid fans in the world, plus they toured non-stop for 20+ years... springsteen made money on his tour, probably, as did the stones (they had to with what they were charging for tickets.) But for most smaller acts, touring is a money losing experience in the hopes that it will sell more CD's...
So far as your theory goes for online music distribution goes... it sounds like a good start. At least you (as opposed to napster) have an idea as to how to make sure everyone gets paid that needs to get paid.
Napster never even took that into consideration and they're now paying the price
Most of connectix's Mac Products (RAM Doubler, Speed Doubler, Virtual PC, and Virtual Playstation) have all relied quite heavily on assembly language to eke every bit of performance from their products... It's not that no one does it because of the insanity of it, it's just becoming a lost art with, as it's need becomes less and less with every new generation of CPU's
Have you ever tried to do the math to figure out how much it actually costs a band to record a CD? Everyone want's their cut.... producers, engineers, technicians, label, manager, studio, etc... It's not like Metallica takes $1 and the label takes $14.
More like Metallica takes $1 The CD cost a $1 to produce (stamp) The label takes $2.50 The producer takes $.25 The engineers take $.25 The studio technicians take $.25 The manager takes $.50 The studio time cost $1 The video production costs take $.25 The support tour to drive the CD sales takes $2.00 The distributor takes $1.00 And the record store takes $3.50
The labels just look like they're getting so immensly rich because they have hundreds of bands operating under them... And they may make one of the biggest cuts, but they were also the ones that came up with the money to pay all the bills in advance.
Everyone should realize that the actual cost of the CD is neglible... It's just the physical representation of all the work. If you get the songs without the CD, just about all the other bills still apply.
Slashdot Mirror
The mac has AOL, Netscape and Internet Explorer available as browsers... And there are huge amounts more of pluggins available for the Mac version of Netscape in comparrison to the Linux version of the same program...
SSH was quite easy for me to find (there was a link to one program right from the openssh.org website, as a matter of fact)...
Outlook, I think, is the best email client in the world. Not only does it not crash my Mac, it offers many features that seem to be forgotten about by Netscape/Mozilla (namely, the ability to check multiple POP mailboxes and send email from different accounts without quitting the application...)
Even though the Mac OS doesn't include Eudora, it's quite easy to get... Yes, the free version has an ad, but so far (i've only been playing with it since it was recommended to me a few days ago on here) it still seems to beat out Netscape Messenger and Pine.
There are proxy servers available fro the mac. There's also routing software. Server software (no Apache for another 9 months or so, but if you absoulutely must use it, you can buy webten and have your apache, afterall). As for clients, there are clients for just about any service you could reasonably want available for the Mac.
I think overall the reveiew was geared towards home users who want to be able to buy a computer, do some work and surf the net... Face it... Though (some) people around here are either bright enough or dilegent enought to do it, Linux really isn't ready for wholesale consumption... There are just too many sharp corners left on it.
I've never been aware of any limits pertaining to the strength of domestic encryption software. The regulations have always been about regulating how strong the software can be that's destined to leave the country. So far as 500 bit keys... 128 bits seems more than strong enough right now for just about any purpose. If you desire stronger, you can get stronger, but you're really just shifting the bottle neck even more towards the password (if your password is 10 characters (80 bits) and your key is 500 bits which one do you think people will attack?)
:)
I wish there was some study that showed peoples average PGP password lengths.... But it's kind of hard to get even that much information out of them!
I don't mean this to sound like flamebait, but it always seems that the PowerPC is playing second or third fiddle.
/. readers will agree..
I think this is flamebait...
It gets knocked aside by x86 users on the desktop due to lack of applications.
Same thing always happens to Linux around here, but everyone seems to defend that OS.
Yeah, sure, it's nifty to do graphics/desktop publishing, but if you're serious about that, you're running an Amiga or BeOS anyway.
The Mac decimates both the Amiga and BeOS in the graphics and desktop publishing arena's. The Amiga used to be (and still is somewhat) a wonderous machine to work with video with, but it's been floundering the past several years due to not really having an owner that's been willing to pour money into it. The BeOS, yes, has a more elegant architecture, but alas, it lacks color management, postscript font support, and applications from Quark, Adobe, and Macromedia. Until it gets more apps, the BeOS will remain an oddity to everyone except it's core users.
I recall reading once that a Mac makes a nice webserver because it's too dumb to really break into or do any damage.
Well, that's true, but if you're buying a mac specifically to serve web pages, in most cases I'd say that you just wasted a pile of money... Or else you're limiting your sites functionality serverly. The mac is missing a lot of support i the server arena. Doubtless, that will change when OS X arrives, but until then.
So why do people insist on using the Power PC?
Because 99% of the computers that use PowerPC's run the Mac OS. And some people prefer that OS to those available from Microsoft, IBM, Redhat, Be, or any other. They even like it enough to spend a few more dollars on the hardware i nwhich to run it.
Why do companies like IBM spend development dollars trying to push an outdated chip architecture, when they could be pushing next generation technologies.
With Apple shipping nearly a million iMacs and G3/G4's per quarter and with Power PC chips selling for (a complete stab in the dark) $250 a piece, that translates to a BILLION dollars a year of business for IBM and Motorolla. If you ran a company, would you turn down that much money?
The PowerPC chip isn't geared towards "PC's" as it's name implies... At least in my world, i equate PC with "x86 compatible". People shouldn't be buying Power PC based computers unless (for now) they want to run the Mac OS, or for the small percentage of folks (Linux PPC users) they value to superior hardware designs enough that a few more dollars doesn't hurt. Asd for your 3 year time limit, I don't quite get it. Are you suggesting that Mac users should abandon the platform they chose and switch to Windows or Linux after 3 years for no reason? I've been computing for 15 or so years and the Mac is still my favorite platform for getting work done on and I'm sure plenty of other
Although I do think that copyright is corrupt in America.
The original spirit of fostering innovation has been replaced with lining corporation's pockets.
I think ~15-20 years (for corporate copyrights), and
the lifetime of the author (for individual copyrights) would be ideal.
PATENTS were/are about fostering innovation
COPYRIGHTS have always been about lining the copyright holders pockets. That's their entire point, to prevent unauthorized copying, to guarentee that the author has control over their works, etc....
As for your ingenious idea about copyright lives... you've just created a cottage industry of people being hired by corporations in oder to have copyrights assigned to them. And what about the individual on the other end of the scale that's doing really good withtheir business and forms a corporation to separate his affairs... Would that make his or her work less valuable and therefore lose protection in a shorter period of time?
Corporations are individuals in the eyes of the law. And there's so much grey area between multinational corporation and the writer who lives in the woods of montana, that really, the law is right in being crafted equally across all the spectrum. Otherwise, would a single person corporations property be worth less than a private partnership comprising several dozen employees and grossing $20 million a year?
Why? Copyrights are only placed on finished works... How is a book that was written 50 years ago any less relevant today than when it was first published? How is a musical work any less inspiring simply because it's old? Copyrights are not akin to patents where patents protect implentations and idea's, where as copyrights protect finished works.
If someone has copyrighted something, it's very difficult for that copyright to prevent you from creating something of your own unless you were copying directly from the copywritten material. Software (source code) has been deteremined to be "speech", and therefore its' afforded all the protections as such.
At that price, it's cheap enough I wouldn't mind, and expensive enough that the artist still gets a similar amount to the figure they'd get if I bought the CD - but without the middleman taking his 95% cut. The `radio sites', meanwhile, could use banner ads, subscriptions, etc. to cover their costs.
You're forgetting that recordings take time and money. Equipment costs money. Studio expertise costs money. Promotion costs money. That's what the labels supply. Yeah, artists like Metallica, U2, Dr. Dre, and Chuck D can all live quite fine without labels at this point in their careers, would any of them have gotten to where they are today without the labels backing and support? Doubtfully.
Yes there is something fucked up about the music industry... But it's not our issue. It's the issue of each successive generation of artists that signs away their lives for a check without bothering to ever read the contract. You're in no way helping the up and coming artists by downloading mp3'ed versions of their songs without their consent and "promising" to attend more of their shows or buy more of their t-shirts. You're just making life harder on them, and in the short term, could even squelch a lot of music that might come out in the next few years...
Just buy the CD's, unless the artists (via their websites, interviews, liner notes, etc...) explicitly state that they are pro-MP3. Otherwise you're stealing from them... And leave it up to them to negotiate better deals.
Command line BSD apps should have no problem running across platforms, once they're recompiled. Apps that need access to non-standard libraries won't run across platforms. For instance, you can't very well run Netscape on Linux unless you've got X installed. Likewise, you won't be able to run Mac OS X binaries on Free or NetBSD because they won't have access to the Carbon, Cocoa, or Quartz API's...
And besides that, OS X isn't built around a BSD kernel, as far as i knew... I thought it was the Mach kernel running a BSD personality? Don't know if that makes much of a difference, though, except to further illustrate that OS-X and *BSD might be related, but they're definetly not twins or anything like that, if that makes any sense.
If adobe wanted their apps to run under Linux, they would already have them there... A number of their products run under various unixes, such as Acrobat Reader, Framemaker, Document Server, etc...
In the past they had Photoshop (either version 2.5 or 3.0, I forgot which) available for IRIX (at the very least. I think it might have been available for Solaris as well)... So all the works been done... The jump from X/Solaris or X/Irix to X/Linux should be much easier to make than the leap from Quartz/OS X to X/Linux.
I guess the point is that just because OS X is based on BSD/Mach, that only affects the very low level pieces of the Apps... And since Adobe has ported their applications to Unix as it's seen fit, they're either preparing to port their apps, or they simply don't see much of a market for their stuff at this point.
Maybe if any of the registered adobe photoshop owners around here started (kindly) stating their interest in a port to Linux, some progress would be made on that front.
For one, how can you have an opinion of the performance of the Duron chip, being that it's not yet availabe and you don't have an @amd.com in your email address? :)
The difference between Celerons and Pentium III's at the same speed is minimal, unless you work with data that's too large for the Celeron's cache but small enough to fit into the Pentium III's... That's probably a very small subset of the population... It's either small enough, or it isn't. If you're working with word documents, it will probably fit. If you're editing graphics or video, or if you're writing large programs, it probably won't.
The reason that Celeron's at this point appear inferior to P-III's is simply that Intel refuses to let Celeron's be released at speeds that might compete with the Pentium family. The moment that Duron chips march into the Celeron's market, watch as Intel hurriedly rushes faster and faster chips out the door. Not saying that my fingers aren't crossed for the Duron to be successful. I just think it's inappropriate to make presumptions on non-shipping products based on information that the manufacturer supplies (and that holds true for everyone, Intel, Apple, Microsoft, Transemeta, etc...)
2 more questions... How much does it cost (I'm just curious... if it's actually useful, i have no problem paying for it), and can it syncronize with my Palm?
I do believe I've found a version of Eudora that was integrated with PGP, though... That was really cool... if you had a key for a given recipient it would automatically encrypt the message for that person. Much better than outlooks insistance on using only certificates that come from a "trusted" source and therefore cost $$$.
Of course the Mac version of Outlook doesn't seem to want to support any signing/encryption schemes, so it's a moot point.
Eudora Pro, you said? Maybe i'll go check it out....
But all those apps should run under OS X with no difficulties... And if the developers want to (Adobe's already done it, AFAIK) they can Carbonize their apps to take advantage of all that OS X has to offer. But, basically any app that runs under OS 9 will run under OS X... That gives apple a HUGE leg up on application availability in comparison to BeOS and even Win2000...
Thanks to Apple for having so much experience with huge achitectural shifts (68k to PowerPC, Nubus to PCI - that wasn't so drastic, but it was still seemless, and now OS 7-->9 to X) they know exactly what it takes to make the transitions work, and as a result have raised the bar as to what's expected of them when they make these transitions.
Face it... It's not feasible yet... The apps just aren't there, unless you want to try really really hard. And most users don't want to. They just want a computer to turn on and do what they want it to do. So maybe, if you want to be helpful, have your friends switch to Macs... In a few months or a few years (whenver they're ready), they can either step up to OS X, or LinuxPPC.
/home/~ directory?
Besides that, I'm willing to bet that there are just as many insecurities in Linux as there are in NT.... It's just NT's a lot more hated and more popular than linux so everyone spends all their time hunting for ways to hack NT. Yes, Linux fixes come faster, but what good is that if you tried to compile an app you heard about only to find that the makefile was actually a shell script that removed all of the files in your
I ctually like Outlook Express more than any other mail reader... Compared to say netscape messenger, Outlook can: Recieve mail from multiple POP boxes without needing to change identities, let you decide which account you'd like to send each mail from from the message composition window, has a much better rule system for filing messages, and it just plain looks nicer than any of the other apps i've used.
Too bad, though, that all these macro virus' don't seem to want to infect Mac's.... I get to use good software without all the worries that go along with MSFT.... As a matter of fact, it seems that all of Microsoft's apps for the Mac are much better built than the same exact ones for Windows. How can Microsoft explain that, while also explaining that being broken up would destroy their "synergy", etc...?
MD5 shouldn't ever output the same signature for two different files... And the volume of metallica songs isn't that large... even with all the variations of encoders and quality, etc... there would probably only end up being 10,000 or so unique signatures that needed to be blocked... As they found more, they could add those on to the list, and still be possitive that they weren't blocking anything that shouldn't be blocked.
Thinking about it, if Napster really wanted to try to show itself as being responsible, they should start incorporating the signatures into their software to make it easier for artists to opt themselves out of their "service". An artist could just call them up and say hi, i'm so and so and i'd like you to block all of my songs from being downloaded, except for these 3 specific ones, which i want to distribute on Napster.
It's completely managable and feasible...
IF you did nothing illegal (not making their songs available for others to download), then appealing would not put you in any bad position, because they'ed have no premise to sue you on. But if you have songs of theirs in your napster directory, then you are doing something wrong and shouldn't bother appealing.
Version 1.0 on the Mac did play pirated games. Sony yelled and jumped up and down a little bit, and Connectix rolled out version 1.01 which supported a few more games (i believe) but refused to play pirated games anymore... Since then, I don't think that there's been a commercial emulator that can play pirated games. Something about an intentionally messed up checksum on one of the CD sectors that gets fixed when the CD is copied and lets the playstation know not to play it.
I don't know if you're trying to be funny or what... But the internet is hardly the PC's territory as compared to Playstation games being Sony's territory.
The internet existed for years before PC's even existed. Right now, the majority of machines connected to the internet are "PC's", but when the day comes taht everyone's alarm clocks, refridgereators, TV's, coffee makers, refridgerators, and home security systems (Hello, George Orwell!) are all connected to the internet, the PC will be relegated to a much smaller percentage of systems out there.
Not that I'm saying that Sony should be allowed to bar a clean-room reverse engineered title from the market (in fact, I'd think they'ed want to encourage it... Developers need to buy pricey systems from them to develop games, they need to get license SDK's from them, they need to pay them royalties, while sony apparently loses money on each playstation it sells...). I just don't think that anyone should say that the internet is the territory of the PC...
Keep walking in that direction and you'll find yourself saying that the internet is in fact the territory of Windows... Which is owned by Microsoft, which would in fact make the internet Microsoft's territory. No... The internet was developed as a heterogenious (sp?) network.
That's all for now...
Just for the record, Redhat's lost several million dollars selling something that's free in the past few quarters... Whereas the labels pay everyone involved with the creation of a CD, Redhat pays only it's staffers, who, by themselves, create a very minimal part of the Redhat Linux distribution. They're also moving away from a model of selling the boxed software to a software support model. That can work for software, but not for music. It's not like you can sell a support contract for the CD you just released.
You can't be serious. Test people to see if they are suitable to access the net? Who would decide who is suitable. You? what if I don't like your requirements. We happen to live in free society, where all speech is supposed to be allowed, whether it be anti christian diatribes, or coporate indignation over copyright infringement. If you don't like whats on the net don't read it.
Well, i see someone else broughtup the comparison to driving... But one could be made about haiving kids... like it can happen by accident to anyone in the world, but if a couple decides they want to adopt, they have to withstand a barrage of paperwork , questions, etc, as they prove that they are fit to be parents.
As for MP3's free distibution of them on the net is not robbing artists of their lively hood. If anything it is increaseing it.
How can taking something that was once sold and depended on for income and giving it way for free stand the chance of increasing their livilehoods? I'm completely stumped on that one.
Oh, it's because People who down load mps3's and like the music are going to support the band by attending concerts, buying merchandise, and even purchasing cd's.
Touring costs money for a band... some bands live only in the studio... some bands are just too old to handle a prolonged tour, so they play mostly the studio and the occassional show... As far as merchandising goes... i'm a fan of quite a few bands, but i've only ever purchased their CD's and records... okay, no. I've bought one tshirt and one poster. Hmmmm... what works out better for the artists? someone buying their CD, or 1 in 20 people that would have bought their CD buying their shirt?
Admittedly this may mean a change in the business model for the industry, but as far as I'm concerned any band that doesn't like it can stop producing music.
And are you an economics major? Yeah... the business model needs a revamping... but what napster doing is stamping out the artists as well as the labels... labels do serve some purposes, most notably for the fans, paying the artists and fronting them money to do nifty stuff like make CD's, buy studio time, put on tours, etc... How are they going to be able to do that stuff in your world?
I can't imagine that anything in one can do in HTML is novel enough to warrant copyright.
That's akin to saying that anything you type on a typewriter is not worthy of a copyright. A typewriter is (in my eyes) a much more cludgy tool than a computer, but works created off of that are copywritten all the time. I also placed a copyright on my homepage. Not like it matters much... But the point is that was done in HTML...
Included on that list was "mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring." That's a pretty good description of what HTML does.
Essentially HTML is a programming language, as is Postscript... HTML could be considered to "run" inside the browser to create what you see on the screen. In that context, programs and source code are definetly without a doubt copyrightable. Further, anything you type or write down or otherwise "communicate", you can copyright. The use of sourcecode as communcation is how things like PGPI appeared, under the premise that source code is speech.
lso on the list was "works consisting entirely of information that is common property and containing no original authorship." HTML code would seem to fall into that category as well.
I seriously doubt that anyone was trying to copyright the tags themselves (I don't even know how to type them in here so they won't just become tags)... They were copyrighting the entire page.... That's permissible... Just as copyrighting a design is.
In all actualality the graph designers guild raised a LOT of flack about the concept of works for hire... It's so easy for an employer to exploit someone whose done their work as a work for hire... in most cases, you need permission to even display a work for hire in your portfolio, etc...
At an agency i used to work at, if someone wanted a magazine ad it cost them x dollars for film delivered to them... if they wanted the computer files it was 3x. Seemed simple. Most people just wanted the final film, anyhow.
I can't imagine that anything in one can do in HTML is novel enough to warrant copyright.
That's akin to saying that anything you type on a typewriter is not worthy of a copyright. A typewriter is (in my eyes) a much more cludgy tool than a computer, but works created off of that are copywritten all the time. I also placed a copyright on my homepage. Not like it matters much... But the point is that was done in HTML...
Included on that list was "mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring." That's a pretty good description of what HTML does.
Essentially HTML is a programming language, as is Postscript... HTML could be considered to "run" inside the browser to create what you see on the screen. In that context, programs and source code are definetly without a doubt copyrightable. Further, anything you type or write down or otherwise "communicate", you can copyright. The use of sourcecode as communcation is how things like PGPI appeared, under the premise that source code is speech.
lso on the list was "works consisting entirely of information that is common property and containing no original authorship." HTML code would seem to fall into that category as well.
I seriously doubt that anyone was trying to copyright the tags themselves (I don't even know how to type them in here so they won't just become tags)... They were copyrighting the entire page.... That's permissible... Just as copyrighting a design is.
In all actualality the graph designers guild raised a LOT of flack about the concept of works for hire... It's so easy for an employer to exploit someone whose done their work as a work for hire... in most cases, you need permission to even display a work for hire in your portfolio, etc...
At an agency i used to work at, if someone wanted a magazine ad it cost them x dollars for film delivered to them... if they wanted the computer files it was 3x. Seemed simple. Most people just wanted the final film, anyhow.
*: To get the four to six dollar estimate, I am considering a $0.50-$1.00 cost of manufacturing and then a much larger advertising and distribution budget.
tell me this: Why does a red hat CD cost $50-$120, depending on the version? Why does a Windows 2000 CD cost $300? And why does Netscapes Application Server run $35,000 for the CD? They all cost exactly as much as a music CD to produce, except some of them come in bigger boxes and have manuals... so add $.50 for the box, $1.00 for the manual, and that means that we should be seeing all software sold at Cheapbytes prices.
I mean, you're completely forgetting all the people involved in the CD... Go learn more about the record industry, or at least exactly what it takes to produce a CD, before you make up figures, please.
I was just showing where the money goes on a typical, non-platinum CD... Of course, everything varies slightly and wildly... Some producers demand percentages of sales, while other demand cash up front. Same goes with almost everyone else in the industry... But one thing is for sure... You need to forget about the nonsense of a tour paying for itself... That just doesn't happen unless the band in question is among the elite 1% of stardom... The Grateful dead made money touring, yes... but they had some of the most rabid fans in the world, plus they toured non-stop for 20+ years... springsteen made money on his tour, probably, as did the stones (they had to with what they were charging for tickets.) But for most smaller acts, touring is a money losing experience in the hopes that it will sell more CD's...
So far as your theory goes for online music distribution goes... it sounds like a good start. At least you (as opposed to napster) have an idea as to how to make sure everyone gets paid that needs to get paid.
Napster never even took that into consideration and they're now paying the price
Most of connectix's Mac Products (RAM Doubler, Speed Doubler, Virtual PC, and Virtual Playstation) have all relied quite heavily on assembly language to eke every bit of performance from their products... It's not that no one does it because of the insanity of it, it's just becoming a lost art with, as it's need becomes less and less with every new generation of CPU's
Have you ever tried to do the math to figure out how much it actually costs a band to record a CD? Everyone want's their cut.... producers, engineers, technicians, label, manager, studio, etc... It's not like Metallica takes $1 and the label takes $14.
More like Metallica takes $1
The CD cost a $1 to produce (stamp)
The label takes $2.50
The producer takes $.25
The engineers take $.25
The studio technicians take $.25
The manager takes $.50
The studio time cost $1
The video production costs take $.25
The support tour to drive the CD sales takes $2.00
The distributor takes $1.00
And the record store takes $3.50
The labels just look like they're getting so immensly rich because they have hundreds of bands operating under them... And they may make one of the biggest cuts, but they were also the ones that came up with the money to pay all the bills in advance.
Everyone should realize that the actual cost of the CD is neglible... It's just the physical representation of all the work. If you get the songs without the CD, just about all the other bills still apply.