I just bought a SL5600 after having my 5500 stolen. I wish I could convice myself that I don't need a 6000. I think the price may do that for me though.
I think this is a diversion from where technology in user input design should be heading. I actually find it increasingly frustrating to get information into any kind of portable device using mini-keyboards. No matter how clever they are.
The future lies with Hand-writing recognition and good high resolution screens. We have used to pen for well over 2000 years and it is both comfortable, easy to understand and use and fits the requirements of being small and usable on the train/bus/airplane.
Yes it is possible to shrink a keyboard down to the size of a pin-head but our fingers are not getting any smaller...
I prefer the mini keyboard on my Zaurus to it's handwriting recognition (or in fact, to the one that formerly came with my Palm.) My handwriting sucks, and I find it easier to type with my thumbs than to scratch out a letter at a time and hope that the software wants to be kind today. While the "pen" may have been in use for sometime longer than typewriters/keyboards, handwriting recognition software is comparably still in it's infancy, and IMHO not as reliable as a keyboard. I haven't used/played with any other PDAs besides the Zaurus (never wanted to:), so I'm not sure if other ones have the "pickboard" input option that it does. Essentially it's a keyboard on the lower portion of the screen that allows you to use the stylus to choose letters. If you don't like to use a mini keyboard, and don't like hand writing recognition, that may be the option for you.
I have no idea what you mean by "hoax or mistake." All you have to do is check out Usenet. The stuff is everywhere.
But the ISPs were ordered to block websites. Although the original quote said "Internet", one would have to assume that this referred to the Web via the Internet...
If you click on the bottom of the google screen to view the dmca-notice you can check out exactly which sites were blocked out. So instead of clicking you're going to have to cut-n-paste.
I can't. Everyone is free to make medicine, start their own companies to make medicine etc.
While everyone is free to make medicine, such a thing is unlikely; the skills, knowledge, materials, etc. needed to perform such a task would be beyond the ability of most people.
If I start a company myself, who's to tell me what I can charge to my own products?
For the most part, no one save yourself. While there are situations that the government or other authorities may set limits on what can something can be sold for, the retailer almost always sets their own price (market conditions aside.) However, the question here is one of morals: Should this product be sold at a price to maximize profits? I belive that when this question is asked of music and medicine that raising the price of medicine to maximize profits would be considered immoral because as the price goes up, so do the number of people who will not be able to obtain it. Music on the other hand is not needed by some to live.
Just medicine, you say? What about food? I mean, you've clearly drawn the line at music (something which plays a far greater part in my life than medicine, given that I don't get ill other than little colds which I treat with vitamin C and water), but what else is it immoral to profit from?
I did not drawn a line, I chose one example. In doing so, I did not said it was immoral to profit from selling medicne, but possibly immoral to maximize profits. A very simple test to determine if maximizing profits is possibly immoral is the question "Will raising the price cause people to die?"
Copy protection is like the war on drugs. It doesn't work. It's been tried for at least 20 years and the problem has only gotten worse. Remeber code wheels? And then the classic "page 36, paragraph 3, line 7, word 2". It only serves to make life more difficult for the legitimate user.
I don't aggree with this analogy because the 'war on drugs' has the effect of raising the price of drugs. The price of software is set, and it's the copy protection that is supposed to discourage/prevent the casual unauthorized usage. I don't think that a better copy protection scheme would necessarily raise the cost of the software it was 'protecting' (not taking into account that the software may cost somewhat more because of the costs to develop the protection scheme.) I also don't understand what has 'gotten worse', copy protection, or the circumvention thereof. If I follow your analogy, the war on drugs doesn't work, so drug use increases; copy protection doesn't work so circumvention has also increased?
The real solution to stop piracy is to drop the prices on software, music, and movies to a reasonable amount. A friend of mine was offered a free copy of Windows XP and turned it down because he got such a large student discount (I think $20) that it didn't matter to him. Before anyone points out loss of profit from discounted prices, if more people acutally BUY these things at a discount instead of grabbing them off Kazza, these companies would make the same money that they do today.
I don't see the lowering of software prices as the solution to all software piracy (aka copyright violations) because the incentive of cheaper yet profitable software does not rise above the zero-cost of a warez version. While there definately would be an increase in the number of the software bought, there will always be those that won't pay any price.
Do you have any idea how much time and effort these multi-million dollar companies spend on pricing their products? You think they just randomly pluck a number from the air?
They choose a price to maximise profits. They're not stupid...just immoral.
I don't understand why it would be immoral. If it were medicine, I could see how one could consider such a practice immoral, but in this case it's just music.
It's that way for the entire state of Maryland (and probably many other places in the US.) I remember a/. arcticle about this a while back.... too lazy to look:)
Nonetheless, the proof is in the sworn statement that I quoted, Seen here: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/edelman/pubs/g ator-062502.pdf and here:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/edelman/p ubs/gator-071002.pdf
The 'other software' is OfferCompanion. Gator installs this software without prominent notification and does not uninstall it when Gator is removed. I didn't address it in my previous (badly linked) post, but the way Gator does its advertisment doesn't inform the user that Gator is the one doing the ads.
Spyware spies on the user. Period. That it may say it does so in a 1000 word EULA that 99% of users never read doesn't make it anyless spyware.
Finally, I think it is inappropriate to classify Gator as "spyware" any longer. I challenge anyone to find an instance where Gator installs itself surreptitiously on a users browser any longer. Whenever I come across Gator, I have been very clearly asked to allow it to install and have been given the option to uninstall (by uninstalling the partner application) with little difficulty. While I take issue with some of Gator's early business practices, I applaud them for finding a viable ad supported business model in such dismal economic times.
You clearly did not read the article or associated PDFs. Gator installs other software besides itself.
"Gator Corp. bundles a software program that it calls "OfferCompanion" together with its Gator digital wallet software program, so that persons who download the Gator application onto their personal computers automatically have OfferCompanion downloaded and installed onto their personal computers."
"Once OfferCompanion is installed on a personal computer, OfferCompanion automatically launches and operates whenever a user invokes her computer's web browser.
OfferCompanion communicates frequently with Gator Corp.'s computer servers, monitoring the
user's activities on the World Wide Web and transmitting that information over the Internet to
Gator Corp."
Clearly, this is spyware that Gator is installing. Lastly, this part here is IMO troubling:
"Users may find it difficult or confusing to remove Gator software from their computers.
Even if a user invokes the ordinary Windows "uninstall" feature to remove the software program
that provided OfferCompanion as a part of a bundle, OfferCompanion remains on the user's
computer and continues to function in support of Gator Corp.'s pop-up advertising system."
What more could you want to classify something as spyware?
From the article: "The four students were sued separately last month by the Recording Industry Association of America for running services that searched their college networks or other students' computers for MP3 song files... In their suits against Peng and the other students, the RIAA called the services they had created "mini-Napsters." Ende said that Peng, as well as his attorneys, believed that the service he had run was more like Google than like Napster, since it had simply searched computers that would have been available and attached to the campus network with or without his software."
So my question is, are services that find copywritten material on networks Illegal? Since this case never went to court, it doesn't shed any light. Can Google be sued for direct links that liable for direct links?
What does a clueless tech support person have to do with restrictions?
Nothing. I'd gladly drop comcast for speakeasy if I weren't so far fom my CO. You can only use so much bandwidth, but you never get over being authoritative for your IP.
Slashdot Mirror
It infringes on your liberty to smack the winshield unrestrained.
Case in point:
http://www.hollywood.com
God, I hate flash.
I just bought a SL5600 after having my 5500 stolen. I wish I could convice myself that I don't need a 6000. I think the price may do that for me though.
I prefer the mini keyboard on my Zaurus to it's handwriting recognition (or in fact, to the one that formerly came with my Palm.) My handwriting sucks, and I find it easier to type with my thumbs than to scratch out a letter at a time and hope that the software wants to be kind today. While the "pen" may have been in use for sometime longer than typewriters/keyboards, handwriting recognition software is comparably still in it's infancy, and IMHO not as reliable as a keyboard. I haven't used/played with any other PDAs besides the Zaurus (never wanted to :), so I'm not sure if other ones have the "pickboard" input option that it does. Essentially it's a keyboard on the lower portion of the screen that allows you to use the stylus to choose letters. If you don't like to use a mini keyboard, and don't like hand writing recognition, that may be the option for you.
In other words, sue SCO?
:)
<AOL> Me too! </AOL>
Situations like this are why I like^W love using debian. Now only if that ptrace thing had been fixed sooner (by an official debian package...)
But the ISPs were ordered to block websites. Although the original quote said "Internet", one would have to assume that this referred to the Web via the Internet...
You mean just like the article summary says?
While everyone is free to make medicine, such a thing is unlikely; the skills, knowledge, materials, etc. needed to perform such a task would be beyond the ability of most people. If I start a company myself, who's to tell me what I can charge to my own products?
For the most part, no one save yourself. While there are situations that the government or other authorities may set limits on what can something can be sold for, the retailer almost always sets their own price (market conditions aside.) However, the question here is one of morals: Should this product be sold at a price to maximize profits? I belive that when this question is asked of music and medicine that raising the price of medicine to maximize profits would be considered immoral because as the price goes up, so do the number of people who will not be able to obtain it. Music on the other hand is not needed by some to live.
Just medicine, you say? What about food? I mean, you've clearly drawn the line at music (something which plays a far greater part in my life than medicine, given that I don't get ill other than little colds which I treat with vitamin C and water), but what else is it immoral to profit from?I did not drawn a line, I chose one example. In doing so, I did not said it was immoral to profit from selling medicne, but possibly immoral to maximize profits. A very simple test to determine if maximizing profits is possibly immoral is the question "Will raising the price cause people to die?"
I don't aggree with this analogy because the 'war on drugs' has the effect of raising the price of drugs. The price of software is set, and it's the copy protection that is supposed to discourage/prevent the casual unauthorized usage. I don't think that a better copy protection scheme would necessarily raise the cost of the software it was 'protecting' (not taking into account that the software may cost somewhat more because of the costs to develop the protection scheme.) I also don't understand what has 'gotten worse', copy protection, or the circumvention thereof. If I follow your analogy, the war on drugs doesn't work, so drug use increases; copy protection doesn't work so circumvention has also increased?
The real solution to stop piracy is to drop the prices on software, music, and movies to a reasonable amount. A friend of mine was offered a free copy of Windows XP and turned it down because he got such a large student discount (I think $20) that it didn't matter to him. Before anyone points out loss of profit from discounted prices, if more people acutally BUY these things at a discount instead of grabbing them off Kazza, these companies would make the same money that they do today.I don't see the lowering of software prices as the solution to all software piracy (aka copyright violations) because the incentive of cheaper yet profitable software does not rise above the zero-cost of a warez version. While there definately would be an increase in the number of the software bought, there will always be those that won't pay any price.
I don't understand why it would be immoral. If it were medicine, I could see how one could consider such a practice immoral, but in this case it's just music.
That's "The Pledge of Allegiance"
To whom, brother.
It's that way for the entire state of Maryland (and probably many other places in the US.) I remember a /. arcticle about this a while back.... too lazy to look :)
No, of course not... (ignore the *)
In Soviet Russia, the money owns you!
Sorry dude, that's in the U.S. too.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=65246&cid=6025 784
:)
g ator-062502.pdfp ubs/gator-071002.pdf
My appologies
Nonetheless, the proof is in the sworn statement that I quoted, Seen here: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/edelman/pubs/
and here:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/edelman/
The 'other software' is OfferCompanion. Gator installs this software without prominent notification and does not uninstall it when Gator is removed. I didn't address it in my previous (badly linked) post, but the way Gator does its advertisment doesn't inform the user that Gator is the one doing the ads.
Spyware spies on the user. Period. That it may say it does so in a 1000 word EULA that 99% of users never read doesn't make it anyless spyware.
See my response to a simmilar point made here . Gator installs another program that does the spyware.
You clearly did not read the article or associated PDFs. Gator installs other software besides itself.
"Gator Corp. bundles a software program that it calls "OfferCompanion" together with its Gator digital wallet software program, so that persons who download the Gator application onto their personal computers automatically have OfferCompanion downloaded and installed onto their personal computers."
"Once OfferCompanion is installed on a personal computer, OfferCompanion automatically launches and operates whenever a user invokes her computer's web browser. OfferCompanion communicates frequently with Gator Corp.'s computer servers, monitoring the user's activities on the World Wide Web and transmitting that information over the Internet to Gator Corp."
Clearly, this is spyware that Gator is installing. Lastly, this part here is IMO troubling:
"Users may find it difficult or confusing to remove Gator software from their computers. Even if a user invokes the ordinary Windows "uninstall" feature to remove the software program that provided OfferCompanion as a part of a bundle, OfferCompanion remains on the user's computer and continues to function in support of Gator Corp.'s pop-up advertising system."
What more could you want to classify something as spyware?
I would agree with you if MS was the only constituant in the district.
Abbey Road for Bat out of Hell? What, are you insane? :)
So my question is, are services that find copywritten material on networks Illegal? Since this case never went to court, it doesn't shed any light. Can Google be sued for direct links that liable for direct links?
Isn't this true for using a computer to buy anything, not just music? Of course not. How long until someone hijacks Amazon, Paypal, ebay, etc?
Nothing. I'd gladly drop comcast for speakeasy if I weren't so far fom my CO. You can only use so much bandwidth, but you never get over being authoritative for your IP.
Some would say that removing Saddam is more important than any priceless artifacts.