When talking about things with mass, like a print head, moving the media (paper) makes sense. When speaking about photons, this doesn't make sense.
Remember, the more mass you move, the more lash (imprecise movement induced by moving that mass) comes into play (pun intended).
No, what would be exciting would be to use something other than a mirror to move the laser. some sort of reflective substance that can be manuplated using electric fields. Now that would really uncork a lot of spin off technology....
---
I was using black holes to make gravity lenses, fell in and made a spectical of myself!
I don't think it's acceptable that software, even something as enourmous as Win2000, has 20,000+ "potentially serious problems." However, I think the main issue here is what we as a society expect from software companies.
And what the law allows them to get away with.
If you bought that car with 28k+ defects in it, you can bet your last bottom dollar that somebody's getting sued.
But assume the mantle of a "developer", and all is forgiven. This isn't to say that some protection isn't deserved and a GoodThang, but lets get real.
Defective software is the only thing you buy that you can't get your money back on. With this kind of protection, there is absoultely NO incentive for large companies with a lock on their niche to improve thier software. Thing to do is to
What I said was that there is going to be acceptance problems.
If you don't think Linux is going to have acceptance problems with the suits, may I respectfully suggest you pull your head out?
I think the whole point of the post was that Linux was better than expected. Of course, any one that has used it knows this. The problem is getting them to at least try it before they forbid it.
Define collatteral estoppel. (And you are not allowed to look it up.)
We are geeks. We know computers. We don't know law.
Lawyers know law. They don't know computers.
Ask any lawyer the above question, and they can give you at least a thumb nail sketch of what collatteral estopple is. Ask any geek, they look at you like you just assigned your DHCP server's ip address within the DHCP pool. Dumb. Ask any lawyer what DHCP is, and they look at you like you don't know what CE is.
Give them credit, at least they didn't try to sue everyone into submission.
When the judge refused to hear EFF's technical expert, that was a pretty clear indication that he had made up his mind and we were going to loose this round.(Don't bother me with the facts when I've already made up my mind!)
Our hopes (I'm not full of hops!) now rest with getting the ruling, then getting the judge overturned. I flat gar-en-tee that he will rule for the MPAA, and this will have to go another round.
Our next step is to make this case to John Q Public. We do that by telling our friends, neighbors, bosses, strangers, and the drunk in the gutter. In short, everyone.
Next, we write our newspapers, television stations, radio stations, and our elected officials. (As a note, you might let the local officials know you will help with their databases come next election. It is amazing how much talant they need and they don't even know it!)
Starting Friday, Feb. 4. 2K, we stand in front of the movie theater with our signs and the flyer from 2600. We need to have some effect, we have to be noticed, we can't go gently into that good night.
See ya on the picket line!
---
"If brains were radium, the MPAA wouldn't have enough to make a watch dial glow."
I don't think lightning should have parties. I mean, really now, we already have Presidential Erections, and they even got the IRS to collect for it. What's next? Is the IRS gonna collect for the lightning's parties? Geez!
This is a myth! Look at McDonald's, which is pretty much the world's largest fast food chain.
At one point, part of McD's profit structure was from real estate. When McD's builds a store, it picks a location they think will grow. If it doesn't grow in that area, and the store looses money, they close the store. If the area does grow, at some point they sell the land the store is on and reap massive gains.
The point is that there are many ways to a profit. If profit is your sole goal, do not open a business.
Generic business plan:
1. Offer valueable service/product to our customers.
2. Offer our employees a work place that is fair and compensates them well for their work.
3. Be a well respected member of the business community and the community at large.
4. Return to our investors a fair and reasonable profit.
Why Do people persist in stating this! Almost everyone needs DeCSS to make an illegal copy!
Perhaps we are falling into an error. Yes, almost any would would need to use deCSS to make a copy on to hard disk. But that's not illegal...
Yes, almost anyone would need deCSS to snip a clip and share it with thier friends.... but that's not illegal...
Yes, almost anyone would need cdCSS to place a copy of the movie on hard disk (or cdrom, or DVDRAM, or what have you), but that isn't illegal.
It's only illegal if you do it and it isn't for personal use, comment, or review, or you don't destroy all copies when you dispose of the original. (IANAL)
Can you agree with me that VHS tapes are easy to copy? Can you agree that most of us don't rent a move and rip a copy of it?
No sir, the question here isn't is it impossible to use it illegally, but is it more likely to be used legally.
I know quite a few people that go and buy the newest movies. These folks all know each other. Some even go buy several copies of the same movie so only one person has to go to the store.
These same folks could very easily rip copies of these movies on tape, but they don't. Why? Could it be because they are honest? Could it be they like having the original tape? Could it be that it's too much trouble?
If I make a car, and I sell cars, do I have to consider that someone is going to drive drunk?
Do I have to build the car so a drunk can't start it? What about the guy off in the woods having a few beers, then a heart attack? Now my car won't start, and he dies trying to get to help.
I'm getting pretty sick of people not wanting to take responsibiliy for thier actions. The "It's not my fault, they made it so I could do it, so it's thier fault!" whine is getting to be pretty common. I tend to beleive that folks have a brain, and that they should use it. Just because something isn't designed to stop you from doing something shouldn't be taken for a sign that it would be a good idea to do that.
The problem here is that so many forget that we do need to take a look at what we build, and see how it fits into socity. We don't have to build something so there is no possibility that it could ever be mis-used, no matter what. That's insane. It's also impossible.
No, the important thing isn't that it could be used for illegal things, but that the most common use is for legal purposes.
I See a Xerox copier used most every day to make copies of protected works. However, almost all of those copies are "FAIR USE". Xerox isn't responsible for the use of one of thier copiers to make illegal copies any more than Jon is responsible if someone used deCSS for an illegal act.
The question is: Is deCSS more likely to be used as a tool to rip off the copyright holder, or is it a tool more likely to be used to excersize "fair use"?
Since no one needs deCSS to rip an illegal copy, but they do need deCSS to view a ligitimate copy, I'd say that deCSS is more likely to be used for legal purposes.
That nice fast box you have? The one with a PII (or what ever)? Do you think IBM would have invented a box to compete with their mainframe lines if they had any choice?
We have these nice fast boxes because Phonix and others reverse-engineered the box. IBM would NOT HAVE produced computers as powerful as today's, because they compete with thier smaller midrange computers. This is just one instance where you have more because someone r/e'd some technology.
How about Microchannel? Ever see a technolog drop off so fast? One of the preconditions for licensing M/C was that you had to pay for all the ISA cards you made without a license. Thus shows that restrictive licensing, like virture, is it's own punishment.
BOYCOTT . It's the only way to make big companies listen to us. BOYCOTT
Slashdot Mirror
When talking about things with mass, like a print head, moving the media (paper) makes sense. When speaking about photons, this doesn't make sense.
Remember, the more mass you move, the more lash (imprecise movement induced by moving that mass) comes into play (pun intended).
No, what would be exciting would be to use something other than a mirror to move the laser. some sort of reflective substance that can be manuplated using electric fields. Now that would really uncork a lot of spin off technology....
---
I was using black holes to make gravity lenses, fell in and made a spectical of myself!
C Scheffeild
It's so bad, no one will even pirate the stuff!
:P
And what the law allows them to get away with.
If you bought that car with 28k+ defects in it, you can bet your last bottom dollar that somebody's getting sued.
But assume the mantle of a "developer", and all is forgiven. This isn't to say that some protection isn't deserved and a GoodThang, but lets get real.
Defective software is the only thing you buy that you can't get your money back on. With this kind of protection, there is absoultely NO incentive for large companies with a lock on their niche to improve thier software. Thing to do is to
Remove protection from suit or
Remove their lock on the market niche or
both.
I'd like to see how long this is going to hold up. In the mean time, anyone have any suggestions for a "Sampson Option" for the following:
1. Windows
2. Linux
3. BeOs
By Sampson Option, I mean some kind of program that will trash the hd.
Suzie "U"?
What I said was that there is going to be acceptance problems.
If you don't think Linux is going to have acceptance problems with the suits, may I respectfully suggest you pull your head out?
I think the whole point of the post was that Linux was better than expected. Of course, any one that has used it knows this. The problem is getting them to at least try it before they forbid it.
RTF Post.
Time will change this, but not too fast.
Define collatteral estoppel. (And you are not allowed to look it up.)
We are geeks. We know computers. We don't know law.
Lawyers know law. They don't know computers.
Ask any lawyer the above question, and they can give you at least a thumb nail sketch of what collatteral estopple is. Ask any geek, they look at you like you just assigned your DHCP server's ip address within the DHCP pool. Dumb. Ask any lawyer what DHCP is, and they look at you like you don't know what CE is.
Give them credit, at least they didn't try to sue everyone into submission.
---
Communicate, damn it!
Our hopes (I'm not full of hops!) now rest with getting the ruling, then getting the judge overturned. I flat gar-en-tee that he will rule for the MPAA, and this will have to go another round.
First, join EFF.
Our next step is to make this case to John Q Public. We do that by telling our friends, neighbors, bosses, strangers, and the drunk in the gutter. In short, everyone.
Next, we write our newspapers, television stations, radio stations, and our elected officials. (As a note, you might let the local officials know you will help with their databases come next election. It is amazing how much talant they need and they don't even know it!)
Starting Friday, Feb. 4. 2K, we stand in front of the movie theater with our signs and the flyer from 2600. We need to have some effect, we have to be noticed, we can't go gently into that good night.
See ya on the picket line!
---
"If brains were radium, the MPAA wouldn't have enough to make a watch dial glow."
Me.
-- Laugh. It's funny.
At one point, part of McD's profit structure was from real estate. When McD's builds a store, it picks a location they think will grow. If it doesn't grow in that area, and the store looses money, they close the store. If the area does grow, at some point they sell the land the store is on and reap massive gains.
The point is that there are many ways to a profit. If profit is your sole goal, do not open a business.
Generic business plan:
1. Offer valueable service/product to our customers.
2. Offer our employees a work place that is fair and compensates them well for their work.
3. Be a well respected member of the business community and the community at large.
4. Return to our investors a fair and reasonable profit.
Why Do people persist in stating this! Almost everyone needs DeCSS to make an illegal copy!
Perhaps we are falling into an error. Yes, almost any would would need to use deCSS to make a copy on to hard disk. But that's not illegal...
Yes, almost anyone would need deCSS to snip a clip and share it with thier friends.... but that's not illegal...
Yes, almost anyone would need cdCSS to place a copy of the movie on hard disk (or cdrom, or DVDRAM, or what have you), but that isn't illegal.
It's only illegal if you do it and it isn't for personal use, comment, or review, or you don't destroy all copies when you dispose of the original. (IANAL)
Can you agree with me that VHS tapes are easy to copy? Can you agree that most of us don't rent a move and rip a copy of it?
No sir, the question here isn't is it impossible to use it illegally , but is it more likely to be used legally.
I know quite a few people that go and buy the newest movies. These folks all know each other. Some even go buy several copies of the same movie so only one person has to go to the store.
These same folks could very easily rip copies of these movies on tape, but they don't. Why? Could it be because they are honest? Could it be they like having the original tape? Could it be that it's too much trouble?
Do I have to build the car so a drunk can't start it? What about the guy off in the woods having a few beers, then a heart attack? Now my car won't start, and he dies trying to get to help.
I'm getting pretty sick of people not wanting to take responsibiliy for thier actions. The "It's not my fault, they made it so I could do it, so it's thier fault!" whine is getting to be pretty common. I tend to beleive that folks have a brain, and that they should use it. Just because something isn't designed to stop you from doing something shouldn't be taken for a sign that it would be a good idea to do that.
The problem here is that so many forget that we do need to take a look at what we build, and see how it fits into socity. We don't have to build something so there is no possibility that it could ever be mis-used, no matter what. That's insane. It's also impossible.
No, the important thing isn't that it could be used for illegal things, but that the most common use is for legal purposes.
I See a Xerox copier used most every day to make copies of protected works. However, almost all of those copies are "FAIR USE". Xerox isn't responsible for the use of one of thier copiers to make illegal copies any more than Jon is responsible if someone used deCSS for an illegal act.
The question is: Is deCSS more likely to be used as a tool to rip off the copyright holder, or is it a tool more likely to be used to excersize "fair use"?
Since no one needs deCSS to rip an illegal copy, but they do need deCSS to view a ligitimate copy, I'd say that deCSS is more likely to be used for legal purposes.
That nice fast box you have? The one with a PII (or what ever)? Do you think IBM would have invented a box to compete with their mainframe lines if they had any choice?
We have these nice fast boxes because Phonix and others reverse-engineered the box. IBM would NOT HAVE produced computers as powerful as today's, because they compete with thier smaller midrange computers. This is just one instance where you have more because someone r/e'd some technology.
How about Microchannel? Ever see a technolog drop off so fast? One of the preconditions for licensing M/C was that you had to pay for all the ISA cards you made without a license. Thus shows that restrictive licensing, like virture, is it's own punishment.
BOYCOTT . It's the only way to make big companies listen to us. BOYCOTT