I respond, "So what you're saying is, this product is a piece of shit and I shouldn't buy it. Check." -SNIP- Half the time I never intended to anyway
Somehow, I get the feeling from the content of this post, that you've never done this, but wish you had. Especially for a high-ticket item that you can't, in reality, afford.
Not true, AFAIK. First is copyright infringement, second one would be breach of contract.
And without the contract, you're infringing copyrights by distributing the material.
By the way, I never got an EULA with any CD/DVD I own.
Here's the EFF's take: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004145.php Notice that none of the various legal uses of the CD include DISTRIBUTING the content. That's why it's called a "COPY - RIGHT". (copyright) Licenses give you rights to material you otherwise do not own or have rights to.
By the way, bootleg automatically implies breaking the law ("illicitly sold")
The violation comes in stripping the GPL off the code....definitely illegal.
There seems to be a double-standard at work on Slashdot. I know, different people, yadda yadda. But when discussing "piracy" the mantra seems to be "It's not piracy/illegal, it's copyright infringement!". But when discussing the GPL, those people are silent when the term "illegal" is used when discussing violations of the GPL.
So, to clarify:
1) Both MP3s and the GPL are protected by the same copyright laws. It's pretty tough to truly violate the GPL. You can sell GPL software, without source, for any price. You can use it however you like. But you have to provide sources upon request in the "preferential form" (EG: Soft copy, no printouts) and the license extends to derivative products. (which is the 'viral' nature of the GPL) Don't like it? Don't code with it.
2) Boot-legging MP3s and violating the terms of the GPL are both copyright violations.
3) Neither violation is covered by "Fair Use" laws.
4) Both are bad. Both are also commonly done, like speeding on the highway.
5) Under some circumstances, violating copyright can be a criminal act in the US. In all circumstances, copyright violations leave the liable to the copyright owner.
By analogy: When I was shopping for a car recently I looked at cool 50K sports car that only seats 2. Well, I drive around with friends a lot and a 4 seater is much more my speed, and I got one with lots of power for about $30K. I could say, as some do with the iPhone, "It only seats two and costs $50K! I can get a 4 seater for half that." So get the freakin' 4 seater.
DING DING DING DING DING! Bad car analogy alert!
It's all marketing! It's more like a hay truck with an oil leak - sometimes a hassle but often worth it because you can earn money with it. Except on Wednesdays, because the hay wholesaler is closed, but the owner has a real cute daughter with red hair who likes to dress up in pink and listen to Def Tones. But that's different than the pink Cadillac SUV driven by a 30-something Mom who wears star-shaped sunglasses with glitter.
but pretending that people already pay a subscription fee for software they purchase is simply disingenuous.
No, it's not a "subscription fee" - but it has the same effect. People buy software, then buy the same software (with upgrades) later. Yes, you can defer for a while. But you're not using Visicalc on your PC/XT, either. You WILL upgrade at some point. And when you do, you'll pay whatever fees are appropriate for whatever you buy/get. You don't "need" to upgrade every couple of years, but you will anyway.
SaaS simply acknowledges this basic truth, and formalizes it.
I think it's pretty clear we're not talking about software licensing or hardware service contracts. I don't see why I would want to pay Microsoft a monthly or yearly fee for the privilege of using their word processor when I can just use an older version that doesn't charge me a recurring fee, or a free alternative like Open Office.
But you do pay a yearly fee. It's called a "purchase" or "upgrade price" that you pay from time to time. There may be other (free) alternatives. But which is less problematic to pay: $10/month or $360 every other year? Many people would have a harder time coming up with $360 all at once rather than $10 per month. When licensing fees run into the tens of thousands or millions of dollars, this can make a big difference.
You are certainly welcome to use free alternatives, if they exist. But don't think that SaaS is about your word processor!
SaaS vendors are typically niche players in a vertical marketplace. The software delivered is highly specialized, and very important to the operation of a business or organization. The cost of development and deployment is high, and the software is highly complex in nature. Moving the software closer to the programmers and "experts" responsible for maintaining it means less fuss and hassle for organizations who are often dealing with strained resources anyway, and often a tremendous improvement in overall system efficiency.
You would understand this better if you had personally spent 5 weeks getting a single server configured with "Enterprise" software. It's a different marketplace. People commonly think that "Enterprise" is somehow "better" or "higher quality". It isn't. All it means is that it's software designed to meet the needs of bigger corporations.
I didn't say that I don't see the upside of service in general. I don't see the upside of Software as Service. I do generally fix my own car, and have never had to have my AC fixed, but that's besides the point. I still own my car and I own my AC. I don't want Car as Service or AC as Service. Similarly, I don't want Software as Service.
Actually, what you said was: I, for one, can't think of a single upside of "Software as Service".
Seems like you are contradicting yourself, since you see at least some upsides to services. But let me ask you this: what software do you own? Windows is licensed to you. So is Linux, BSD, Apache, KDE, QT, Word Perfect, and just about anything else you might consider. And even if the duration on your software license isn't time-limited, it actually is. Or do you still value your copy of MS-Dos 5.0?
So really, what is being serviced? The only difference between what you do and what SaaS users do is that the SaaS users have a service contract on their hardware that's (often) managed off-site. Just like a service contract with Dell, HP, or Sun, the quality of the contract comes down to the quality of the vendor.
I, for one, can't think of a single upside of "Software as Service"
So, you NEVER outsource work that needs to be done to an outside vendor? You fix your own car, repair your air conditioner, etc?
I do none of these. I have an insurance contract that I pay yearly for maintenance and repair of all my major household appliances that covers my A/C, stove, fridge, washer, water heater, and dryer. (sadly, dishwasher is not in the mix, I wish it was)
So what we have is a form of "Hardware as a Service". It's a big, complicated problem for me that's handled by the experts for a reasonable fee. And that's all that SaaS is. Vendors offer to take a big, nasty hairball of complexity and make it "go away" for a monthly fee.
And the quality of the decision really comes down to the quality of the vendor. Do they do backups regularly, off-site? Do they keep their server load down? Is their software well architected for security? Stability? Do they have high quality technicians? Programmers? Engineers? When you are experiencing a problem, do they pay attention? Are their prices in line with the services being rendered?
It's like picking a mechanic! If you have good answers to the above questions, SaaS can work very well. If you pick the wrong vendor, the result can be a torturous nightmare.
i see very few requirements for recognized forms of traditional media.
Did you read what I read? Here, let me point it out...
to disseminate to the public or provide notice of to the public or to an individual (as through a mass medium) --see also notice by publication at NOTICE
And there you have the problem with synchronization. There's no mind reader program (yet) so sorry but you're going to have to make up your mind about how to handle it when the server version changed too. Either find a way to merge the files or start making decisions about when they can get modified (ie a checkout system) or if the server's or the laptop's version is always right or if the user gets to choose (bad idea). As for programs, stop looking at famous ones, they suck. That's like using Norton as your antivirus. Find some freeware or open source one that does just what you need and isn't overly complicated
Did you mean to reply to the original poster? Because it looks like you've simply restated the problem. Do you have any suggestions for "freeware or open source one that does just what you need and isn't overly complicated"?
As the Internet permeates every aspect of our lives, and the entire world slowly becomes directly entwined with every other part, the definition of "publish" will have to be changed.
Traditionally, publishing was something done via a newspaper, book, or some other "official" work. Duplicating Intellectual Property has long been formal and obvious. The reasons for copyright were clear, intellectual property was expensive and difficult to distribute, and overcoming the cost of distribution benefited all.
Enter the Internet. Suddenly, Intellectual Property can be distributed to anybody at any time simply by posting on a $5/month website.
I have a web server on my home DSL line with MP3s (legally obtained) that I stream via Apache on a non-standard port, that automatically closes every night. (I have to manually open the port on any day I intend to listen) I do not intend to "publish" these, simply listen to them when and where I happen to be.
But, while the port is open, I'm legally "publishing" these files, and based on this ruling, I'm liable for it. Now, I'm pretty sure the risk of my getting caught is pretty slim, but it's not zero. And the truth is, there will be more and more examples of "publish" simply because putting ANYTHING on the Internet is has always been easy, is easier than it used to be, and is getting easier every day.
At what point are you NOT publishing something? If I record a video of my wife lip-syncing to Green Day and post it on my family website, am I "publishing" their song?
There are millions of examples, and I'm sure there are plenty of bad-car analogies coming soon, but the truth remains: the rules are being changed, and we need to PAY ATTENTION!!!
Imagine trying to run a steel foundry on solar power.
You mean, like these guys? Electricity is nothing more than an energy source...
Now, imagine running a third world steel foundry on solar power.
Ok. Where are you going with this?
That's the gripe many developing nations have with Kyoto - how are they supposed to enter the 20th century if they can use coal fired power?
What is the gripe? Unless you're implying (unsaid) that coal is inherently better. Well, for right now, it's still cheaper. But the price of solar cells continues to drop nicely, which is the point of TFA. And, using solar energy means you don't have to invest in Megabux power grids or railroads for the tons of coal to be used.
There are and will be competitors in the marketplace that will effectively compete with iTunes.
I have an iPod and a Creative Zen. Guess which one I use more? (hint: it's NOT the iPod)
What I don't get is why Microsoft shot their own "PlaysForSure" into "PlaysForMaybe" with their Zune. That strikes me as the most fundamentally stupid thing they could have possibly done, pretty much torpedoing both projects in one fell swoop.
It's a dog food thing - Microsoft wants other companies to buy into PlaysForSure but they aren't willing to use it themselves? Talk about STUPID.. Now nobody trusts either platform, and both are pretty much guaranteed to tank in the marketplace. (which is exactly what's been happening)
Well, I've never had a problem with my systems. "Hibernate" goes to swap, that's all folx; close the lid on the Thinkpad and Kubuntu sends her straight to RAM sleep. Open her up and in a blink she's back. It all Just Works.
It's actually better than you really describe - for me running KDE on Fedora Core 6, the sleep recovery time is about 3 seconds, complete with network reconnect! (wired AND wireless) It's like never turning off your computer.
The only rain on my parade is that the binary ATI driver I had to install to get full width causes suspend/resume to bomb every 25th time or so, forcing a hard reboot, which means my computer gets fully rebooted about once/week.
The terrorists won; we have lost our freedoms. They have changed our way of life.
Terrorism is a war of ideas. And unless we actually learn to understand what it's really all about, we will continue to lose badly, without ever actually understanding why.
A curious thing about people is the ability to infer intent based on actions. It's something that we do so readily that we're barely aware of doing it. If somebody shoots somebody else and kills them, we assume that killing the other person was the shooter's intent.
For most situations, this works rather well. When our significant other throws our clothes and belongings on the front lawn, we can make inferences about his/her intent, and be pretty assured that we're right. It's a short cut to actually finding out what the original intention was.
In the case of terrorism, we apply the same logic. We see the results of the attack of 9/11 in a reduction of our human rights. We see paranoia and incompetent leadership, and we assume that terrorists wanted these things to happen because they clearly did something that caused these things.
And, it's very possible that we assume wrong.
While it may seem obvious that the attacks on the WTC would cause a diminishment of our human rights, and a counter-attack, we can't necessarily assume that's what their INTENT was.
These are people from a vastly different culture and walk of life. In these very homogenous United States, we really have difficulty even understanding how much difference from our way of thinking is possible, let alone understand what those differences entail.
We see things in a very materialistic, very scientific way. These people see things very, very differently, in a very religeous way. When we see a Lexus, we see a nice car that's very desirable. These people may well see a demonic, materialistic trap layed by the devil. They may well see the increased exposure to western culture (a la increased international travel and the Internet) as an invasion, to which they are responding.
They weren't lashing out at the families in the WTC - they didn't know them. I personally doubt that it really crossed their mind.
But until we can actually understand what motivates them, what drives them, what makes them tick, and knock off the guessing games, we'll continue to get nowhere in the "War on Terror".
To use your car analogy (usually a bad idea), Chrysler sells the car with a parental control which they claim will keep your kids out of trouble and your kids are stopped doing 100mph in a school zone, does Chrysler have any liability?
I like bad car analogies. They usually clarify a point that nobody intended to make, while hiding the fact that nobody has any clue what you are talking about. I think the analogy here would be more like:
Chrysler sells the car with a parental control which they claim will keep your kids out of trouble. But the kids use the car to listen to rap music and get bad ideas in their head. They go down the street and shoot the neighbors cat. The neighbor is a medical marijuana user, whose stash was just stolen, and is just itching to call the police, except that getting the police to enforce the theft of medical marijuana might be difficult.
And the neighbor across the street is an alcoholic, and everybody knows, but nobody says anything to the neighbor. Both drive an older Chevrolet, one blue, one green.
When they are both drunk or stoned, they sometimes get into the wrong car and wonder why their key doesn't work.
But if common people are representing themselves in cases against the presumably well-financed and well-lawyered RIAA, it gives me some amount of belief that the justice system is ultimately just, or basically fair, and that someone who can present their case in a basic and simple enough manner might actually win.
What's important to remember is that the legal system is a political system, not a technical one. When push comes to shove, all the laws, case decisions, and procedures of law boil down to establishing agreement between members of a political body. (EG: a state or jurisdiction)
When people represent themselves, a powerful force comes to play, depending on the judge - that of sympathy.
The judge knows that people who represent themselves are disadvantaged. They are often (usually?) poor or at least, of insufficient means for their current circumstances. They are usually rather ignorant of the nuances of law and established procedure. (which, maddeningly enough, is subtly different for each jurisdiction, even within the same state)
So, you'll typically get one of two reactions from your judge:
1) They either pay no attention to the "pro per" status of the party, typically with a bit of annoyance that "you didn't file form 10-W at least 10 days in advance of the hearing".
2) They bend over backwards to be "fair" as an act of sympathy.
In my experience, here in Butte County, CA USA, where the judges are elected, I've seen a much stronger tendency towards #2 than #1. And, from a position of power, why not feel like the "good guy" when it costs you nothing?
I'm going to post this anonymously for obvious reasons.
Yeah, 'cause you just know that the Microserfs and lawyers are trolling Slashdot, lurking for confessions of copyright infringement by 15 year olds, so they can sue slashdot to get your IP address, and then do legal discovery to your ISP to get your real name.
Right. (Did your phone just ring? OMG! It could be them right now!!!)
I have a few Windows XP licenses, but they are all OEM XP Home/Media Center licences that came with the computers. Those systems were so crapified by the OEMs and/or in such a bad state (my wifes computer was a mess when I took control over it) that even reinstalling the OEM version would have been a major headache.
What this tells me is that you have no particular idea what you are talking about. The differences between XP Home and XP Professional is little more than the license verification, and a few features that would be useful in a corporate setting.
How is installing a (pirate) Professional any easier than installing a legitimate Home version? I've installed both Professional and Home editions - not much different, except for when your pirate Professional CD key gets invalidated and you have to dicker with the license key in the registry to try to get it to recognize a legitimate key, or re-install the one you legally own.
So go legal! It's easier, and the license is already stuck to the bottom of your laptop!
The Internet provides the pack leaders with an unprecedented level of identifying and controlling dissenters. We need heretics more than ever. As soon as people can no longer speak out against other beliefs, the social system fails by going to extremes and there are no good extremes, as for every winner there are losers. Create too many losers and you head towards civil unrest and even wars.
Not really sure where you get the idea that the IntarWeb promotes conformity - everything I've seen and read indicates a strong tendency towards the reverse. Variations include long tail economics, the rise of the amateur blog and "crowd-sourcing" and the Internet favorite, the the time cube.
Although heresy is important, I'd suggest that the Internet brings its own negative phenomenon - the most incredibly low signal-to-noise ratio communications medium ever conceived of in human history. Perhaps 95% of the content on the Internet is worthless even to its author, and the remaining 5% is often heavily guarded and unaccessible.
Case in point that's a bit closer to home? Simply browse Slashdot at -1...
It's the boogeyman du jour, really. Before we had Global Warming, there were hints at a possible "New Ice Age" coming on ten years before Global Warming became in vogue. Before that it was the "hole in the Ozone" caused by Freons.
There WAS a cooling trend for a few decades, and there still IS a "hole in the ozone". That we've largely mitigated the latter and come to understand more about the former doesn't mean that they didn't happen!
But thinking is hard, and nobody wants to do so. It's difficult to bring up too many problems at once, and few people take the time to understand the actual problem beyond what you might get in a 3-minute segment in a 30-minute newscast. (or worse, the scant sentences in a slashdot article summary) Just because YOU don't understand what the big deal is, doesn't mean there's no big deal. And just because past issues have become better understood doesn't mitigate the importance of the current one.
This is not a made-up "bogeyman" - it's SCIENCE. And the scientific process is the ONLY process that consistently tends towards truth. To found out the truth, to be truly scientific requires the humility of knowing that YOU DON'T KNOW EVERYTHING and that it's a good idea to really really try to find out what the truth actually is, whatever you might prefer.
I could see how a class system in place, and the working class dieing at a higher rate, could support his theory of natural selection help the economic growth. The wealth moved downwards, which in turn turned raised the overall economy. We see this when the working classes started to buy more creating more of a demand and thus the start of the industrial revolution.
What is for me very sobering is the effect that the welfare state has had recently in the United States. The rich have very few children as a result of the costs, while the poor have a large number since their expenses are insulated from them by state support.
It wasn't until recently, with the welfare reform act passed by Bill Clinton that this trend was at least thwarted. (now, more kids != more $$, so at least, once you get ON public assistance, you are disincentivized from having more)
Otherwise, this trend is a harbinger of very, very bad things...
Slashdot Mirror
I respond, "So what you're saying is, this product is a piece of shit and I shouldn't buy it. Check." -SNIP- Half the time I never intended to anyway
Somehow, I get the feeling from the content of this post, that you've never done this, but wish you had. Especially for a high-ticket item that you can't, in reality, afford.
I call shenanigans!
Not true, AFAIK. First is copyright infringement, second one would be breach of contract.
And without the contract, you're infringing copyrights by distributing the material.
By the way, I never got an EULA with any CD/DVD I own.
Here's the EFF's take: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004145.php
Notice that none of the various legal uses of the CD include DISTRIBUTING the content. That's why it's called a "COPY - RIGHT". (copyright) Licenses give you rights to material you otherwise do not own or have rights to.
By the way, bootleg automatically implies breaking the law ("illicitly sold")
According to Dictionary.com, something, as a recording, made, reproduced, or sold illegally or without authorization (emphasis mine)
Fair Use still applies if I download an MP3 of a song I already have in a CD I bought, right?
Good question. But if the answer is yes, then you wouldn't be "bootlegging" it, thus the point is made either way.
The violation comes in stripping the GPL off the code....definitely illegal.
There seems to be a double-standard at work on Slashdot. I know, different people, yadda yadda. But when discussing "piracy" the mantra seems to be "It's not piracy/illegal, it's copyright infringement!". But when discussing the GPL, those people are silent when the term "illegal" is used when discussing violations of the GPL.
So, to clarify:
1) Both MP3s and the GPL are protected by the same copyright laws. It's pretty tough to truly violate the GPL. You can sell GPL software, without source, for any price. You can use it however you like. But you have to provide sources upon request in the "preferential form" (EG: Soft copy, no printouts) and the license extends to derivative products. (which is the 'viral' nature of the GPL) Don't like it? Don't code with it.
2) Boot-legging MP3s and violating the terms of the GPL are both copyright violations.
3) Neither violation is covered by "Fair Use" laws.
4) Both are bad. Both are also commonly done, like speeding on the highway.
5) Under some circumstances, violating copyright can be a criminal act in the US. In all circumstances, copyright violations leave the liable to the copyright owner.
Yes, IANAL and all that, but it needs to be said.
By analogy: When I was shopping for a car recently I looked at cool 50K sports car that only seats 2. Well, I drive around with friends a lot and a 4 seater is much more my speed, and I got one with lots of power for about $30K. I could say, as some do with the iPhone, "It only seats two and costs $50K! I can get a 4 seater for half that." So get the freakin' 4 seater.
DING DING DING DING DING! Bad car analogy alert!
It's all marketing! It's more like a hay truck with an oil leak - sometimes a hassle but often worth it because you can earn money with it. Except on Wednesdays, because the hay wholesaler is closed, but the owner has a real cute daughter with red hair who likes to dress up in pink and listen to Def Tones. But that's different than the pink Cadillac SUV driven by a 30-something Mom who wears star-shaped sunglasses with glitter.
Uh, wait... What was the point again?
(reads again)
You've missed the plane, perhaps you can still get the boat.
SaaS is not about your OS, it's not about your word processor. More details here.
but pretending that people already pay a subscription fee for software they purchase is simply disingenuous.
No, it's not a "subscription fee" - but it has the same effect. People buy software, then buy the same software (with upgrades) later. Yes, you can defer for a while. But you're not using Visicalc on your PC/XT, either. You WILL upgrade at some point. And when you do, you'll pay whatever fees are appropriate for whatever you buy/get. You don't "need" to upgrade every couple of years, but you will anyway.
SaaS simply acknowledges this basic truth, and formalizes it.
I think it's pretty clear we're not talking about software licensing or hardware service contracts. I don't see why I would want to pay Microsoft a monthly or yearly fee for the privilege of using their word processor when I can just use an older version that doesn't charge me a recurring fee, or a free alternative like Open Office.
But you do pay a yearly fee. It's called a "purchase" or "upgrade price" that you pay from time to time. There may be other (free) alternatives. But which is less problematic to pay: $10/month or $360 every other year? Many people would have a harder time coming up with $360 all at once rather than $10 per month. When licensing fees run into the tens of thousands or millions of dollars, this can make a big difference.
You are certainly welcome to use free alternatives, if they exist. But don't think that SaaS is about your word processor!
SaaS vendors are typically niche players in a vertical marketplace. The software delivered is highly specialized, and very important to the operation of a business or organization. The cost of development and deployment is high, and the software is highly complex in nature. Moving the software closer to the programmers and "experts" responsible for maintaining it means less fuss and hassle for organizations who are often dealing with strained resources anyway, and often a tremendous improvement in overall system efficiency.
You would understand this better if you had personally spent 5 weeks getting a single server configured with "Enterprise" software. It's a different marketplace. People commonly think that "Enterprise" is somehow "better" or "higher quality". It isn't. All it means is that it's software designed to meet the needs of bigger corporations.
I didn't say that I don't see the upside of service in general. I don't see the upside of Software as Service. I do generally fix my own car, and have never had to have my AC fixed, but that's besides the point. I still own my car and I own my AC. I don't want Car as Service or AC as Service. Similarly, I don't want Software as Service.
Actually, what you said was: I, for one, can't think of a single upside of "Software as Service".
Seems like you are contradicting yourself, since you see at least some upsides to services. But let me ask you this: what software do you own? Windows is licensed to you. So is Linux, BSD, Apache, KDE, QT, Word Perfect, and just about anything else you might consider. And even if the duration on your software license isn't time-limited, it actually is. Or do you still value your copy of MS-Dos 5.0?
So really, what is being serviced? The only difference between what you do and what SaaS users do is that the SaaS users have a service contract on their hardware that's (often) managed off-site. Just like a service contract with Dell, HP, or Sun, the quality of the contract comes down to the quality of the vendor.
Next time you have a solution, put your black hat on and see if you can break it in under 15 seconds of honest thought.
Sorry to break the news to you, but you can't wait 6 months in 15 seconds.
(You could have, this time, several different ways.)
Nice. Implies that you have "several different ways", yet you provide none. Come back when you have something to say.
I, for one, can't think of a single upside of "Software as Service"
So, you NEVER outsource work that needs to be done to an outside vendor? You fix your own car, repair your air conditioner, etc?
I do none of these. I have an insurance contract that I pay yearly for maintenance and repair of all my major household appliances that covers my A/C, stove, fridge, washer, water heater, and dryer. (sadly, dishwasher is not in the mix, I wish it was)
So what we have is a form of "Hardware as a Service". It's a big, complicated problem for me that's handled by the experts for a reasonable fee. And that's all that SaaS is. Vendors offer to take a big, nasty hairball of complexity and make it "go away" for a monthly fee.
And the quality of the decision really comes down to the quality of the vendor. Do they do backups regularly, off-site? Do they keep their server load down? Is their software well architected for security? Stability? Do they have high quality technicians? Programmers? Engineers? When you are experiencing a problem, do they pay attention? Are their prices in line with the services being rendered?
It's like picking a mechanic! If you have good answers to the above questions, SaaS can work very well. If you pick the wrong vendor, the result can be a torturous nightmare.
Did you read what I read? Here, let me point it out... to disseminate to the public or provide notice of to the public or to an individual (as through a mass medium) --see also notice by publication at NOTICE
It's a tactic that's unfortunately too common, but easily defended against, with either of these options:
A) Don't let new members vote for any issues until they've been members for a certain period of time, or
B) Don't let new members vote on any issue that had already been opened for debate (or perhaps officially proposed) prior to their joining.
It's as simple as that.
And there you have the problem with synchronization. There's no mind reader program (yet) so sorry but you're going to have to make up your mind about how to handle it when the server version changed too. Either find a way to merge the files or start making decisions about when they can get modified (ie a checkout system) or if the server's or the laptop's version is always right or if the user gets to choose (bad idea). As for programs, stop looking at famous ones, they suck. That's like using Norton as your antivirus. Find some freeware or open source one that does just what you need and isn't overly complicated
Did you mean to reply to the original poster? Because it looks like you've simply restated the problem. Do you have any suggestions for "freeware or open source one that does just what you need and isn't overly complicated"?
As the Internet permeates every aspect of our lives, and the entire world slowly becomes directly entwined with every other part, the definition of "publish" will have to be changed.
Traditionally, publishing was something done via a newspaper, book, or some other "official" work. Duplicating Intellectual Property has long been formal and obvious. The reasons for copyright were clear, intellectual property was expensive and difficult to distribute, and overcoming the cost of distribution benefited all.
Enter the Internet. Suddenly, Intellectual Property can be distributed to anybody at any time simply by posting on a $5/month website.
I have a web server on my home DSL line with MP3s (legally obtained) that I stream via Apache on a non-standard port, that automatically closes every night. (I have to manually open the port on any day I intend to listen) I do not intend to "publish" these, simply listen to them when and where I happen to be.
But, while the port is open, I'm legally "publishing" these files, and based on this ruling, I'm liable for it. Now, I'm pretty sure the risk of my getting caught is pretty slim, but it's not zero. And the truth is, there will be more and more examples of "publish" simply because putting ANYTHING on the Internet is has always been easy, is easier than it used to be, and is getting easier every day.
At what point are you NOT publishing something? If I record a video of my wife lip-syncing to Green Day and post it on my family website, am I "publishing" their song?
There are millions of examples, and I'm sure there are plenty of bad-car analogies coming soon, but the truth remains: the rules are being changed, and we need to PAY ATTENTION!!!
Imagine trying to run a steel foundry on solar power.
You mean, like these guys? Electricity is nothing more than an energy source...
Now, imagine running a third world steel foundry on solar power.
Ok. Where are you going with this?
That's the gripe many developing nations have with Kyoto - how are they supposed to enter the 20th century if they can use coal fired power?
What is the gripe? Unless you're implying (unsaid) that coal is inherently better. Well, for right now, it's still cheaper. But the price of solar cells continues to drop nicely, which is the point of TFA. And, using solar energy means you don't have to invest in Megabux power grids or railroads for the tons of coal to be used.
There are and will be competitors in the marketplace that will effectively compete with iTunes.
I have an iPod and a Creative Zen. Guess which one I use more? (hint: it's NOT the iPod)
What I don't get is why Microsoft shot their own "PlaysForSure" into "PlaysForMaybe" with their Zune. That strikes me as the most fundamentally stupid thing they could have possibly done, pretty much torpedoing both projects in one fell swoop.
It's a dog food thing - Microsoft wants other companies to buy into PlaysForSure but they aren't willing to use it themselves? Talk about STUPID.. Now nobody trusts either platform, and both are pretty much guaranteed to tank in the marketplace. (which is exactly what's been happening)
Well, I've never had a problem with my systems. "Hibernate" goes to swap, that's all folx; close the lid on the Thinkpad and Kubuntu sends her straight to RAM sleep. Open her up and in a blink she's back. It all Just Works.
It's actually better than you really describe - for me running KDE on Fedora Core 6, the sleep recovery time is about 3 seconds, complete with network reconnect! (wired AND wireless) It's like never turning off your computer.
The only rain on my parade is that the binary ATI driver I had to install to get full width causes suspend/resume to bomb every 25th time or so, forcing a hard reboot, which means my computer gets fully rebooted about once/week.
The terrorists won; we have lost our freedoms. They have changed our way of life.
Terrorism is a war of ideas. And unless we actually learn to understand what it's really all about, we will continue to lose badly, without ever actually understanding why.
A curious thing about people is the ability to infer intent based on actions. It's something that we do so readily that we're barely aware of doing it. If somebody shoots somebody else and kills them, we assume that killing the other person was the shooter's intent.
For most situations, this works rather well. When our significant other throws our clothes and belongings on the front lawn, we can make inferences about his/her intent, and be pretty assured that we're right. It's a short cut to actually finding out what the original intention was.
In the case of terrorism, we apply the same logic. We see the results of the attack of 9/11 in a reduction of our human rights. We see paranoia and incompetent leadership, and we assume that terrorists wanted these things to happen because they clearly did something that caused these things.
And, it's very possible that we assume wrong.
While it may seem obvious that the attacks on the WTC would cause a diminishment of our human rights, and a counter-attack, we can't necessarily assume that's what their INTENT was.
These are people from a vastly different culture and walk of life. In these very homogenous United States, we really have difficulty even understanding how much difference from our way of thinking is possible, let alone understand what those differences entail.
We see things in a very materialistic, very scientific way. These people see things very, very differently, in a very religeous way. When we see a Lexus, we see a nice car that's very desirable. These people may well see a demonic, materialistic trap layed by the devil. They may well see the increased exposure to western culture (a la increased international travel and the Internet) as an invasion, to which they are responding.
They weren't lashing out at the families in the WTC - they didn't know them. I personally doubt that it really crossed their mind.
But until we can actually understand what motivates them, what drives them, what makes them tick, and knock off the guessing games, we'll continue to get nowhere in the "War on Terror".
$10 says the lawyers are the only winners.
If you are right, wouldn't that make you a winner too?
To use your car analogy (usually a bad idea), Chrysler sells the car with a parental control which they claim will keep your kids out of trouble and your kids are stopped doing 100mph in a school zone, does Chrysler have any liability?
I like bad car analogies. They usually clarify a point that nobody intended to make, while hiding the fact that nobody has any clue what you are talking about. I think the analogy here would be more like:
Chrysler sells the car with a parental control which they claim will keep your kids out of trouble. But the kids use the car to listen to rap music and get bad ideas in their head. They go down the street and shoot the neighbors cat. The neighbor is a medical marijuana user, whose stash was just stolen, and is just itching to call the police, except that getting the police to enforce the theft of medical marijuana might be difficult.
And the neighbor across the street is an alcoholic, and everybody knows, but nobody says anything to the neighbor. Both drive an older Chevrolet, one blue, one green.
When they are both drunk or stoned, they sometimes get into the wrong car and wonder why their key doesn't work.
Sorry... what was the point again?
But if common people are representing themselves in cases against the presumably well-financed and well-lawyered RIAA, it gives me some amount of belief that the justice system is ultimately just, or basically fair, and that someone who can present their case in a basic and simple enough manner might actually win.
What's important to remember is that the legal system is a political system, not a technical one. When push comes to shove, all the laws, case decisions, and procedures of law boil down to establishing agreement between members of a political body. (EG: a state or jurisdiction)
When people represent themselves, a powerful force comes to play, depending on the judge - that of sympathy.
The judge knows that people who represent themselves are disadvantaged. They are often (usually?) poor or at least, of insufficient means for their current circumstances. They are usually rather ignorant of the nuances of law and established procedure. (which, maddeningly enough, is subtly different for each jurisdiction, even within the same state)
So, you'll typically get one of two reactions from your judge:
1) They either pay no attention to the "pro per" status of the party, typically with a bit of annoyance that "you didn't file form 10-W at least 10 days in advance of the hearing".
2) They bend over backwards to be "fair" as an act of sympathy.
In my experience, here in Butte County, CA USA, where the judges are elected, I've seen a much stronger tendency towards #2 than #1. And, from a position of power, why not feel like the "good guy" when it costs you nothing?
I'm going to post this anonymously for obvious reasons.
Yeah, 'cause you just know that the Microserfs and lawyers are trolling Slashdot, lurking for confessions of copyright infringement by 15 year olds, so they can sue slashdot to get your IP address, and then do legal discovery to your ISP to get your real name.
Right. (Did your phone just ring? OMG! It could be them right now!!!)
I have a few Windows XP licenses, but they are all OEM XP Home/Media Center licences that came with the computers. Those systems were so crapified by the OEMs and/or in such a bad state (my wifes computer was a mess when I took control over it) that even reinstalling the OEM version would have been a major headache.
What this tells me is that you have no particular idea what you are talking about. The differences between XP Home and XP Professional is little more than the license verification, and a few features that would be useful in a corporate setting.
How is installing a (pirate) Professional any easier than installing a legitimate Home version? I've installed both Professional and Home editions - not much different, except for when your pirate Professional CD key gets invalidated and you have to dicker with the license key in the registry to try to get it to recognize a legitimate key, or re-install the one you legally own.
So go legal! It's easier, and the license is already stuck to the bottom of your laptop!
The Internet provides the pack leaders with an unprecedented level of identifying and controlling dissenters. We need heretics more than ever. As soon as people can no longer speak out against other beliefs, the social system fails by going to extremes and there are no good extremes, as for every winner there are losers. Create too many losers and you head towards civil unrest and even wars.
Not really sure where you get the idea that the IntarWeb promotes conformity - everything I've seen and read indicates a strong tendency towards the reverse. Variations include long tail economics, the rise of the amateur blog and "crowd-sourcing" and the Internet favorite, the the time cube.
Although heresy is important, I'd suggest that the Internet brings its own negative phenomenon - the most incredibly low signal-to-noise ratio communications medium ever conceived of in human history. Perhaps 95% of the content on the Internet is worthless even to its author, and the remaining 5% is often heavily guarded and unaccessible.
Case in point that's a bit closer to home? Simply browse Slashdot at -1...
It's the boogeyman du jour, really. Before we had Global Warming, there were hints at a possible "New Ice Age" coming on ten years before Global Warming became in vogue. Before that it was the "hole in the Ozone" caused by Freons.
There WAS a cooling trend for a few decades, and there still IS a "hole in the ozone". That we've largely mitigated the latter and come to understand more about the former doesn't mean that they didn't happen!
But thinking is hard, and nobody wants to do so. It's difficult to bring up too many problems at once, and few people take the time to understand the actual problem beyond what you might get in a 3-minute segment in a 30-minute newscast. (or worse, the scant sentences in a slashdot article summary) Just because YOU don't understand what the big deal is, doesn't mean there's no big deal. And just because past issues have become better understood doesn't mitigate the importance of the current one.
This is not a made-up "bogeyman" - it's SCIENCE. And the scientific process is the ONLY process that consistently tends towards truth. To found out the truth, to be truly scientific requires the humility of knowing that YOU DON'T KNOW EVERYTHING and that it's a good idea to really really try to find out what the truth actually is, whatever you might prefer.
I could see how a class system in place, and the working class dieing at a higher rate, could support his theory of natural selection help the economic growth. The wealth moved downwards, which in turn turned raised the overall economy. We see this when the working classes started to buy more creating more of a demand and thus the start of the industrial revolution.
What is for me very sobering is the effect that the welfare state has had recently in the United States. The rich have very few children as a result of the costs, while the poor have a large number since their expenses are insulated from them by state support.
It wasn't until recently, with the welfare reform act passed by Bill Clinton that this trend was at least thwarted. (now, more kids != more $$, so at least, once you get ON public assistance, you are disincentivized from having more)
Otherwise, this trend is a harbinger of very, very bad things...