Audience trading is still allowed. In fact, along with this new program they actually changed their tape trading policies to make them LESS restrictive. This just offers something new that was previously unavailable.
Not everyone who reads was a die hard LotR fan. The people reviewing the movie now are the big fans. I'd like to see what people who didn't grow up with the books thought about it.
A lot of these comments assume that the US system is flawed because that their views have no chance of being properly represented. The system isn't flawed because people aren't getting the people they want in office; the system works because the canidates that people fear are kept out of office.
Libertarians and Greens constantly complain that their views aren't reflected by either of the mainstream parties. For that matter, on many issues my own beliefs are closer to the Libertarians or the Greens and I personally haven't voted for a mainstream Presidential canidate since 92 [1]. However, the same complaints come from Lyndon LaRouche and the KKK. If only a small minority likes your views (and in the case of the libs and the greens that IS true [2]) and the vast majority of the country would be terrified by some of the changes you would enact, then you should not be elected under any system.
Think back on the 2000 election. Imagine now that instead of being a heavily contested race between two extremely similar middle of the road boring canidates, it was between David Duke and Ralph Nader. When the chads were being counted, there very well might have been violence instead of the, "I really hope the person I voted for wins, but if don't I'll be willing to grudingly accept it," attitude that we got. The vast majority of the population wasn't scared by either Gore or Bush[3]. This is proof that the system works for at least one definition of working.
What if you are one of the people who has the 2-5% views? In my opinion running canidates for office is a valid action, but the focus shouldn't be on somehow winning the race or even on getting matching funds. Instead focus on the attempt to get your views out. Slow dramatic change on the beliefs of the electoriate is much more frustrating than hoping your third party canidate can win somehow, but it's a fairer approach to the people who would disagree. One look at the drug legalization debate and the people willing to speak out about it now is proof that it can work. Our system[4] isn't fast about accepting change but remember. The same reasons why we have stupid copyright laws and pot continues to be illegal make it so no one could deport all Arabs on 9/12/01. It's not about getting our wishes; it's about not getting our fears. What's wrong with that?
[1] I used to live in Maryland. Now I live in Washington State. If the Democratic canidate doesn't carry both of those states easily, he or she is going to lose the election. In either case, I don't worry much about my own vote.
[2] That's disguised some by what I like to call the Fallacy of a Large Population. In a country of 260,000,000 people, 2% of that population is over 5 million people. It's easy to exist almost solely in a population that big. When all of your friends agree with you, you're much more likely to overrepresent the degree to which your views are believed in the population at large. The internet (which lets people converse based on beliefs or interests instead of geographical proximity) is making this much worse.
[3] If you're going to respond to this with a rant about how Bush is a facist and we should all fear him in the wake of 9/11, take the time to study real facists. I don't like aspects of the Patriot Bill either, but imagine what he could have railroaded through in the weeks following and be glad that boring middle of the road people win.
[4] Yes I'm being UScentric in this post. The article itself is about the US style of elections. Deal with it.
Yes but if you get together a group of people, they can't decide on what to rent. How could a theatre owner know which movie (other than the big classics) would make money if she booked it? It would be a specialty niche not something for mainstream movies.
"And it won't be until the studios set up digital cinema so that theaters can dedicate half their screens to something other than recent releases. "
How many older movies are there that would draw a consistent crowd better than movies that people haven't seen yet. The market for people who want to see older movies on the big screen is pretty limited, alas.
Sure, everything probably CAN be copied. What the studios can do is make it not worth the effort. If this price got reduced to a dollar or 50 cents, would anyone bother finding a way to do the work to distribute it for free? Even if they did, would a critical mass of people bother using P2P services (with the known problems of mislabeled files and really poor quality files) to get it?
"Whatever happened to the days of normal commerce, where if something new and innovative came in and beat the snot out of the original people (in this case, what Linux (sorry, RMS, GNU/Linux) seems to slowly be doing to Microsoft), the original people adapted? "
This *IS* them adapting. They're just not adapting in the way you want them to.
I have about 6-700 cdrs from bands that allow taping. Being able to store them on a HD not only gives me a backup, it would make it easier for me to make copies for people.
The VHS->DVD transition might be a poor analogy because the region encoding is much worse with video tapes. With DVD's it's just a software flag, but VHS regioning is due to different formats. No one lost anything with their DVD player that they had with their video tapes.
Just a nit. While sure, it's technically possible for a football game to only have two kicks in it, for that to happen, no one would score the entire game (until the last play td preventing OT) and no one would punt the entire game. That's an extremely unrealistic game; it would be like saying that a futball game could have the ball be kicked twice if the opening kickoff of each half was kicked in the air and the rest of game was heading it around.
Why do I write CGI with Perl? You said it yourself. "I love using Perl and am pretty good with it." If given the choice between spending my time learning a new language or spending my time writing scripts in the language I know, I'll chose the second.
Where are you getting that? The related article says, 'According to Oy Online, a hacker could take over a user's computer simply by having the user click on a link to a "hostile Gopher site." That one click would install and run any program the hacker chose on the victim's computer, and the victim might never know'
According to the oy online page "The part of code in IE which parses gopher replies contains an exploitable buffer overflow bug... . The server can be very minimal, ie. a program that can listen on a TCP port and write a block of data; a fully operational gopher server isn't necessary in order to carry out the attack. "
It looks like an accurate link to a gopher server is needed for this attack.
It looks like there needs to be a hostile site existing, unless you have another link.
Slashdot Mirror
of course I'm going to NYE :)
10 days!!!
"Who's got my extra???? My Nassau's for your NYE."
And all of a sudden, my worlds collide.
It's a free sample. Go to Live Phish and download it yourself.
Audience trading is still allowed. In fact, along with this new program they actually changed their tape trading policies to make them LESS restrictive. This just offers something new that was previously unavailable.
Not everyone who reads was a die hard LotR fan. The people reviewing the movie now are the big fans. I'd like to see what people who didn't grow up with the books thought about it.
That's pretty much my reason for sticking with Windows too. I don't have a reason to switch.
...how long until a law passes restricting libraries to the kids.us domain?
A lot of these comments assume that the US system is flawed because that their views have no chance of being properly represented. The system isn't flawed because people aren't getting the people they want in office; the system works because the canidates that people fear are kept out of office.
Libertarians and Greens constantly complain that their views aren't reflected by either of the mainstream parties. For that matter, on many issues my own beliefs are closer to the Libertarians or the Greens and I personally haven't voted for a mainstream Presidential canidate since 92 [1]. However, the same complaints come from Lyndon LaRouche and the KKK. If only a small minority likes your views (and in the case of the libs and the greens that IS true [2]) and the vast majority of the country would be terrified by some of the changes you would enact, then you should not be elected under any system.
Think back on the 2000 election. Imagine now that instead of being a heavily contested race between two extremely similar middle of the road boring canidates, it was between David Duke and Ralph Nader. When the chads were being counted, there very well might have been violence instead of the, "I really hope the person I voted for wins, but if don't I'll be willing to grudingly accept it," attitude that we got. The vast majority of the population wasn't scared by either Gore or Bush[3]. This is proof that the system works for at least one definition of working.
What if you are one of the people who has the 2-5% views? In my opinion running canidates for office is a valid action, but the focus shouldn't be on somehow winning the race or even on getting matching funds. Instead focus on the attempt to get your views out. Slow dramatic change on the beliefs of the electoriate is much more frustrating than hoping your third party canidate can win somehow, but it's a fairer approach to the people who would disagree. One look at the drug legalization debate and the people willing to speak out about it now is proof that it can work. Our system[4] isn't fast about accepting change but remember. The same reasons why we have stupid copyright laws and pot continues to be illegal make it so no one could deport all Arabs on 9/12/01. It's not about getting our wishes; it's about not getting our fears. What's wrong with that?
[1] I used to live in Maryland. Now I live in Washington State. If the Democratic canidate doesn't carry both of those states easily, he or she is going to lose the election. In either case, I don't worry much about my own vote.
[2] That's disguised some by what I like to call the Fallacy of a Large Population. In a country of 260,000,000 people, 2% of that population is over 5 million people. It's easy to exist almost solely in a population that big. When all of your friends agree with you, you're much more likely to overrepresent the degree to which your views are believed in the population at large. The internet (which lets people converse based on beliefs or interests instead of geographical proximity) is making this much worse.
[3] If you're going to respond to this with a rant about how Bush is a facist and we should all fear him in the wake of 9/11, take the time to study real facists. I don't like aspects of the Patriot Bill either, but imagine what he could have railroaded through in the weeks following and be glad that boring middle of the road people win.
[4] Yes I'm being UScentric in this post. The article itself is about the US style of elections. Deal with it.
Yes but if you get together a group of people, they can't decide on what to rent. How could a theatre owner know which movie (other than the big classics) would make money if she booked it? It would be a specialty niche not something for mainstream movies.
"And it won't be until the studios set up digital cinema so that theaters can dedicate half their screens to something other than recent releases. "
How many older movies are there that would draw a consistent crowd better than movies that people haven't seen yet. The market for people who want to see older movies on the big screen is pretty limited, alas.
Sure, everything probably CAN be copied. What the studios can do is make it not worth the effort. If this price got reduced to a dollar or 50 cents, would anyone bother finding a way to do the work to distribute it for free? Even if they did, would a critical mass of people bother using P2P services (with the known problems of mislabeled files and really poor quality files) to get it?
"Whatever happened to the days of normal commerce, where if something new and innovative came in and beat the snot out of the original people (in this case, what Linux (sorry, RMS, GNU/Linux) seems to slowly be doing to Microsoft), the original people adapted? "
This *IS* them adapting. They're just not adapting in the way you want them to.
I have about 6-700 cdrs from bands that allow taping. Being able to store them on a HD not only gives me a backup, it would make it easier for me to make copies for people.
or option 3: "I found the movie to be kind of boring and don't plan to buy it at all"
What if it's the exclusive or?
The VHS->DVD transition might be a poor analogy because the region encoding is much worse with video tapes. With DVD's it's just a software flag, but VHS regioning is due to different formats. No one lost anything with their DVD player that they had with their video tapes.
How would that really be more secure? Users would grow used to just typing in that password whenever it was needed, and would still wreck their boxes.
Just a nit. While sure, it's technically possible for a football game to only have two kicks in it, for that to happen, no one would score the entire game (until the last play td preventing OT) and no one would punt the entire game. That's an extremely unrealistic game; it would be like saying that a futball game could have the ball be kicked twice if the opening kickoff of each half was kicked in the air and the rest of game was heading it around.
all of it. I don't have one mp3 that isn't from a cd I own or from a live recording from a band that allows tape trading.
That's enough for YOUR collection. Personally I've filled up a 20 gig drive. I would need 50-60 gigs to get most of my collection onto a player.
You're right. There's nothing that could be done. People are forced to buy movies after all.
If the restrictions are too onerous, no one will buy the discs.
The first thing I did on my Sampo player was disable the Macrovision. Who knows, maybe one of these years I might even bother to connect my vcr to it.
Why do I write CGI with Perl? You said it yourself. "I love using Perl and am pretty good with it." If given the choice between spending my time learning a new language or spending my time writing scripts in the language I know, I'll chose the second.
"It looks like an accurate link to a gopher server is needed for this attack.
It looks like there needs to be a hostile site existing, unless you have another link."
It also looks like I should actually read what I write when I preview instead of just checking to make sure that the links work.
Where are you getting that? The related article says, 'According to Oy Online, a hacker could take over a user's computer simply by having the user click on a link to a "hostile Gopher site." That one click would install and run any program the hacker chose on the victim's computer, and the victim might never know'
According to the oy online page "The part of code in IE which parses gopher replies contains an exploitable buffer overflow bug... . The server can be very minimal, ie. a program that can listen on a TCP port and write a block of data; a fully operational gopher server isn't necessary in order to carry out the attack. "
It looks like an accurate link to a gopher server is needed for this attack.
It looks like there needs to be a hostile site existing, unless you have another link.