it is an expression that (as far as i know) one of my friends invented. she originally used it in a sentence something like "..and he was running around like a crazy man on fire!" i thought it was funny, so it became my nick...
...the point is that there's no way of telling from just the url that it will not be the organization you are looking for.
no matter what kind of site you are looking for this is the case. unless you know (from having been to the site before, from getting the information from a reliable source, etc) that the url you are typing in is the actual url for the site that you are looking for you can't really expect to get what you thought you were going to get. suppose you want to play some linux games and you know that loki ports various games to linux. fire up netscape and type in www.loki.com expecting to download the quake3 demo. oops! what's this? some sort of web hosting company? sorry, wrong number. the point is that web addresses aren't comprable to street addresses. perhaps ip addresses are, but that is a different story.
clearly, since we are dealing with microsoft, bloat is going to be an issue. soon, you will need a forklift to get the box that your software comes in from the store to your trunk (if it fits in the trunk, that is...)!
i agree that apple would probably like to respond in this way, but aren't these modifications legal? especially since they are only modifying apple hardware and not doing any reverse engineering or anything (which should be legal), isn't this unquestionably legal? by purchasing an imac, don't you have the right to do whatever you want with it (install software, upgrade hardware, hit it with a hammer, install a new processor,...)? i guess not if it was a dvd, but i don't think that "virus" has spread this far yet...
I completely agree. StarOffice is a great product, but the window manager thing really needs to go. i just want to be able to click on an icon in my icon box for a word processor or spreadsheet or whatever, i don't want it to take over my desktop. other than that (and the lacking ms import/export functionality that seems to be fixed) this is a fantastic product...
Concluding, Valenti offered a final thought, "One of the nation's greatest trade assets is at risk. If you cannot protect what you own, then you own nothing."
ok, let me get this straight...you want to protect the rights of people who own things? what about the rights of the people who legally purchase dvd's? do they have rights? why can't they watch the dvd that they own whenever and however they want? how is what you are doing protecting their rights?
Valenti noted that "currently our films are protected by two factors - the amount of time needed to download a full-length motion picture and the lack of unprotected digital copies of our works. But, with the increased availability of broadband Internet access you can bring down a full-length motion picture in less than 15 minutes versus the four to five hours for non-broadband."
Ok, just curious, who has a connection that allows them to download a full length movie in 15 minutes? anybody? didn't think so...
i know, i can't imagine what they were thinking. the best part was when they first came out (summer 98) and iomega was passing out those little "clicker" things (push down the metal tab and it clicks) at their (huge) booth at pc expo to hype the click drive. what dumb marketing person decided it would be a good idea to do something like this???
a flash card reader either, but alot of digicams have them. perhaps they would also give you the option of plugging a serial/usb cable into the camera and connecting to your box so that you can bypas the need for a zip/click/superdisk/whatever drive altogether. on another note, why don't they have minidisk drives? they look so cool (mission impossible, etc) plus they would be more convenient that cds (more durable because of built-in case, smaller)
wasn't one of the original ideas behind iomega's click disks that they be used in digital cameras? they're only the size of a half dollar and can hold 40 meg...
i think this will really popularize digital cameras. one of the reasons i haven't bought one is the floppy disk/serial cable/flash card thing. it is such a pain to get the pictures from the camera onto your box (and if you want linux support...well, you're pretty much out of luck as far as i can tell). but putting the images on a cdr solves all the problems (at least most of them) facing digital camers; image quality, storage space, compatability, and ease of use. plus, you can keep the pictures around forever on that media since it is (or at least will be once it goes production) cheap. good job sony (something i don't say often...)!
clearly, you folks are in a highly secure location, and can protect your data and hardware from unwanted access. however, what measures do you have in place to protect yourselves from hostile (physical) invasion? considering your unstable relationship with the british government and how the mpaa convinced the sweedish government to raid a kid's house for the decss thing, what is to stop some sort of military/police infiltration of your facility if somebody decides that you are hosting something they don't like?
true, the recipient of spam does end up paying for it. however, junk mail (i'm sure there is a huge volume of it going through the post office) also puts a load on the USPS infrastructure. those who buy stamps help to pay for this load (assuming that less load -> lower cost for stamps...similar to assuming less spam -> lower ISP fees). richard nixon was a bad example (that's the price of picking a name at psuedo-random)...
Of course, IANAL... Just as a foreword, i hate spam just as much as anybody else. however, i don't think spam should be illegal (just as junk snail-mail is not illegal). i think that comes down to a freedom of speech issue, and i think the law is on the spammer's side. also, i don't think that impersonation, in all cases, is illegal. suppose, for example, that you dressed up as richard nixon (just to pick a name out of the air) for halloween. suppose also that you ran about in your costume doing all sorts of embarrasing or shameful things. clearly, reasonable people would not take you for the real nixon. also with this case, reasonable people (ok, i know we're dealing with aol users here...give 'em a break!) could not possibly think that ibm would send them porn or get-rich-quick spam. although i think that this guy should be shot in the head, i think that a well-crafted defense could get him off the hook in many court rooms.
Although they didn't say explicitly in the article, it looks like the movie will only be sent and shown digitally at this screening in Atlanta. Judging by the comments made in the article, the cost is prohibitive for digital distribution because it costs too much for the equipment to show it and for the connection to download it. However, I'm sure that this is where theaters will go in the future. Perhaps, though, the film will be distributed to the theaters on some physical media so that a download is not required.
There may be a need to compensate content creators but not at the expense of the consumer.
i agree that ideally consumers should not have to pay for such information. however, i feel that in nearly all cases creators need to be compensated (not always with $$$, tho...) for their work. in some circles (free software, linux, etc.) people do not produce with the intent of reaping financial rewards. however, when somebody writes a book they generally are looking to be rewarded financially. when the creator is expecting (and perhaps depending on) financial compensation then i think that it is justified that somebody should pay them. if there were some way for them to get paid without the consumer having to do it...great! however, i don't see a way to do that.
if/when publishing your book electronically. judging by the usual response to the napster/mp3/metallica thing on/. you will probably find lots of folks getting a copy of your book that they didn't pay for. <sarcasm>after all, it is a natural right right to download electronic books, music, art, etc. for free, isn't it?</sarcasm>
not to beat this to death, but...there certainly are many circumstances when it is right to break the law. however, all these circumstances require that the law be unjust! in the case of a just law (as i believe this application of copyright law to be), you are obligated to obey the law even if you do not agree with it. that is how our govenment works, if you do not agree with something, you must work from within to change it. </clarification>
Unfortunately, I don't think this law is unfair. However, should a law infringe on our basic natural rights, then it is not just our right to disobey it, it is our duty as well. At least accoring to Thoreau
i agree with both your points. there is a whole lot of whining going on because people don't really feel like paying for music, but the copyright protecting the music is fair. however, artists should be able to opt-out of such a copyright/license and give their music away and/or distribute by whatever means they like.
i really like things that are free. it would be really nice if more things were free. i would like to get my music for free. however, i would also like to get my car for free. there are simply some things that are/never-will-be free. it is unfortunate, but deal with it! napster is great, but pirating songs is not great. we get upset when people violate the gpl, isn't it understandable that other folks would get upset when people violate their licenses? sure, cd's shouldn't cost as much as they do. stealing cd's is a sure-fire way not to get the price of music to go down! just because we don't like the law doesn't give us license to break it (especially when we depend on it ourselvs (gpl))... </flamebait>
Slashdot Mirror
it is an expression that (as far as i know) one of my friends invented. she originally used it in a sentence something like "..and he was running around like a crazy man on fire!" i thought it was funny, so it became my nick...
i agree! mod this up!
clearly, since we are dealing with microsoft, bloat is going to be an issue. soon, you will need a forklift to get the box that your software comes in from the store to your trunk (if it fits in the trunk, that is...)!
i just posted the same question...i'm having the same problems. curses, foiled again!
am i just crazy or does the partners.nytimes..... thing not work any more?
i agree that apple would probably like to respond in this way, but aren't these modifications legal? especially since they are only modifying apple hardware and not doing any reverse engineering or anything (which should be legal), isn't this unquestionably legal? by purchasing an imac, don't you have the right to do whatever you want with it (install software, upgrade hardware, hit it with a hammer, install a new processor, ...)? i guess not if it was a dvd, but i don't think that "virus" has spread this far yet...
I completely agree. StarOffice is a great product, but the window manager thing really needs to go. i just want to be able to click on an icon in my icon box for a word processor or spreadsheet or whatever, i don't want it to take over my desktop. other than that (and the lacking ms import/export functionality that seems to be fixed) this is a fantastic product...
i know, i can't imagine what they were thinking. the best part was when they first came out (summer 98) and iomega was passing out those little "clicker" things (push down the metal tab and it clicks) at their (huge) booth at pc expo to hype the click drive. what dumb marketing person decided it would be a good idea to do something like this???
perhaps there are cartridges available that do have an indentation? i didn't even think of that...
a flash card reader either, but alot of digicams have them. perhaps they would also give you the option of plugging a serial/usb cable into the camera and connecting to your box so that you can bypas the need for a zip/click/superdisk/whatever drive altogether.
on another note, why don't they have minidisk drives? they look so cool (mission impossible, etc) plus they would be more convenient that cds (more durable because of built-in case, smaller)
wasn't one of the original ideas behind iomega's click disks that they be used in digital cameras? they're only the size of a half dollar and can hold 40 meg...
i think this will really popularize digital cameras. one of the reasons i haven't bought one is the floppy disk/serial cable/flash card thing. it is such a pain to get the pictures from the camera onto your box (and if you want linux support...well, you're pretty much out of luck as far as i can tell). but putting the images on a cdr solves all the problems (at least most of them) facing digital camers; image quality, storage space, compatability, and ease of use. plus, you can keep the pictures around forever on that media since it is (or at least will be once it goes production) cheap. good job sony (something i don't say often...)!
clearly, you folks are in a highly secure location, and can protect your data and hardware from unwanted access. however, what measures do you have in place to protect yourselves from hostile (physical) invasion? considering your unstable relationship with the british government and how the mpaa convinced the sweedish government to raid a kid's house for the decss thing, what is to stop some sort of military/police infiltration of your facility if somebody decides that you are hosting something they don't like?
true, the recipient of spam does end up paying for it. however, junk mail (i'm sure there is a huge volume of it going through the post office) also puts a load on the USPS infrastructure. those who buy stamps help to pay for this load (assuming that less load -> lower cost for stamps...similar to assuming less spam -> lower ISP fees).
richard nixon was a bad example (that's the price of picking a name at psuedo-random)...
Of course, IANAL...
Just as a foreword, i hate spam just as much as anybody else. however, i don't think spam should be illegal (just as junk snail-mail is not illegal). i think that comes down to a freedom of speech issue, and i think the law is on the spammer's side. also, i don't think that impersonation, in all cases, is illegal.
suppose, for example, that you dressed up as richard nixon (just to pick a name out of the air) for halloween. suppose also that you ran about in your costume doing all sorts of embarrasing or shameful things. clearly, reasonable people would not take you for the real nixon.
also with this case, reasonable people (ok, i know we're dealing with aol users here...give 'em a break!) could not possibly think that ibm would send them porn or get-rich-quick spam. although i think that this guy should be shot in the head, i think that a well-crafted defense could get him off the hook in many court rooms.
Although they didn't say explicitly in the article, it looks like the movie will only be sent and shown digitally at this screening in Atlanta. Judging by the comments made in the article, the cost is prohibitive for digital distribution because it costs too much for the equipment to show it and for the connection to download it. However, I'm sure that this is where theaters will go in the future. Perhaps, though, the film will be distributed to the theaters on some physical media so that a download is not required.
i agree that ideally consumers should not have to pay for such information. however, i feel that in nearly all cases creators need to be compensated (not always with $$$, tho...) for their work. in some circles (free software, linux, etc.) people do not produce with the intent of reaping financial rewards. however, when somebody writes a book they generally are looking to be rewarded financially. when the creator is expecting (and perhaps depending on) financial compensation then i think that it is justified that somebody should pay them. if there were some way for them to get paid without the consumer having to do it...great! however, i don't see a way to do that.
if/when publishing your book electronically. judging by the usual response to the napster/mp3/metallica thing on /. you will probably find lots of folks getting a copy of your book that they didn't pay for. <sarcasm>after all, it is a natural right right to download electronic books, music, art, etc. for free, isn't it?</sarcasm>
1) Akira
2) Ghost in the Shell
3) Ninja Scroll
4) Vampire Hunter D
not to beat this to death, but...there certainly are many circumstances when it is right to break the law. however, all these circumstances require that the law be unjust! in the case of a just law (as i believe this application of copyright law to be), you are obligated to obey the law even if you do not agree with it. that is how our govenment works, if you do not agree with something, you must work from within to change it.
</clarification>
i agree with both your points. there is a whole lot of whining going on because people don't really feel like paying for music, but the copyright protecting the music is fair. however, artists should be able to opt-out of such a copyright/license and give their music away and/or distribute by whatever means they like.
i really like things that are free. it would be really nice if more things were free. i would like to get my music for free. however, i would also like to get my car for free. there are simply some things that are/never-will-be free. it is unfortunate, but deal with it! napster is great, but pirating songs is not great. we get upset when people violate the gpl, isn't it understandable that other folks would get upset when people violate their licenses? sure, cd's shouldn't cost as much as they do. stealing cd's is a sure-fire way not to get the price of music to go down! just because we don't like the law doesn't give us license to break it (especially when we depend on it ourselvs (gpl))...
</flamebait>