Well, they probably put it in the post office to capture back the customers they lost when their email went down from receiving too many files "to have your advice."
But could it be that Microsoft is giving you WinXP "to have your advice" on it?
'why haven't AMD gone with the MHz doesn't equal performance as they have done with the new XP/MP chips
Because it's deceptive marketing. I'm an AMD user myself (TBird 1.2 GHz), but it really annoys me that they would be willing to mark a processor as something that it is not. Please don't try to tell me that 'performance rating...blah blah...equivalent speed in old architecture.' They are marking the new processors as speeds that they do not run at, period.
Again I ask this: why are they region protecting DVDs of things that haven't been in any international theaters for a loooong time anyway? The MPAA is demonstrating quite clearly here that their argument for region protection (skew releases so a particular region can't have it on DVD when it is still showing in the theaters) is a lie, and that their real reason for having region coding is different.
Eventually, the major players will probably consolidate and form a monopoly which will solve the selection problem and impose a price problem. Then, the government will sue them, yada yada yada
They already have...just look at the RIAA and what it does. I just wish the last part of your statement would come true one of these days.
Additionally, how can MS force them to hand over the addresses and even some of the messages when the Lindows privacy promise explicitly said they would do no such thing?
Legal subpoenas trump privacy agreements. Damn, Microsoft is making an ass of itself here.
The problem with this digital rights management solution, just like all of the others, is that they cannot force people to upgrade
That is, until they stop providing content in the old format.
Re:Will they play on your machines?
on
Star Trek TNG DVDs
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Why the heck would they want to region-protect STTNG DVDs anyway? The industry claims that region coding is there so that they can control the release of movies, etc. -- but STTNG is no movie. If they use region coding on something like this, the MPAA's argument for having region coding gets flushed down the drain. It becomes quite apparent (as if it wasn't already) that region coding is there for more than what they claim it is.
I know all their tracks are 128 kbps. This doesn't tell me a whole lot. A good codec at 128 sounds great, Xing on fast mode at 128 sounds terrible.
I had a 30-day trial subscription to Emusic this past summer (didn't continue it because their selection wasn't as broad as I would have liked). If they haven't changed codecs since then, then according to EncSpot, they are indeed using Xing.
So you get all your information from the same AOL/TW source, delivered by the same company... can you say "Vertical Integration" children? I knew you could...
The problem with this isn't just that the company can charge whatever it wants...the problem is that it can report what it wants to report and ignore what it wants to ignore. IOW, don't be surprised if the news coming out of the member companies -- CNN for instance -- starts to become blatantly biased.
Incidentally, when the hell is the FTC going to wake up and start giving a damn about anti-trust and consumer protection once again? First, you have AOLTW. Next, you have oil companies merging left and right to eventually form the next Standard Oil. (Were the companies that are merging -- Phillips/Conoco and Texaco/Chevron -- formed as a result of the Standard Oil breakup? If so, then there is NO WAY they should be allowed to merge. That would be just like allowing the broken-up pieces of Microsoft to merge back together should that breakup happen, which I unfortunately doubt it will.)
And that's a damn good thing. Just imagine if individual criminal laws like the DMCA could be enforced in a venue like this. Keeping in mind that it would probably be much easier to get litigation started in an online venue than in an actual courtroom, the easiest way to explain the result would be to say that the court was still 'only for Corporate law'...but Corporate Law would take on a whole different meaning.
Pardon the OT post, but if you could come up with 700 clams...from the beach, say...would the stores honor this? Of course, these commercials offered stereos for bananas, but same idea.
You do realize that you're paying royalties twice for the same music, don't you? That's like buying two licenses to use one program. No thanks. And with RIAA-endorsed copy protection, you would effectively have to buy THREE licenses -- one for work, one for the car, and one for your music CDRs.
Assuming you have the right programs, you can use just about any (last I checked, I could use any) MS Windows compatible codec on a Linux box. Even XMMS had the capability of playing back just about any video file that I thre at it, after downloading and compiling the right plugins
But this doesn't mean that we should let Microsoft set all the standards.
It's probably Macrovision protected. Macrovision screws with the sync signals in the analog video stream. TVs generally ignore this, but VCRs don't, and attempting to record a Macrovision-protected signal on a VCR will result in garbled video (I don't think it does anything to the audio).
Are CD copy protections such as Safedisc illegal? As an example, take MS Flight Simulator 2000. I own a legitimate copy of this game, and it is Safedisc-protected. In case you haven't heard of Safedisc, it is a common protection scheme that makes copying difficult and renders backup copies ineffective by ensuring that the *original* CD is in the CD-ROM drive every time the game is started. From this, it is implied that making backup copies is not permissible.
BUT...Microsoft's own EULA -- which in their own words is a legal agreement -- states that if the original media is required to play the game (as is the case here), then it is permissible to make a backup copy of the game CDs. To quote:
6.BACKUP COPY. After installation of one copy of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT pursuant to this EULA, you may keep the original media on which the SOFTWARE PRODUCT was provided by Microsoft solely for backup or archival purposes. If the original media is required to use the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on the COMPUTER, you may make one copy of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT solely for backup or archival purposes. Except as expressly provided in this EULA, you may not otherwise make copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT or the printed materials accompanying the SOFTWARE PRODUCT.
So as you can see there is a major contradiction here. Microsoft explicitly and legally states that it is okay to make backup copies, but they implicitly state that it is not. Are they contradicting their own agreement here? Is this legal?
In case you didn't know, you can go to Metaspy to view searches that are underway on Metafind. I saw a similar link for Google once, but I don't remember where it is. Metafind isn't Google, but its searches show pretty much the same trends this story shows.
Does Google or any search engine have to publish the IPs to the government of people looking for stuff they shouldn't be?
You do realize that if this happened to be true, the search engine would have to submit thousands -- maybe even millions -- of IP addresses per day, don't you? A task like this is far too much work to be worth it. This is what Carnivore is for.
First, does this mean it's Windows-only? Probably. What happens on a non-Windows system? Is the disk labelled accordingly?
CDs like this have been around for a loooooooong time. They're called hybrid CDs -- basically, you have one session with the data and another with the audio. CD players can't see the second session (the one with the data), so they think it's just a regular audio CD. CDROM drives see both the data and the audio, and present the CD accordingly.
No, these CDs aren't Windows-only. They will work just fine on any OS. This isn't even a form of copy protection. There is no reason why they should be labeled as copy-protected, broken, etc. -- because they're not.
I've read that the major HD manufacturers have been toying with implementing Digital Rights Management on the hard drive, but I doubt any OEM would touch that...geeks would then make a small fortune building gray boxes for all their neighbors, who might finally realize that trusting the techie guy next door is a better idea than giving Dell/Gateway their $$$
One of the discussion on that is here. Basically, what it comes down to is that the hard drive manufacturers (*not* the OEMs) know better. In fact, it is in their best interests not to implement this because less DRM means more things stored on the hard drive which means more hard drive sales for them.
The problem with Fox News is they claim to be fair and unbiased, when in fact they are not. If you listen to them objectively for any length of time you will see they have a heavy conservative bias. I am not saying CNN or MSNBC are any better, they are not. Only that Fox is not fair and unbiased and they are openly condescending to anyone who does not agree with them.
I suspect that this is a problem with most major media outlets. The problem is that because governments (especially the US's) are permitting some insane corporate megamergers, you have one company with a very wide reach, and this company will inevitably be biased in such a way that it won't want to report something that would make itself look bad.
Take the three media outlets you mentioned, for instance. CNN is owned by AOL-Time Warner*, MSNBC is owned both by Microsoft and NBC (which is owned by General Electric, which itself owns an assload of other things), and Fox is owned by Rupert Murdoch. Not a single one of these three stations is independent; they are all owned by a much larger corporation. And as I mentioned, bias is inevitable in this situation.
* I still haven't figured out why the hell the FTC allowed that one.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, they probably put it in the post office to capture back the customers they lost when their email went down from receiving too many files "to have your advice."
But could it be that Microsoft is giving you WinXP "to have your advice" on it?
shut up timothy - the DMCA doesn't apply when the copyright holder asks you to break the encryption.
You mean like when Professor Felten was threatened because he met the challenge to break SDMI? Oh wait...
'why haven't AMD gone with the MHz doesn't equal performance as they have done with the new XP/MP chips
Because it's deceptive marketing. I'm an AMD user myself (TBird 1.2 GHz), but it really annoys me that they would be willing to mark a processor as something that it is not. Please don't try to tell me that 'performance rating...blah blah...equivalent speed in old architecture.' They are marking the new processors as speeds that they do not run at, period.
Again I ask this: why are they region protecting DVDs of things that haven't been in any international theaters for a loooong time anyway? The MPAA is demonstrating quite clearly here that their argument for region protection (skew releases so a particular region can't have it on DVD when it is still showing in the theaters) is a lie, and that their real reason for having region coding is different.
Eventually, the major players will probably consolidate and form a monopoly which will solve the selection problem and impose a price problem. Then, the government will sue them, yada yada yada
They already have...just look at the RIAA and what it does. I just wish the last part of your statement would come true one of these days.
No matter how reviled M$ is... the term Lindows DOES infringe on the name Windows...
Bullshit. Does Microsoft own trademarks to all words in the English language that end in "-dows"? Didn't think so.
Additionally, how can MS force them to hand over the addresses and even some of the messages when the Lindows privacy promise explicitly said they would do no such thing?
Legal subpoenas trump privacy agreements. Damn, Microsoft is making an ass of itself here.
The problem with this digital rights management solution, just like all of the others, is that they cannot force people to upgrade
That is, until they stop providing content in the old format.
Why the heck would they want to region-protect STTNG DVDs anyway? The industry claims that region coding is there so that they can control the release of movies, etc. -- but STTNG is no movie. If they use region coding on something like this, the MPAA's argument for having region coding gets flushed down the drain. It becomes quite apparent (as if it wasn't already) that region coding is there for more than what they claim it is.
I know all their tracks are 128 kbps. This doesn't tell me a whole lot. A good codec at 128 sounds great, Xing on fast mode at 128 sounds terrible.
I had a 30-day trial subscription to Emusic this past summer (didn't continue it because their selection wasn't as broad as I would have liked). If they haven't changed codecs since then, then according to EncSpot, they are indeed using Xing.
So you get all your information from the same AOL/TW source, delivered by the same company... can you say "Vertical Integration" children? I knew you could...
The problem with this isn't just that the company can charge whatever it wants...the problem is that it can report what it wants to report and ignore what it wants to ignore. IOW, don't be surprised if the news coming out of the member companies -- CNN for instance -- starts to become blatantly biased.
Incidentally, when the hell is the FTC going to wake up and start giving a damn about anti-trust and consumer protection once again? First, you have AOLTW. Next, you have oil companies merging left and right to eventually form the next Standard Oil. (Were the companies that are merging -- Phillips/Conoco and Texaco/Chevron -- formed as a result of the Standard Oil breakup? If so, then there is NO WAY they should be allowed to merge. That would be just like allowing the broken-up pieces of Microsoft to merge back together should that breakup happen, which I unfortunately doubt it will.)
this is only for Corprate [sic] law
And that's a damn good thing. Just imagine if individual criminal laws like the DMCA could be enforced in a venue like this. Keeping in mind that it would probably be much easier to get litigation started in an online venue than in an actual courtroom, the easiest way to explain the result would be to say that the court was still 'only for Corporate law'...but Corporate Law would take on a whole different meaning.
PCMCIA cards like a VXPocket cost about 700 clams
Pardon the OT post, but if you could come up with 700 clams...from the beach, say...would the stores honor this? Of course, these commercials offered stereos for bananas, but same idea.
You do realize that you're paying royalties twice for the same music, don't you? That's like buying two licenses to use one program. No thanks. And with RIAA-endorsed copy protection, you would effectively have to buy THREE licenses -- one for work, one for the car, and one for your music CDRs.
Assuming you have the right programs, you can use just about any (last I checked, I could use any) MS Windows compatible codec on a Linux box. Even XMMS had the capability of playing back just about any video file that I thre at it, after downloading and compiling the right plugins
But this doesn't mean that we should let Microsoft set all the standards.
It's probably Macrovision protected. Macrovision screws with the sync signals in the analog video stream. TVs generally ignore this, but VCRs don't, and attempting to record a Macrovision-protected signal on a VCR will result in garbled video (I don't think it does anything to the audio).
BUT...Microsoft's own EULA -- which in their own words is a legal agreement -- states that if the original media is required to play the game (as is the case here), then it is permissible to make a backup copy of the game CDs. To quote:
So as you can see there is a major contradiction here. Microsoft explicitly and legally states that it is okay to make backup copies, but they implicitly state that it is not. Are they contradicting their own agreement here? Is this legal?
In case you didn't know, you can go to Metaspy to view searches that are underway on Metafind. I saw a similar link for Google once, but I don't remember where it is. Metafind isn't Google, but its searches show pretty much the same trends this story shows.
Does Google or any search engine have to publish the IPs to the government of people looking for stuff they shouldn't be?
You do realize that if this happened to be true, the search engine would have to submit thousands -- maybe even millions -- of IP addresses per day, don't you? A task like this is far too much work to be worth it. This is what Carnivore is for.
Dmitri Sklyarov had nothing to do with digital music--he was arrested for a DMCA violation in cracking Adobe's ebooks. Get it right.
But the point is that the mess he got into was thanks to a law purchased by the RIAA/MPAA.
First, does this mean it's Windows-only? Probably. What happens on a non-Windows system? Is the disk labelled accordingly?
CDs like this have been around for a loooooooong time. They're called hybrid CDs -- basically, you have one session with the data and another with the audio. CD players can't see the second session (the one with the data), so they think it's just a regular audio CD. CDROM drives see both the data and the audio, and present the CD accordingly.
No, these CDs aren't Windows-only. They will work just fine on any OS. This isn't even a form of copy protection. There is no reason why they should be labeled as copy-protected, broken, etc. -- because they're not.
Don't forget that something like 97%, as I recall, of federal tax income comes from corporations and people who make more than $100,000US/year.
Interesting side note: Microsoft does not pay ANY corporate income tax.
I've read that the major HD manufacturers have been toying with implementing Digital Rights Management on the hard drive, but I doubt any OEM would touch that...geeks would then make a small fortune building gray boxes for all their neighbors, who might finally realize that trusting the techie guy next door is a better idea than giving Dell/Gateway their $$$
One of the discussion on that is here. Basically, what it comes down to is that the hard drive manufacturers (*not* the OEMs) know better. In fact, it is in their best interests not to implement this because less DRM means more things stored on the hard drive which means more hard drive sales for them.
Does the *nix community need MS-Office?
I would say not.
The problem with Fox News is they claim to be fair and unbiased, when in fact they are not. If you listen to them objectively for any length of time you will see they have a heavy conservative bias. I am not saying CNN or MSNBC are any better, they are not. Only that Fox is not fair and unbiased and they are openly condescending to anyone who does not agree with them.
I suspect that this is a problem with most major media outlets. The problem is that because governments (especially the US's) are permitting some insane corporate megamergers, you have one company with a very wide reach, and this company will inevitably be biased in such a way that it won't want to report something that would make itself look bad.
Take the three media outlets you mentioned, for instance. CNN is owned by AOL-Time Warner*, MSNBC is owned both by Microsoft and NBC (which is owned by General Electric, which itself owns an assload of other things), and Fox is owned by Rupert Murdoch. Not a single one of these three stations is independent; they are all owned by a much larger corporation. And as I mentioned, bias is inevitable in this situation.
* I still haven't figured out why the hell the FTC allowed that one.