Maybe I don't have a clue, but can't you do hotswap using HD trays? I know mine powers down the drive before you can remove it (you need to unlock the key), and even if I do this with the system on - Linux doesn't seem to care.
I haven't ever tried putting it back in while the power was still on. Would it work? Or would I ruin the drive? I'm sure the replacement would have to be identical to the original.
It still works after I've powered it down while the system was live, so who knows?
>And since there is normally only 2 IDE channels in a box, your RAID would be kinda limited...
Maybe in _your_ box...:-)
You can get IDE controllers in tertiary and quaternary fashion. I hear PCI IDE controllers (like this Promise model) will automatically select tertiary and quaternary modes if you don't disable the ones already in your computer.
I bet you can keep on stacking the cards up too, until you run out of IRQs...
>IDE controllers are brain-dead. They do absolutely nothing and rely on the CPU to do everything.
Isn't that just for the old PIO modes? I might not be right here, though.
> DMA33 is actually 33 MB/s (hence the name...) The 25 MB/s transfer rate you are seeing is actually the HD limit. Even though the interface can sustain 33 MB/s, the HD is not as fast. 12.5 MB/s is actually pretty good for a HD.
Well, this is good. If what I think is true above (ie: the PIO modes are the only processor intensive ones) then this means that a UDMA hard drive is going to run at peak performane.
Woohoo!
And hey, even if you don't buy extra cards, and use 2 drives on each controller, you are still fufilling the original idea of RAID - *Redundant* Array of Inexpensive Disks. So if one breaks, no problem, you might not even notice!
If you ask that's CYA (Cover Your Ass). If a Multibillion dollar set of corporations wants your ass, you need to CYA. And that statement is a "CYA" statement, again, if you ask me.
With:
If you ask ME that's CYA (Cover Your Ass). If a Multibillion dollar set of corporations wants your ass, you need to CYA. And that statement is a "CYA" statement, again, if you ask me.
>"Indeed, the settlement agreements in both Canada and the U.S. specifically recognize that iCraveTV can again start retransmitting broadcast signals in Canada once Canadian law is clarified"
If you ask that's CYA (Cover Your Ass). If a Multibillion dollar set of corporations wants your ass, you need to CYA. And that statement is a "CYA" statement, again, if you ask me.
But, if you think that iCrave means exactly what it said in that statement, well, fine. That's valid too.
>Last, you were just deflecting the original argument I made about advertising dollars by stating that it was legal in Canada.
Where did you discuss advertising dollars now? I went back three levels in this thread, and I don't see it.
>Excuse me, interpretation on the part of iCraveTV of a law was certainly ambiguous and certainly questionable.
The interpretation of law is black and white. It is either right or wrong. There are no grey areas. If this is legal, then it is. If it isn't, then it isn't. Whether it is or isn't is up to the SUPREME court to decide. I can tell you right now that the first two or three courts they go to in Canada would HAVE to uphold the law, never mind the interpretation. After that, appeals from the American Broadcasters might make it to the Supreme court, where the law can be "circumvented".
A law is a law. It isn't open to interpretation. Are you saying that the Canadian law doesn't allow for rebroadcasting now?
>They would have ultimately lost the case either way - whether them running out of money or them being defeated in court.
How do you know this? A premenition perhaps? Those don't count, you know. You cannot know this because this case hasn't even touched the Canadian legal system yet.
>Secondly, this is not american broadcasting vs. canadian icravetv. There were canadian companies involved in this suit.
Then why are they being sued in the US and not Canada? Why do they have to show up in a US court?
If it were Canadian companies, then they would have to show up in a Canadian court. (I know that there are Canadian companies that aren't happy about iCrave, but I do not beleive they have sued yet).
Man, oh man, so many people missing the facts here.
Fact is, in Canada it is legal to do this (rebroadcasting). Wether it is moral or not is for Canada to decide, and if Canadians feel strongly against this law, it is up to them to get it changed, it is not for American Companies to decide. I don't feel strongly against this law, and I'm a Canadian (and now I finally have a reason to be DAMN PROUD OF IT!).
I think there are a LOT of Canadians on my side. If American TV broadcasters don't like this, the answer is simple - quit broadcasting your American signals with so much power near the iCraveTV receivers.
>If you don't believe in IP at all then you have to agree with QuakeWorld's "right" to make a closed-source derivation from GPL'd code. I assume very few people fall into this category.
'scuse me but that isn't what iCrave is doing. By making a closed source only version of Quake, you change the agreement, and change the availiability of the program (ie. It isn't availiable in source code anymore). iCrave didn't change the programm or remove legal availiability at all. They just added to it.
Would it be so wrong for me to make a GPL version of Quake that has ads plastered around the game window?
I don't think so. And that is what iCrave is doing - providing the same signal with ads surrounding it.
IP wasn't being violated by iCrave. The pocketbooks of greedy American Corporations were. And you know what - I am happy they are. American Corporations have dictated laws around the world for long enough.
It is time for the people to stand up and make a difference!
(ohoh - I guess I will be in troublel for that - I beleive I saw that sentence read in a movie once. That would be a violation of IP for me to copy that into my post. Oh well, I don't care, because MY country allows for me to do that ["fair use"]... Does yours?)
>There are(were) no mechanisms in place to prevent someone from the united states from viewing iCraveTV other than having a Canadian postal code.
There are no mechanisms to prevent you lying on your tax return, other than you signing your name to it (and the agreement listed).
You signed your tax return, you agreed to the rules stated on it.
You clicked "I agree". You entered your phone number. You watched the station. You agreed to the rules stated on the license.
If you don't beleive that is enough - go ahead and violate a "don't break this seal without reading the license agreement" or a "click I accept if you accept the agreement" license. I bet you'll find the license is upheld and that you have broken the law, if the law applies to you in your country.
>This argument makes no sense at all. The fact is, they are exploiting a law that does not work well in the internet age. You can rant and rave about how the law is the law, but it doesn't make it magically an argument that makes sense. iCraveTV would have lost the lawsuit
Yeah, they would have lost the lawsuit in America. Too bad that doesn't mean the US or those companies can do a single thing (of course, America can bar the owner of iCrave from entry into the crounty. Like he would care.).
If the lawsuit were to be held in Canada (where the law applies to him) the law must be UPHELD. There is no choice about this. Unless it was taken to the SUPREME court, there is no choice about this. A law is a law. And the suit would have been lost, as law would dictate. Anything else would mean TOTAL ANARCHY.
Just because _you_ don't think the law makes sense doesn't give _you_ the right to violate it. I don't think the law against me stealing from a bank makes sense either (it keeps me from being $$$rich$$$), but that doesn't give me the right to violate it.
If American law says all cars must be painted black, and If the Canadian law says cars may be any colour, then a car from the US entering Canada can be painted any colour.
If American law says broadcasts cannot be rebroadcast, and If the Canadian law says broadcasts in Canada can be rebroadcast, then a broadcast from the US entering Canada can be rebroadcast.
Does that suit you better?:-)
There should be no argument about this. The law is the law. If you don't like it, tough noogies.
> They do care when ppl start trying to sterilize the place. With over a million readrs that is not going to happen.
Hey, no harm no foul. It isn't like I would have said anything, but, as I said, there are a LOT of posts here suggesting that double negatives are a good use of english grammar. That isn't true - someone needed to tell everyone that (in a clear and concise manner), if not just for the public "re-education".
:-)
I'm almost glad this thread is old. I'm getting mighty tired now of speaking about grammar. Heck, I'm a Technical student, not an English student!
>You can't just re-broadcast stuff. Isn't that obvious?
(no, I don't understand why you would think this way. I am a Canadian).
Does Canadian law no longer apply in Canada? If you answered yes (if you didn't, gawd, there is no help for you) then you just disproved your own fact. In Canada you may rebroadcast TV legally. There are No Exceptions provided for American stations that can be picked up here.
It is, once again, sour grapes from American companies who don't appreciate our liberal laws.
>Your Sony logo on the TV is not integral to the signal. With a TV swapout, it might say Panasonic, but the signal is the same on both TV's. The advertising banners were intrinsic to the television feed, and THAT's the point. It's an addition to the signal, which means it is no longer the original signal.
Huh? I had better stop using @Home right now. I mean, they multiplex all this digital internet stuff with the same cable the TV signals are carried on, right? (yes) They are breaking the law, right? (no).
>these companies are completely within their rights.
What rights? Ohhhh, you mean AMERICAN rights. Not CANADIAN.
In both Canada and the US, making copies of archived music is illegal (copying Copyrighted MP3s).
In the US rebroadcasting TV is illegal. In Canada it isn't.
In the Canada it is illegal not to have Daytime Running Lights installed on your vehicle. In the US it isn't. So by your argument the US should be forced to comply with Canadian law and install Daytime Running Lights.
Woah... That is a new one on me.
I don't care if adervtisers lose money, hell, I don't care if people go out of business. This is MY LAW (I am a Canadian) and I AM SADDENED TO SEE IT TRAMPLED ON LIKE THIS.
I am damn pissed at American TV right now, who are trying to force THEIR LAWS down OUR THROATS. Angry enough to watch the Simpsons on Global (a Canadian station) rather than on Fox (American).
How would America like it if Canada started telling Americans that if they don't use the Metric system on their road signs from now on, "something bad would happen". I bet Americans would be damn upset too.
To summarize: MP3 != rebroadcasting TV (in this argument), and American Law != Canadian Law (At all. Period.)
You didn't read the whole Berne Convention, did you (it is kinda long, so I'll understand):
Article 11bis:
(1) Authors of literary and artistic works shall enjoy the exclusive right of authorizing:
(i) the broadcasting of their works or the communication thereof to the public by any other means of wireless diffusion of signs, sounds or images; (ii) any communication to the public by wire or by rebroadcasting of the broadcast of the work, when this communication is made by an organization other than the original one; (iii) the public communication by loudspeaker or any other analogous instrument transmitting, by signs, sounds or images, the broadcast of the work.
(2) It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to determine the conditions under which the rights mentioned in the preceding paragraph may be exercised, but these conditions shall apply only in the countries where they have been prescribed. They shall not in any circumstances be prejudicial to the moral rights of the author, nor to his right to obtain equitable remuneration which, in the absence of agreement, shall be fixed by competent authority.
In the absence of any contrary stipulation, permission granted in accordance with paragraph (1) of this Article shall not imply permission to record, by means of instruments recording sounds or images, the work broadcast. It shall, however, be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to determine the regulations for ephemeral recordings made by a broadcasting organization by means of its own facilities and used for its own broadcasts. The preservation of these recordings in official archives may, on the ground of their exceptional documentary character, be authorized by such legislation.
Seems like Canada falls well into paragraph 2. Their law says that you may rebroadcast signals. That looks very much to me like:
"A matter for legislation in the countr[y]... to determine the conditions under which the rights... may be exercised... but these conditions shall apply only in the countr[y] [in which] they have been prescribed."
>Even if iCraveTV can't braodcast american TV, this could be a good thing
Yeah - less of those crappy American commercial streams where they play the same commercial three times over during the same commercial block... where they play the same commercial three times over during the same commercial block... where they play the same commercial three times over during the same commercial block.
That bothers the heck out of me. Do they think that by me viewing the same 30 second clip three times I'm going to ENJOY it? I wouldn't go to the same movie three times in one day... because it would SUCK.
If it wasn't for broadcast TV, Sony wouldn't be selling many TVs. So yes, they make money directly off the programming, inasmuch that if it didn't exist, they wouldn't make any money at all (from TVs).
Part of the money is made from the quality of picture presented, but then again, the same could be said for iCrave. Not that their picture is better, but that it is useable in a different format.
>How would slashdot like it if CNN put slashdot.org in a frame and put adds around it??
If CNN had a TTY number (a service for deaf people to use the telephone) and offered slashdot (text-mode) with extra (text-mode) ads blasted into it, I'd be tickled pink.
This is what iCrave is doing. They are offering the service in another format. Just as TTY services are not the internet, TV over the internet is not over the airwaves. As long as the broadcasters choose not to employ the internet as a method of providing service, this is how the situation will remain.
And just as TTY is nowhere near as versatile as true phone service, iCrave is nowhere near as good quality as real TV.
If CNN did this to slashdot over the internet (framing ads around it), and slashdot was availiable by other methods, I would still be happy. Because I learned slashdot existed, and because I can break out of the frame and view it the same way.
This is NOT what iCrave is doing. This would be akin to opening up a TV station, and rebroadcasting someone else's airwaves, over the airwaves, with extra ads framed around the site. Annoying, but you can still tell who is broadcasting it, and you can tune into that station. If you can't tune into it locally because it isn't avaliable, then who is being hurt here?
Until the American companies smarten up, iCrave has the moral advantage on this one, I'm afraid.
And the cost of giving the people what they want is a proverbial "drop in the bucket" to the broadcasters. It is simply their lead asses not getting into gear in time that has caused this silly skirmish.
>a) broadcasters not knowing how much to charge advertisers because some company is rebroadcasting their station all over america
If you choose to watch iCraveTV in America, you are breaking the law. The License Agreement you agreed to before you watched iCraveTV required you to not only be an American, but abide by local laws. Local laws in America say that watching the iCrave broadcast would be a crime. And you are not a Canadian if you live in America (unless you somehow have dual citizenship, but this is unlikely):-)
This of course, applies to other countries where a non-rebroadcasting law is in effect.
>b) taking control of IP away from the original owners?
Maybe so, but I wouldn't bust into America and force them to use the Metric system, so why are Americans busting into Canada and forcing their laws onto us?
If you don't want that, the answer is simple: Either use scramblers on the TV stations closest to the Canadian border, and require Americans to use descramblers to pick them up, and prevent the export of these descramblers, or, don't broadcast up north at all.
After all, Microsoft wouldn't get their CDs pressed in China because they would pirate them (And if they DO get them pressed there, wow, such stupidity!). And they wouldn't be breaking the law. So the answer is easy - avoid the problem.
Not that I care, but you were breaking iCraveTV's license agreement by watching it in the US.
Now, if you watch iCrave legally (ie: In Canada) they are only doing what the law provides for them to do. If some tiny station goes under because everyone is watching the broadcast on the 'net, well, so be it. It obviously shows that the way consumers want their TV is over the internet, not the old way.
Saying anything else would be like saying that rebroadcasting an large FM station on AM radio might cause the tiny local FM station to go out of business because everybody listens to AM. Well, if that is the case, too bad. It is obvious the people don't want FM. They want AM! (Not that people want it that way, just an example.). Give the consumers what they want. Is that too hard for a company to understand? If you are too slow to change in the market, and you are trampled by those better suited to it, that is the "American Way", no?;-)
Hmm, Sony, Panasonic, Toshiba, etc... should be in big trouble by now.
I mean, their name is right there on the front of many TVs, right below the broadcast. If you ask me, seeing "Sony" framing my commercials all the time is like advertising to me.
I guess if I decide to stick a coupon to the front of the TV I am breaking the law as well.
I guess, also, if I print out a bunch of banner ads, and glue them to the front of the TV, and pay someone to change them all the time, I am breaking the law too?
What if I let someone else watch my now everchanging framed advertising TV? Is that illegal?
>Were they (Radio Shack)showing a local broadcast station?
Where I am, yes. Most importantly, they show football and baseball games, which the networks are getting real angry at iCrave about. Heck, even entire movies too!
>Did they (Radio Shack) cut away during the commercial breaks and insert their own Radio Shack ads, thus using programming someone else paid for to attract an audience for their ads?
Nope, and neither did iCrave. And just like Icrave, their are ads all around the TV, saying things like "Buy this TV for just $499", or "Take away this Tandy 1000 XL, and we'll give you $5".
And, what is worse, they use a "special adaptor" (just like iCrave used "special adaptors":-) to get the TV signal onto the net) to allow MULTIPLE rebroadcasts of the same receieved channel. The "special adaptor" in Radio Shack's case is an "Amplifier". Seriously bad stuff here.
In some stores, they even use a "signal rebroadcaster" or antenna hooked up to the amplifier to rebroadcast the signals to other TVs easier. Seriously, they should be all in a Federal "Pound Me In The Ass" Prison for such theivery.
And the admission charges are horrible! If you don't buy something within half an hour, you are kicked out of the store! Even iCrave did do that!
And yet, the Shack is still in business.
Ohoh... Oh yeah, right, I know why I'm not worried - Tandy/Radio Shack has more than enough money to tell CBS/ABC/etc where to SHOVE IT. And as we all know, once you break $1 million, the laws don't apply to you - and once you break $1 billion, you can make up your own laws. What a truly capitolistic society we live in! The joy...
At my College we have about 15 fileservers, all running Novell Netware (various version, mostly version four, though). At least once a month, sometimes (although not often) weekly, a server goes down, HARD. Like cycle power/reset button hard.
That means that on average each server is up for about 8 or 9 months. Not bad really, but I'm sure Linux can do just as good a job with a competent Sysadmin running it.
I don't know what one should expect from a server OS in reliability (I haven't studied the topic in depth), but I would say Netware stability is good. But as for it surpassing Linux - that is a tough case to prove (IMHO).
Those are all valid points, and I do understand the reasons behind people thinking like that.
But - as long as slashdot wants to be the "best and only" news service on the net, they need to seriously work on the grammar of postings (1). Editors do have the right to "rewrite" articles so they are more pleasing to read. Newspapers do this all the time.
But, as you say, if slashdot wants to remain a less "professional", more "freindly" news service, then there is no reason for them to change.
I'm always for the more professional look in some things, witness the fact that I can't stand folk/country art:-) But I do understand that some people prefer a more freindly look to things, and I have no problem with that. I just wish people would do it without violating major grammar rules.
I just wish there could be some common ground on a topic like this. Well, if I come up with any, I'll mail off the suggestion to CmdrTaco.
>For heavens sake, it was a _joke_, people. And it was funny.
Yeah, I got the joke too. And it was funny, but I have a feeling that my rewording of the original sentences not only conveyed the joke, but would have been a more satisfying read.
>Nobody doesn't not give a crap
Well, yes and no. I got a lot of replies to my post, which was buried within another post about the grammar on slashdot, so someone must have read it. But I do think you are right, the general consensus on slashdot doesn't care too much.
Just my $0.02...
(1). I don't know if "best and only" is slashdot's goal, but it certainly is the goal of all the other businesses out there. If not, I apoligize for lumping slashdot in with all the other bad apples.
Yeah, slashdot does that (stripping less than signs) in "plain old text mode".
You're right - I simply made a pointless assertion in my code there. Whoops. I'm sorta tired, so bear with me. Ok, here is the "patch":
a == !!a;
should be replaced with these two lines: a = -a; a = -a;
Good point - fortunately, the output still worked. Now why did gcc not even give a warning about my pointless code? (I'm not a professional in C by any measure, but shouldn't wasted code be a warning?)
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe I don't have a clue, but can't you do hotswap using HD trays? I know mine powers down the drive before you can remove it (you need to unlock the key), and even if I do this with the system on - Linux doesn't seem to care.
I haven't ever tried putting it back in while the power was still on. Would it work? Or would I ruin the drive? I'm sure the replacement would have to be identical to the original.
It still works after I've powered it down while the system was live, so who knows?
Anyone with some junk around care to try?
>And since there is normally only 2 IDE channels in a box, your RAID would be kinda limited...
:-)
...) The 25 MB/s transfer rate you are seeing is actually the HD limit. Even though the interface can sustain 33 MB/s, the HD is not as fast. 12.5 MB/s is actually pretty good for a HD.
Maybe in _your_ box...
You can get IDE controllers in tertiary and quaternary fashion. I hear PCI IDE controllers (like this Promise model) will automatically select tertiary and quaternary modes if you don't disable the ones already in your computer.
I bet you can keep on stacking the cards up too, until you run out of IRQs...
>IDE controllers are brain-dead. They do absolutely nothing and rely on the CPU to do everything.
Isn't that just for the old PIO modes? I might not be right here, though.
> DMA33 is actually 33 MB/s (hence the name
Well, this is good. If what I think is true above (ie: the PIO modes are the only processor intensive ones) then this means that a UDMA hard drive is going to run at peak performane.
Woohoo!
And hey, even if you don't buy extra cards, and use 2 drives on each controller, you are still fufilling the original idea of RAID - *Redundant* Array of Inexpensive Disks. So if one breaks, no problem, you might not even notice!
Charge $35 for the RAID card and drop the other one.
Now you get even more money than before, because you have one heck of a product, that everyone wants (at that price, wow!), that is only $35.
Nahhhh, couldn't happen...
(I don't know ecenomics, before you flame...)
I shoulda used previews:
Replace
If you ask that's CYA (Cover Your Ass). If a Multibillion dollar set of corporations wants your ass, you need to CYA. And that statement is a "CYA" statement, again, if you ask me.
With:
If you ask ME that's CYA (Cover Your Ass). If a Multibillion dollar set of corporations wants your ass, you need to CYA. And that statement is a "CYA" statement, again, if you ask me.
Sorry...
>coming directly from iCraveTV's site:
:-(
>"Indeed, the settlement agreements in both Canada and the U.S. specifically recognize that iCraveTV can again start retransmitting broadcast signals in Canada once Canadian law is clarified"
If you ask that's CYA (Cover Your Ass). If a Multibillion dollar set of corporations wants your ass, you need to CYA. And that statement is a "CYA" statement, again, if you ask me.
But, if you think that iCrave means exactly what it said in that statement, well, fine. That's valid too.
I guess we aren't going to agree on this.
>Last, you were just deflecting the original argument I made about advertising dollars by stating that it was legal in Canada.
Where did you discuss advertising dollars now? I went back three levels in this thread, and I don't see it.
>Excuse me, interpretation on the part of iCraveTV of a law was certainly ambiguous and certainly questionable.
The interpretation of law is black and white. It is either right or wrong. There are no grey areas. If this is legal, then it is. If it isn't, then it isn't. Whether it is or isn't is up to the SUPREME court to decide. I can tell you right now that the first two or three courts they go to in Canada would HAVE to uphold the law, never mind the interpretation. After that, appeals from the American Broadcasters might make it to the Supreme court, where the law can be "circumvented".
A law is a law. It isn't open to interpretation. Are you saying that the Canadian law doesn't allow for rebroadcasting now?
>They would have ultimately lost the case either way - whether them running out of money or them being defeated in court.
How do you know this? A premenition perhaps? Those don't count, you know. You cannot know this because this case hasn't even touched the Canadian legal system yet.
>Secondly, this is not american broadcasting vs. canadian icravetv. There were canadian companies involved in this suit.
Then why are they being sued in the US and not Canada? Why do they have to show up in a US court?
If it were Canadian companies, then they would have to show up in a Canadian court. (I know that there are Canadian companies that aren't happy about iCrave, but I do not beleive they have sued yet).
Man, oh man, so many people missing the facts here.
Fact is, in Canada it is legal to do this (rebroadcasting). Wether it is moral or not is for Canada to decide, and if Canadians feel strongly against this law, it is up to them to get it changed, it is not for American Companies to decide. I don't feel strongly against this law, and I'm a Canadian (and now I finally have a reason to be DAMN PROUD OF IT!).
I think there are a LOT of Canadians on my side. If American TV broadcasters don't like this, the answer is simple - quit broadcasting your American signals with so much power near the iCraveTV receivers.
>If you don't believe in IP at all then you have to agree with QuakeWorld's "right" to make a closed-source derivation from GPL'd code. I assume very few people fall into this category.
'scuse me but that isn't what iCrave is doing. By making a closed source only version of Quake, you change the agreement, and change the availiability of the program (ie. It isn't availiable in source code anymore). iCrave didn't change the programm or remove legal availiability at all. They just added to it.
Would it be so wrong for me to make a GPL version of Quake that has ads plastered around the game window?
I don't think so. And that is what iCrave is doing - providing the same signal with ads surrounding it.
IP wasn't being violated by iCrave. The pocketbooks of greedy American Corporations were. And you know what - I am happy they are. American Corporations have dictated laws around the world for long enough.
It is time for the people to stand up and make a difference!
(ohoh - I guess I will be in troublel for that - I beleive I saw that sentence read in a movie once. That would be a violation of IP for me to copy that into my post. Oh well, I don't care, because MY country allows for me to do that ["fair use"]... Does yours?)
>There are(were) no mechanisms in place to prevent someone from the united states from viewing iCraveTV other than having a Canadian postal code.
:-)
There are no mechanisms to prevent you lying on your tax return, other than you signing your name to it (and the agreement listed).
You signed your tax return, you agreed to the rules stated on it.
You clicked "I agree". You entered your phone number. You watched the station. You agreed to the rules stated on the license.
If you don't beleive that is enough - go ahead and violate a "don't break this seal without reading the license agreement" or a "click I accept if you accept the agreement" license. I bet you'll find the license is upheld and that you have broken the law, if the law applies to you in your country.
>This argument makes no sense at all. The fact is, they are exploiting a law that does not work well in the internet age. You can rant and rave about how the law is the law, but it doesn't make it magically an argument that makes sense. iCraveTV would have lost the lawsuit
Yeah, they would have lost the lawsuit in America. Too bad that doesn't mean the US or those companies can do a single thing (of course, America can bar the owner of iCrave from entry into the crounty. Like he would care.).
If the lawsuit were to be held in Canada (where the law applies to him) the law must be UPHELD. There is no choice about this. Unless it was taken to the SUPREME court, there is no choice about this. A law is a law. And the suit would have been lost, as law would dictate. Anything else would mean TOTAL ANARCHY.
Just because _you_ don't think the law makes sense doesn't give _you_ the right to violate it. I don't think the law against me stealing from a bank makes sense either (it keeps me from being $$$rich$$$), but that doesn't give me the right to violate it.
If American law says all cars must be painted black, and If the Canadian law says cars may be any colour, then a car from the US entering Canada can be painted any colour.
If American law says broadcasts cannot be rebroadcast, and If the Canadian law says broadcasts in Canada can be rebroadcast, then a broadcast from the US entering Canada can be rebroadcast.
Does that suit you better?
There should be no argument about this. The law is the law. If you don't like it, tough noogies.
> They do care when ppl start trying to sterilize the place. With over a million readrs that is not going to happen.
Hey, no harm no foul. It isn't like I would have said anything, but, as I said, there are a LOT of posts here suggesting that double negatives are a good use of english grammar. That isn't true - someone needed to tell everyone that (in a clear and concise manner), if not just for the public "re-education".
:-)
I'm almost glad this thread is old. I'm getting mighty tired now of speaking about grammar. Heck, I'm a Technical student, not an English student!
after all, isn't that what the trolls really want?
>I'm sorry to have to inform you that you're a rather tedious and stupid pedant.
I can understand tedious (it often is difficult for idiots to read), but what is "and stupid pedant" supposed to mean?
Huh?
If you are going to flame, you had better type up your sentences properly.
>You can't just re-broadcast stuff. Isn't that obvious?
(no, I don't understand why you would think this way. I am a Canadian).
Does Canadian law no longer apply in Canada? If you answered yes (if you didn't, gawd, there is no help for you) then you just disproved your own fact. In Canada you may rebroadcast TV legally. There are No Exceptions provided for American stations that can be picked up here.
It is, once again, sour grapes from American companies who don't appreciate our liberal laws.
>Your Sony logo on the TV is not integral to the signal. With a TV swapout, it might say Panasonic, but the signal is the same on both TV's. The advertising banners were intrinsic to the television feed, and THAT's the point. It's an addition to the signal, which means it is no longer the original signal.
Huh? I had better stop using @Home right now. I mean, they multiplex all this digital internet stuff with the same cable the TV signals are carried on, right? (yes) They are breaking the law, right? (no).
just like the moderation system.
>these companies are completely within their rights.
What rights? Ohhhh, you mean AMERICAN rights. Not CANADIAN.
In both Canada and the US, making copies of archived music is illegal (copying Copyrighted MP3s).
In the US rebroadcasting TV is illegal. In Canada it isn't.
In the Canada it is illegal not to have Daytime Running Lights installed on your vehicle. In the US it isn't. So by your argument the US should be forced to comply with Canadian law and install Daytime Running Lights.
Woah... That is a new one on me.
I don't care if adervtisers lose money, hell, I don't care if people go out of business. This is MY LAW (I am a Canadian) and I AM SADDENED TO SEE IT TRAMPLED ON LIKE THIS.
I am damn pissed at American TV right now, who are trying to force THEIR LAWS down OUR THROATS. Angry enough to watch the Simpsons on Global (a Canadian station) rather than on Fox (American).
How would America like it if Canada started telling Americans that if they don't use the Metric system on their road signs from now on, "something bad would happen". I bet Americans would be damn upset too.
To summarize: MP3 != rebroadcasting TV (in this argument), and American Law != Canadian Law (At all. Period.)
You didn't read the whole Berne Convention, did you (it is kinda long, so I'll understand):
... to determine the conditions under which the rights ... may be exercised ... but these
Article 11bis:
(1) Authors of literary and artistic works shall enjoy the exclusive right of authorizing:
(i) the broadcasting of their works or the communication thereof to the public by any other means of wireless diffusion of signs, sounds or images;
(ii) any communication to the public by wire or by rebroadcasting of the broadcast of the work, when this communication is made by an organization other than the original one;
(iii) the public communication by loudspeaker or any other analogous instrument transmitting, by signs, sounds or images, the broadcast of the work.
(2) It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to determine the conditions under which the rights mentioned in the preceding paragraph may be exercised, but these
conditions shall apply only in the countries where they have been prescribed. They shall not in any circumstances be prejudicial to the moral rights of the author, nor to his right to obtain
equitable remuneration which, in the absence of agreement, shall be fixed by competent authority.
In the absence of any contrary stipulation, permission granted in accordance with paragraph (1) of this Article shall not imply permission to record, by means of instruments recording
sounds or images, the work broadcast. It shall, however, be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to determine the regulations for ephemeral recordings made by a
broadcasting organization by means of its own facilities and used for its own broadcasts. The preservation of these recordings in official archives may, on the ground of their exceptional
documentary character, be authorized by such legislation.
Seems like Canada falls well into paragraph 2. Their law says that you may rebroadcast signals. That looks very much to me like:
"A matter for legislation in the countr[y]
conditions shall apply only in the countr[y] [in which] they have been prescribed."
>Even if iCraveTV can't braodcast american TV, this could be a good thing
... where they play the same commercial three times over during the same commercial block ... where they play the same commercial three times over during the same commercial block.
Yeah - less of those crappy American commercial streams where they play the same commercial three times over during the same commercial block
That bothers the heck out of me. Do they think that by me viewing the same 30 second clip three times I'm going to ENJOY it? I wouldn't go to the same movie three times in one day... because it would SUCK.
:-)
(-1, flamebait)
If it wasn't for broadcast TV, Sony wouldn't be selling many TVs. So yes, they make money directly off the programming, inasmuch that if it didn't exist, they wouldn't make any money at all (from TVs).
Part of the money is made from the quality of picture presented, but then again, the same could be said for iCrave. Not that their picture is better, but that it is useable in a different format.
>How would slashdot like it if CNN put slashdot.org in a frame and put adds around it??
If CNN had a TTY number (a service for deaf people to use the telephone) and offered slashdot (text-mode) with extra (text-mode) ads blasted into it, I'd be tickled pink.
This is what iCrave is doing. They are offering the service in another format. Just as TTY services are not the internet, TV over the internet is not over the airwaves. As long as the broadcasters choose not to employ the internet as a method of providing service, this is how the situation will remain.
And just as TTY is nowhere near as versatile as true phone service, iCrave is nowhere near as good quality as real TV.
If CNN did this to slashdot over the internet (framing ads around it), and slashdot was availiable by other methods, I would still be happy. Because I learned slashdot existed, and because I can break out of the frame and view it the same way.
This is NOT what iCrave is doing. This would be akin to opening up a TV station, and rebroadcasting someone else's airwaves, over the airwaves, with extra ads framed around the site. Annoying, but you can still tell who is broadcasting it, and you can tune into that station. If you can't tune into it locally because it isn't avaliable, then who is being hurt here?
Until the American companies smarten up, iCrave has the moral advantage on this one, I'm afraid.
And the cost of giving the people what they want is a proverbial "drop in the bucket" to the broadcasters. It is simply their lead asses not getting into gear in time that has caused this silly skirmish.
>a) broadcasters not knowing how much to charge advertisers because some company is rebroadcasting their station all over america
:-)
If you choose to watch iCraveTV in America, you are breaking the law. The License Agreement you agreed to before you watched iCraveTV required you to not only be an American, but abide by local laws. Local laws in America say that watching the iCrave broadcast would be a crime. And you are not a Canadian if you live in America (unless you somehow have dual citizenship, but this is unlikely)
This of course, applies to other countries where a non-rebroadcasting law is in effect.
>b) taking control of IP away from the original owners?
Maybe so, but I wouldn't bust into America and force them to use the Metric system, so why are Americans busting into Canada and forcing their laws onto us?
If you don't want that, the answer is simple: Either use scramblers on the TV stations closest to the Canadian border, and require Americans to use descramblers to pick them up, and prevent the export of these descramblers, or, don't broadcast up north at all.
After all, Microsoft wouldn't get their CDs pressed in China because they would pirate them (And if they DO get them pressed there, wow, such stupidity!). And they wouldn't be breaking the law. So the answer is easy - avoid the problem.
Not that I care, but you were breaking iCraveTV's license agreement by watching it in the US.
;-)
Now, if you watch iCrave legally (ie: In Canada) they are only doing what the law provides for them to do. If some tiny station goes under because everyone is watching the broadcast on the 'net, well, so be it. It obviously shows that the way consumers want their TV is over the internet, not the old way.
Saying anything else would be like saying that rebroadcasting an large FM station on AM radio might cause the tiny local FM station to go out of business because everybody listens to AM. Well, if that is the case, too bad. It is obvious the people don't want FM. They want AM! (Not that people want it that way, just an example.). Give the consumers what they want. Is that too hard for a company to understand? If you are too slow to change in the market, and you are trampled by those better suited to it, that is the "American Way", no?
Hmm, Sony, Panasonic, Toshiba, etc... should be in big trouble by now.
I mean, their name is right there on the front of many TVs, right below the broadcast. If you ask me, seeing "Sony" framing my commercials all the time is like advertising to me.
I guess if I decide to stick a coupon to the front of the TV I am breaking the law as well.
I guess, also, if I print out a bunch of banner ads, and glue them to the front of the TV, and pay someone to change them all the time, I am breaking the law too?
What if I let someone else watch my now everchanging framed advertising TV? Is that illegal?
No way.
>Were they (Radio Shack)showing a local broadcast station?
:-) to get the TV signal onto the net) to allow MULTIPLE rebroadcasts of the same receieved channel. The "special adaptor" in Radio Shack's case is an "Amplifier". Seriously bad stuff here.
Where I am, yes. Most importantly, they show football and baseball games, which the networks are getting real angry at iCrave about. Heck, even entire movies too!
>Did they (Radio Shack) cut away during the commercial breaks and insert their own Radio Shack ads, thus using programming someone else paid for to attract an audience for their ads?
Nope, and neither did iCrave. And just like Icrave, their are ads all around the TV, saying things like "Buy this TV for just $499", or "Take away this Tandy 1000 XL, and we'll give you $5".
And, what is worse, they use a "special adaptor" (just like iCrave used "special adaptors"
In some stores, they even use a "signal rebroadcaster" or antenna hooked up to the amplifier to rebroadcast the signals to other TVs easier. Seriously, they should be all in a Federal "Pound Me In The Ass" Prison for such theivery.
And the admission charges are horrible! If you don't buy something within half an hour, you are kicked out of the store! Even iCrave did do that!
And yet, the Shack is still in business.
Ohoh... Oh yeah, right, I know why I'm not worried - Tandy/Radio Shack has more than enough money to tell CBS/ABC/etc where to SHOVE IT. And as we all know, once you break $1 million, the laws don't apply to you - and once you break $1 billion, you can make up your own laws. What a truly capitolistic society we live in! The joy...
At my College we have about 15 fileservers, all running Novell Netware (various version, mostly version four, though). At least once a month, sometimes (although not often) weekly, a server goes down, HARD. Like cycle power/reset button hard.
That means that on average each server is up for about 8 or 9 months. Not bad really, but I'm sure Linux can do just as good a job with a competent Sysadmin running it.
I don't know what one should expect from a server OS in reliability (I haven't studied the topic in depth), but I would say Netware stability is good. But as for it surpassing Linux - that is a tough case to prove (IMHO).
Those are all valid points, and I do understand the reasons behind people thinking like that.
:-) But I do understand that some people prefer a more freindly look to things, and I have no problem with that. I just wish people would do it without violating major grammar rules.
But - as long as slashdot wants to be the "best and only" news service on the net, they need to seriously work on the grammar of postings (1). Editors do have the right to "rewrite" articles so they are more pleasing to read. Newspapers do this all the time.
But, as you say, if slashdot wants to remain a less "professional", more "freindly" news service, then there is no reason for them to change.
I'm always for the more professional look in some things, witness the fact that I can't stand folk/country art
I just wish there could be some common ground on a topic like this. Well, if I come up with any, I'll mail off the suggestion to CmdrTaco.
>For heavens sake, it was a _joke_, people. And it was funny.
Yeah, I got the joke too. And it was funny, but I have a feeling that my rewording of the original sentences not only conveyed the joke, but would have been a more satisfying read.
>Nobody doesn't not give a crap
Well, yes and no. I got a lot of replies to my post, which was buried within another post about the grammar on slashdot, so someone must have read it. But I do think you are right, the general consensus on slashdot doesn't care too much.
Just my $0.02...
(1). I don't know if "best and only" is slashdot's goal, but it certainly is the goal of all the other businesses out there. If not, I apoligize for lumping slashdot in with all the other bad apples.
>Anyway, if you had such a problem with it, you could have just skipped reading it to show your disgust.
:-)
Here's something you can quote me on:
"No matter how badly you express yourself, your ideas are still valid."
I wouldn't want to skip over the article just because of (what I view as) grammatical mistakes, for the same reason I browse slashdot at -1...
Yeah, slashdot does that (stripping less than signs) in "plain old text mode".
You're right - I simply made a pointless assertion in my code there. Whoops. I'm sorta tired, so bear with me. Ok, here is the "patch":
a == !!a;
should be replaced with these two lines:
a = -a;
a = -a;
Good point - fortunately, the output still worked. Now why did gcc not even give a warning about my pointless code? (I'm not a professional in C by any measure, but shouldn't wasted code be a warning?)
>#3. I may buy something tomorrow, but never at any other time.
Ohoh, I even confused myself.
That should have read:
"I may not buy something tomorrow, but perhaps another day I will."
Ooops. Number 2 wasn't what I wanted to say, either. Try this, instead:
"!(!(!buy nothing(!tomorrow)"
C'est la vie.