I always liked Volkwagon's term they invented for the Beatle Turbo.... Turbonium! Had I neat little graphic of Beatles flying around like electrons in the commercial too.
As long as it doesn't dig right through them. That seems reasonable. Of course, I'm just talking shit.
I had a pretty silly thought since some folks were using cell phones, couldn't they triangulate ACKs from digital phones by sending them messages are calls or whatever and find the concentrations of where people are? You could also call some numbers and get the ringing for a audible cue when the diggers are close.
Don't know if actually possible, but it's worth a thought.
Hell, I live in Jersey City (right across the Hudson River) and am one of the few with no cable. I can't get anything on broadcast except CBS and Telemundo. Cell service is basically dead. Hardlines seem reliable, but some neighbors have been getting busy circuits.
Internet is going strong except for the obvious sites.
Since they have network connectivity, they'd be nuts not to upsell an on-demand system where you can pay 2 bucks to see a show you forgot to download, or a show that was never even on! If they can work it out with the broadcasters and/or copyright holders it might just offset the commercial revenue that is lost.
Product sounds intriguing, I hope is doesn't have any crappy DRM stuff built in.
Really! This takes my stalking skills to the next level. You can put up a bio on IMDB for just about anyone who's ever been on TV.
Donald Trump, Lauren Hutton, Spike Lee... the list goes on.
It's naive to think this info would have been kept private. Another neat site for the people who can't mind their own business is www.domania.com. Shows how much people paid for their house and assesed value so you report you neighbors to the tax collector.
I've also heard great things about resourse for Nexxus/Lexxus (sp?) but I've never used it. Any one have info on what kind of personal info you can get from it?
love that attitude!
on
ATi Radeon 8500
·
· Score: -1, Flamebait
Sounds like Michael's got a dick up his ass cause he didn't get a shiny new card to play with too.
Duh, it's new, and it's dope. I know you guys get hits reporting 3 old month stories, but cut some slack to the folks who didn't get rich in the IPO and actually like to report on "news", okay?
I was a bit disturbed that was the main basis for the court's decision. What about a person's freedom not to publish? They can be forced by way of arbitration into selling that which they don't want to? That's a little too much power for anyone to have in my opinion. I can understand it's sparing use in land property or, say, intellectual property which is applicable to a process (eg, a patent), but NOT for creative works under copyright.
There was a post in the forums for the article which I'll reproduce here cause I thought is was intelligent, if a bit right wing...
Robert Brammer - 10:10am Jul 30, 2001 (565. 972/972)
Court to property rights: Drop dead.
You claim compulsory licenses help to avoid abuse of monopoly? WRONG! The only monopoly in this case is the arbitration board, which engages in state sanctioned price fixing, by determining a price at which a copyright holder must sell under penalty of law.
As for the court's concern for "holes in history," this is simply not a concern, and I'll explain why. Suppose a freelance writer will not give permission for the NYT to publish his article online. The Court only seems to be able to think this far through this dilemma, and claims this situation results in a "hole in history." Do they forget that the freelance writer wants money from his articles, and that is, at least in part, why he writes them? Common sense dictates he will eventually sell his article for online publication at the price he desires, even if not to the NYT. So, let's say the Washington Post buys the right to publish his article online. The Court would probably claim that this is still not acceptable, because their is now a "hole in history" if you visit the NYT site, because the article in question is only on the Post site. The Justices, in their arrogance, assume that the free market could not handle this problem. It should come as no surprise that they're wrong. Sheer market demand would quickly bring about the solution to this problem in the form of a search engine for articles, independent of any newspaper, that would be setup to include links to all of the articles on all of the different newspaper sites. Now the "holes in history" concern is a dead issue. It is disturbing that the justices overlook this obvious solution and immediately render a decision which violates an individual's first amendment right to not speak, the right of a person to control the distribution of their product, and the right of an individual to negotiate the sale of their product as a free trader.
This is undoubtedly one of the worst decisions by the Court in recent years, and certainly one of the most repugnant to the goals of a free society.
Well, individual goverments would have to pass those laws. I don't trust them either, but that's exactly the reason I don't want information about public registrations to be locked away or acess to them made so inconvenient that only people with great resources and with reason to expoit will have access to them.
I personally feel that any unsolicited commercial mail, phone call, email, or persoanl visit should be made illegal. It's legalized harrassment to purchase crap. Of course, AT&T and the USPS make far too much cash of marketers for it to ever happen.
This is a problem and the main reason most of us have throwaway hotmail acounts and never put real info on internet forms.
New York state has made a good move on the phone cal side by making a state wide opt-out list for telemarketers. They call anyone on that list and it's $5000 per an offense. They should do the same with email and snail mail. It's a nice compromise.
I'm not a privacy nut, although I can understand the arguments. It's just a fact that your info is going to get out there. I just feel it's an undue burden to us to have to opt out of every single list that gets our infomation.
Not when it's a matter of ownership of property which is granted to you through the goverment in the public trust. Case in point, home ownership records are public information and companies and people have been using them forever to sell things (ie mortgage refinancing and insurance).
Radio frequncies, and air traffic routes work the same way I believe.
The namespace is not private, and I think it's in the public interest to make that information public. If people are using that information for illicit or annoying purposes, we need to tackle those issues sperately.
The problem is that it would most definately be inadmissable because MA requires consent of all recorded parties. Your intent and attempt to record the encounter could have you brought on charges for breaking the statute. Some all-party consent states would allow you to record, but not to use or share the recording with anyone else, including the court.
I however am a big fan of calling your voice mail from your mobile for a record in states that allow for single party consent (ie, you know you're recording it and that's enough).
Companies strive to deceive. Amazon, like many companies, reports a thing called "pro forma" financial results. These are sort of like real financial results, except that they throw out a half dozen or so things that make them look bad, such as interest payments on their massive debt. When Amazon says it will soon make a profit, they mean a pro-forma profit, which means a loss. It's intentional deception and should be outlawed by the SEC.
You're absolutely right on this point. But the quick in/out investor doesn't really care. If the company beats analyst estimates (which aren't usually accurate) the stock will generally rise and you can take your profit. Anyone interested in staying in bed with a company for awhile will want to read 10K's filed with the SEC. These reports show the complete story and can be found at several places online. One place is Edgar Online.
I think what he means is that software will all become more complicated and make more use the resources of the available processing and storage power. It's held as steady as Moore's law that the needs of current software will basically require a computer built in the last 2 years. To make the enviroment as immersive as possible is going to take a lot of computing power. And to date, we've seen no slow down in either Moore's law or the complexity of software.
The nature of broadband can't quite say the same unless you want to figure the endless stream of cable channels that are availble on my TV that I'll never watch. There's only so much data a person can actually request in one day. Massive bandwidth for the future will really only be needed by home users for broadcasting technologies like television and I question how much of that we really want or need.
I gave a generic melatonin supplement a try for about a week. Seemed to help at first, but then I started to have extremely spooky dreams. Extremely lucid, but rather on the dark side. Perhaps it had something to do with my general psychology, but I was rather uncomfortable with it so I stopped. Gave the bottle to a friend of mine and he ended up passing out cold one day in the shower after taking it the night before. Bumped his head and everything.
I'd be curious to know if anyone has had strange dreams/side-affects when taking it.
I have a couple friends who have been running opennap servers for awhile. Both of them have recieved copies of cease and desist letters from their ISPs sent by the RIAA threatening legal action if they do not comply. No ISP is going to want to fight this so they're just going to block it or boot the accounts. This is not soley about Napster, it's about anyone who wants to distribute copyrighted music. People with no legal ruling against them are being edged out by the guys who own the bandwidth. An old adage adopted for a new day; It's a free Internet for anyone who owns the bandwidth.
So, this latest ruling tries to block information by filename. Stupidest idea I've ever heard, but it might just work if Joe Schmoe can't find the Bee Gee's song he's been looking for. I propose we ROT13 (or whatever) the names of all songs in our distributions and see how that flies. ACn't be hard to add ROT13 to every client out their in a day or so.
I see this as working to the PC seller's advantage because you can cut the price of the hardware when you're getting a kickback on those software subcriptions that pay a lovely annuity every month. Just like those free/$400 PCs they pawn off these days when you promise to sign up for an ISP service for 3 years. Microsoft was probably the most successful at this and they've clearly seen there's more money in subscriptions than hefty one-time price. PC sellers will be able to ship cheaper systems with greater margin than ever before. Gateway also had pretty good success on their lease PCs where you trade it in and get a new box every 2 years for set monthly fee.
I wonder what this will do to the accelleration of power the average user has on his desktop. Will it become in software seller's interest to write software that will run on slow computer to cut your overhead on the free/$400 computer?
I won't get into the word "most", or guess at the percentages, but let's go back to the article:
The drug companies' actions are particularly distasteful because neither Bristol nor
Glaxo invented these drugs or discovered their use in AIDS therapy. Glaxo's 3TC was
discovered and patented for AIDS use by BioChem Pharma, a Canadian company,
which licensed the drug to Glaxo. d4T was synthesized by the Michigan Cancer
Foundation in 1966, using public funds. Its application for AIDS was discovered at
Yale University, which holds the patent, using grants from the federal government and
Bristol. In the United States, Bristol's Zerit sells for $4.50 for 40 milligrams.
Pharmaceutical manufacturers never disclose their costs, but one indication of
Bristol's markup is that Pinheiro can sell her version for 30 cents - and it is possible
her costs are higher than Bristol's, since the multinationals have access to cheaper
raw materials.
The National Institutes of Health discovered ddI's use as an AIDS therapy. The N.I.H.
then licensed the drug to Bristol for a 5 percent royalty, with the stipulation that
Bristol's pricing take into account the health and safety needs of the public. But Bristol
sells Videx for $1.80 in the United States for a 100-milligram tablet, while
Far-Manguinhos in Brazil can sell the generic equivalent for 50 cents. The contract
has a fair-pricing clause, but it has never been enforced.
These are the major drugs for treating AIDS, so where are all those billions of dollars that people ASSUME for R&D going? Apparently not to the development of effective treatments. Perhaps to one of the 20 new drugs for insomnia or depression. Maybe that fancy new toothbrush I just got.
I'm surprised I haven't seen it in previous posts, but the is a great controversy going on right now about the link between HIV and AIDS. I won't advocate either side, but it's intresting stuff to read about if you find this whole situation stinks. Check it at Alive&Well's web site
I'm also impressed by the considerable focus it gave to the idea of "content vs. conduct". Source code itself is not an action. It must be executed by a human in some fashion. If the law being broken here is purely the execution of the source code, then the knowledge or written instructions to do so are protected.
All things considered, I think the opinions voiced in this brief will be seen by the court and they will act accordingly. I am more fearful that the act of executing this code is a violation of the law. IANAL nor do I care to become one just to protect the things I think are right. Fair use, EULAs, prohiting reverse engineering... all these things leave a bad taste in my mouth as we move from the realm of mechanical to digital. To me, the 1st Ammendment aspects here are obvious and I'm glad to see people are fighting the good fight. Let's not forget the PRIVIAGE (it seems) that when we buy something, we can do pretty much whatever we want with it seems to be slipping away and I'm not sure that something as obvious as constitutional ammendment is in place to protect us from it.
Slashdot Mirror
I always liked Volkwagon's term they invented for the Beatle Turbo.... Turbonium! Had I neat little graphic of Beatles flying around like electrons in the commercial too.
So the next logical question is:
How do use or evaluate OpenAL for my product, Scott?
As long as it doesn't dig right through them. That seems reasonable. Of course, I'm just talking shit.
I had a pretty silly thought since some folks were using cell phones, couldn't they triangulate ACKs from digital phones by sending them messages are calls or whatever and find the concentrations of where people are? You could also call some numbers and get the ringing for a audible cue when the diggers are close.
Don't know if actually possible, but it's worth a thought.
More info from the company's website here. Includes images and related projects.
Hell, I live in Jersey City (right across the Hudson River) and am one of the few with no cable. I can't get anything on broadcast except CBS and Telemundo. Cell service is basically dead. Hardlines seem reliable, but some neighbors have been getting busy circuits.
Internet is going strong except for the obvious sites.
"Since The Museum collection is temporarily housed within a closed Federal facility, all guests must register in advance to be admitted."
I've never been there, but it is a Federal airport and I'm sure there are military operations on campus. Seems like a reasonable request.
Since they have network connectivity, they'd be nuts not to upsell an on-demand system where you can pay 2 bucks to see a show you forgot to download, or a show that was never even on! If they can work it out with the broadcasters and/or copyright holders it might just offset the commercial revenue that is lost.
Product sounds intriguing, I hope is doesn't have any crappy DRM stuff built in.
Really! This takes my stalking skills to the next level. You can put up a bio on IMDB for just about anyone who's ever been on TV.
Donald Trump, Lauren Hutton, Spike Lee... the list goes on.
It's naive to think this info would have been kept private. Another neat site for the people who can't mind their own business is www.domania.com. Shows how much people paid for their house and assesed value so you report you neighbors to the tax collector.
I've also heard great things about resourse for Nexxus/Lexxus (sp?) but I've never used it. Any one have info on what kind of personal info you can get from it?
Sounds like Michael's got a dick up his ass cause he didn't get a shiny new card to play with too.
Duh, it's new, and it's dope. I know you guys get hits reporting 3 old month stories, but cut some slack to the folks who didn't get rich in the IPO and actually like to report on "news", okay?
Java people get to use all the best buzzwords. That's what happens when APIs are edited by the marketing department.
And to answer your question, no I can't.
I was a bit disturbed that was the main basis for the court's decision. What about a person's freedom not to publish? They can be forced by way of arbitration into selling that which they don't want to? That's a little too much power for anyone to have in my opinion. I can understand it's sparing use in land property or, say, intellectual property which is applicable to a process (eg, a patent), but NOT for creative works under copyright.
There was a post in the forums for the article which I'll reproduce here cause I thought is was intelligent, if a bit right wing...
Robert Brammer - 10:10am Jul 30, 2001 (565. 972/972)
Court to property rights: Drop dead.
You claim compulsory licenses help to avoid abuse of monopoly? WRONG! The only monopoly in this case is the arbitration board, which engages in state sanctioned price fixing, by determining a price at which a copyright holder must sell under penalty of law.
As for the court's concern for "holes in history," this is simply not a concern, and I'll explain why. Suppose a freelance writer will not give permission for the NYT to publish his article online. The Court only seems to be able to think this far through this dilemma, and claims this situation results in a "hole in history." Do they forget that the freelance writer wants money from his articles, and that is, at least in part, why he writes them? Common sense dictates he will eventually sell his article for online publication at the price he desires, even if not to the NYT. So, let's say the Washington Post buys the right to publish his article online. The Court would probably claim that this is still not acceptable, because their is now a "hole in history" if you visit the NYT site, because the article in question is only on the Post site. The Justices, in their arrogance, assume that the free market could not handle this problem. It should come as no surprise that they're wrong. Sheer market demand would quickly bring about the solution to this problem in the form of a search engine for articles, independent of any newspaper, that would be setup to include links to all of the articles on all of the different newspaper sites. Now the "holes in history" concern is a dead issue. It is disturbing that the justices overlook this obvious solution and immediately render a decision which violates an individual's first amendment right to not speak, the right of a person to control the distribution of their product, and the right of an individual to negotiate the sale of their product as a free trader.
This is undoubtedly one of the worst decisions by the Court in recent years, and certainly one of the most repugnant to the goals of a free society.
Well, individual goverments would have to pass those laws. I don't trust them either, but that's exactly the reason I don't want information about public registrations to be locked away or acess to them made so inconvenient that only people with great resources and with reason to expoit will have access to them.
I personally feel that any unsolicited commercial mail, phone call, email, or persoanl visit should be made illegal. It's legalized harrassment to purchase crap. Of course, AT&T and the USPS make far too much cash of marketers for it to ever happen.
This is a problem and the main reason most of us have throwaway hotmail acounts and never put real info on internet forms.
New York state has made a good move on the phone cal side by making a state wide opt-out list for telemarketers. They call anyone on that list and it's $5000 per an offense. They should do the same with email and snail mail. It's a nice compromise.
I'm not a privacy nut, although I can understand the arguments. It's just a fact that your info is going to get out there. I just feel it's an undue burden to us to have to opt out of every single list that gets our infomation.
Not when it's a matter of ownership of property which is granted to you through the goverment in the public trust. Case in point, home ownership records are public information and companies and people have been using them forever to sell things (ie mortgage refinancing and insurance).
Radio frequncies, and air traffic routes work the same way I believe.
The namespace is not private, and I think it's in the public interest to make that information public. If people are using that information for illicit or annoying purposes, we need to tackle those issues sperately.
The problem is that it would most definately be inadmissable because MA requires consent of all recorded parties. Your intent and attempt to record the encounter could have you brought on charges for breaking the statute. Some all-party consent states would allow you to record, but not to use or share the recording with anyone else, including the court.
I however am a big fan of calling your voice mail from your mobile for a record in states that allow for single party consent (ie, you know you're recording it and that's enough).
It's the NASCAR underground baby! Heh... I used to run an indie room on napster. I always got people coming in and asking for Ravi Shankar and shit.
Companies strive to deceive. Amazon, like many companies, reports a thing called "pro forma" financial results. These are sort of like real financial results, except that they throw out a half dozen or so things that make them look bad, such as interest payments on their massive debt. When Amazon says it will soon make a profit, they mean a pro-forma profit, which means a loss. It's intentional deception and should be outlawed by the SEC.
You're absolutely right on this point. But the quick in/out investor doesn't really care. If the company beats analyst estimates (which aren't usually accurate) the stock will generally rise and you can take your profit. Anyone interested in staying in bed with a company for awhile will want to read 10K's filed with the SEC. These reports show the complete story and can be found at several places online. One place is Edgar Online.
It's shame that it's completely unrealistic to think that information could be held safely in escrow some how.
Can anyone provide a link the complete docs or, more important to me, you actually filed the the request under the FOIA?
I think what he means is that software will all become more complicated and make more use the resources of the available processing and storage power. It's held as steady as Moore's law that the needs of current software will basically require a computer built in the last 2 years. To make the enviroment as immersive as possible is going to take a lot of computing power. And to date, we've seen no slow down in either Moore's law or the complexity of software.
The nature of broadband can't quite say the same unless you want to figure the endless stream of cable channels that are availble on my TV that I'll never watch. There's only so much data a person can actually request in one day. Massive bandwidth for the future will really only be needed by home users for broadcasting technologies like television and I question how much of that we really want or need.
I gave a generic melatonin supplement a try for about a week. Seemed to help at first, but then I started to have extremely spooky dreams. Extremely lucid, but rather on the dark side. Perhaps it had something to do with my general psychology, but I was rather uncomfortable with it so I stopped. Gave the bottle to a friend of mine and he ended up passing out cold one day in the shower after taking it the night before. Bumped his head and everything.
I'd be curious to know if anyone has had strange dreams/side-affects when taking it.
Wow. Another company that reimplements my procmail config.
Didn't you get the memo? Please clean out your cubicle by 4pm. Thanks.
I have a couple friends who have been running opennap servers for awhile. Both of them have recieved copies of cease and desist letters from their ISPs sent by the RIAA threatening legal action if they do not comply. No ISP is going to want to fight this so they're just going to block it or boot the accounts. This is not soley about Napster, it's about anyone who wants to distribute copyrighted music. People with no legal ruling against them are being edged out by the guys who own the bandwidth. An old adage adopted for a new day; It's a free Internet for anyone who owns the bandwidth.
So, this latest ruling tries to block information by filename. Stupidest idea I've ever heard, but it might just work if Joe Schmoe can't find the Bee Gee's song he's been looking for. I propose we ROT13 (or whatever) the names of all songs in our distributions and see how that flies. ACn't be hard to add ROT13 to every client out their in a day or so.
I see this as working to the PC seller's advantage because you can cut the price of the hardware when you're getting a kickback on those software subcriptions that pay a lovely annuity every month. Just like those free/$400 PCs they pawn off these days when you promise to sign up for an ISP service for 3 years. Microsoft was probably the most successful at this and they've clearly seen there's more money in subscriptions than hefty one-time price. PC sellers will be able to ship cheaper systems with greater margin than ever before. Gateway also had pretty good success on their lease PCs where you trade it in and get a new box every 2 years for set monthly fee.
I wonder what this will do to the accelleration of power the average user has on his desktop. Will it become in software seller's interest to write software that will run on slow computer to cut your overhead on the free/$400 computer?
I won't get into the word "most", or guess at the percentages, but let's go back to the article:
The drug companies' actions are particularly distasteful because neither Bristol nor Glaxo invented these drugs or discovered their use in AIDS therapy. Glaxo's 3TC was discovered and patented for AIDS use by BioChem Pharma, a Canadian company, which licensed the drug to Glaxo. d4T was synthesized by the Michigan Cancer Foundation in 1966, using public funds. Its application for AIDS was discovered at Yale University, which holds the patent, using grants from the federal government and Bristol. In the United States, Bristol's Zerit sells for $4.50 for 40 milligrams. Pharmaceutical manufacturers never disclose their costs, but one indication of Bristol's markup is that Pinheiro can sell her version for 30 cents - and it is possible her costs are higher than Bristol's, since the multinationals have access to cheaper raw materials. The National Institutes of Health discovered ddI's use as an AIDS therapy. The N.I.H. then licensed the drug to Bristol for a 5 percent royalty, with the stipulation that Bristol's pricing take into account the health and safety needs of the public. But Bristol sells Videx for $1.80 in the United States for a 100-milligram tablet, while Far-Manguinhos in Brazil can sell the generic equivalent for 50 cents. The contract has a fair-pricing clause, but it has never been enforced.
These are the major drugs for treating AIDS, so where are all those billions of dollars that people ASSUME for R&D going? Apparently not to the development of effective treatments. Perhaps to one of the 20 new drugs for insomnia or depression. Maybe that fancy new toothbrush I just got.
I'm surprised I haven't seen it in previous posts, but the is a great controversy going on right now about the link between HIV and AIDS. I won't advocate either side, but it's intresting stuff to read about if you find this whole situation stinks. Check it at Alive&Well's web site
Absolutely.
I'm also impressed by the considerable focus it gave to the idea of "content vs. conduct". Source code itself is not an action. It must be executed by a human in some fashion. If the law being broken here is purely the execution of the source code, then the knowledge or written instructions to do so are protected.
All things considered, I think the opinions voiced in this brief will be seen by the court and they will act accordingly. I am more fearful that the act of executing this code is a violation of the law. IANAL nor do I care to become one just to protect the things I think are right. Fair use, EULAs, prohiting reverse engineering... all these things leave a bad taste in my mouth as we move from the realm of mechanical to digital. To me, the 1st Ammendment aspects here are obvious and I'm glad to see people are fighting the good fight. Let's not forget the PRIVIAGE (it seems) that when we buy something, we can do pretty much whatever we want with it seems to be slipping away and I'm not sure that something as obvious as constitutional ammendment is in place to protect us from it.