Re:Seems to be a legitimate question to me...
on
Win4Lin 5.0 Reviewed
·
· Score: 1
It's modded down because the question doesn't make sense.
It's like saying, "If it's illegal to steal gum from the candy store, then why is that guy chewing gum???"
Win4Lin will run Windows (98 it sounds like) under Linux. It runs Windows. It runs the Windows that Microsoft created, and that you already paid for (ideally). It does not emulate Windows other than a few things like passing of the clipboard, but even so, they're not using any Microsoft code, they are simply interfacing with Windows.
Again. In short. It runs Windows (TM) under Linux. They did not rewrite Windows, even though that would be nice.
If copying CD's is tantamount to stealing, why would anyone in their right minds want to invite criminals into their store?!!!
They're trying to get people to buy these DRM CD's that would rather "steal" the content. Would Walmart try to lure more shoplifters into their store?
So, what does this really do? It makes DVD's and CD's a little less useful for the people that buy them, which means that they buy less of them, which in turn means that they sell fewer. And of course that drop is business, is all result of piracy. Right?
A book is essentially a form of encryption. You cannot copy pages from a book into a digital form without using some sort of technological device that breaks this "analog" encryption, which under the DMCA is clearly illegal.
Expect to see these outlawed real soon. Either that, or expect a "Steven King" model to be available this fall.
I quit visiting CBSMarketwatch (mentioned in the article) and MotleyFool simply because of those types of ads. When Weather.com got pop-ups, I nearly quit going there as well, but I guess I can live with pop-ups. What I can't live with is something that zips accross my screen and makes all kinds of sounds WHILE I'M AT WORK! But I'm sure no one visits CBSMarketwatch at work. Yeah, right.
You use, you lose. Would Google be search engine king if it had pop-ups, flash animation, things zipping across the screen, or 15 second full screen ads? I refuse to sink to the level to even answer such a simple common-sense question.
Those ads probably cost more and therefore generate more initial revenue for anyone visiting the sites that use them. But if you make enough surfers annoyed (as this will), eventually they won't come to your site anymore.
I'm not sure what dickhead wasn't paying attention, but it sounds like it was you. I'm not sure where this post was meant to be, but it sure doesn't see to apply here.
I don't predict the demise of object-oriented programming, by the way. Though I don't think it has much to offer good programmers, except in certain specialized domains, it is irresistible to large organizations. Object-oriented programming offers a sustainable way to write spaghetti code. It lets you accrete programs as a series of patches. Large organizations always tend to develop software this way, and I expect this to be as true in a hundred years as it is today.
At that point, I quit reading...
As someone who's seen tons of spaghetti code in my life-time, it's generally because people don't understand OOP. Well written OOP, with inheritance, interfaces, etc. nearly eliminates the possibility of spaghetti code.
At that point, I believed the author didn't have a clue, so anything else he said was probably also irrelevant. Could he have meant visual programming? Beats me...
I don't want to get myself into any possible legal trouble, so please excuse me if I'm somewhat vague in some respects. IANAL.
About 2 or 3 years ago, my wife visited a store in the Lansing, Michigan area and gave them my email address. From time to time, I would receive email from them. Eventually, I asked them to stop. They stopped.
On November 21, 2002, I received an email from them asking me if I would like to begin receiving advertisements and marketing offers from them again. There was a link to click on, if I didn't want to opt-in. I clicked on that link.
Approximately 2 months later, I received an email from them. They had an option to unsubscribe by sending an email to their unsubscribe address. It said I would be removed immediately. I even received a confirmation stating that I had unsubscribed. For the next month, I continued to get 2-3 emails from them per week. Each time, I clicked unsubscribe and was told that I had indeed been unsubscribed.
After the 2nd email, I contacted customer service and reported the problem. No response. After the fourth time, I contacted them again, and threatened legal action, if they didn't stop. No response. I called customer service, talked to a live person, and was told that I would be removed from all their lists. But the email continued to come.
I filed a lawsuit in Michigan small claims alleging violations of the "junk fax" law, having heard about a Michigan man who had won by doing so. 6 violations for $500 each, resulted in $3,000, the maximum allowable under Michigan Law for small claims. As evidence, I have nearly all of the advertisement emails as well as my requests to be unsubscribed, and their acknowlegements stating that I had been unsubscribed. Additionally, I have the emails I sent to customer service, which never received replies.
About 2 weeks after filing suit, I received an email from their customer service stating that they were finally looking into the problem. I haven't received an email from them in the last 2 weeks, so I assume that I'm finally off their list, and it only cost me $36.50 ($32 small claims, $4.50 certified mail).
However, now their attorneys have demanded that the case be removed from small claims and placed into general civil court (which is their right). Unfortunately, I plan to do just that.
The FTC has publicly stated that not honoring removal requests is illegal. However, I'm not sure I have a private right of action in this situation. Using the Junk Fax law in general civil court is probably a bad idea, and I think I would likely have to claim actual damages in order to pursue it in general civil court.
I don't really want to get in over my head. I'm sure they realize this, which then makes me WANT to get in over my head. However, I'm still not sure that I have a legal basis for my case. Even in a state like Washington, where anti-spam laws exist, half of the cases get dismissed by the judge.
I called a local attorney and was told that I should dismiss, or risk being counter-sued for a frivolous lawsuit. Essentially, what they did is illegal, but there really isn't much I can do about it other than contact the FTC and the state attorney general, and if I pursue my case against them, I could wind up paying them.
immagine all the discoveries she has the potential to make once she enters full-time as a researcher...
Right... I can't say that the sky is blue because I'm not a confirmed researcher. I should rather look in the scientific journals and find where other scientists have already researched the sky and concluded that it is indeed blue or not before I jump to such conclusions.
"Placitas, NM, 07/19/2000 -- New research by investigators for the Enterprise Mission (www.enterprisemission.com), a private, not-for-profit space science research organization, has revealed strong evidence of present day liquid water on Mars in recent Mars Global surveyor images. Coming on the heels of the June 22nd, 2000 NASA press conference in which Malin Space Science Systems investigators Michael Malin and Kenneth Edgett asserted the possibility that Mars may have had liquid water in the geologically recent past, this new photographic evidence confirms that liquid water is almost certainly existent on Mars today."
The rest is below.
http://www.enterprisemission.com/press-water.htm l
Yes, that comment is borderline morbid, and probably in bad taste. But it would garner media attention, and probably result in the laws being changed...
Isn't it ironic that some of the same mega-corps that produce MP3 players also produce CD's from which you can't make MP3's?
What they NEED to understand, is that most people WANT to do the right thing. Most people would gladly pay $5 for a CD, even if it only had 2 or 3 songs that they liked. But $15+ is where most of us draw the line and simply refuse. Add to that the fact that (as stated above) you might not be able to use it on your MP3 player, and you've got even less incentive to purchase.
Does Madonna need to get any richer? Can Metallica stuff their heads any further up the RIAA's ass? Remember the days when Rock-'n'-Roll was about bucking the establishment? Now they ARE the establishment.
Watch for new inventions such as "Free Radio", where bands get air time because *shudder* they like to play music. It's not supposed to be about getting rich, it's supposed to be about sharing art. What good is art if it can't be shared?
Maybe they won't disappear in the next few years, but I see more and more younger people (I'm 34) realizing that success isn't all about getting rich. Open Source is the tip of the ice-berg. It may be a long hard process, but in the end, these types of businesses are going to go away.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that this is the same country in which the farmer was sued for using seeds from last year's canola crop, rather than buying them (again) from Monsanto.
In land mass, it's probably more than half, but in population, it's only about 15%.
If you read the FCC's decision (available from www.fcc.gov), they repeatedly mention that without the merger the two companies can still provide local into local service for 100 of the roughly 200 DMA's in the country. Had the merger been accepted, it would have been all 200.
I really don't see how satellite can possibly COMPETE EFFECTIVELY against cable, when they're only provide local-into-local service for the larger metropolitan areas, which may even have multiple cable companies also competing!
The DOJ could easily make sure that the New Echostar keeps its promise of uniform pricing, and make no mistake, They're not making a whole lot of money from us people in Farm Country (as I am), so it wouldn't make sense for them to create "uniformly high pricing", unless they wanted to just roll over and die.
The FCC generally makes decisions that are friendly to broadcasters. Look at their decisions against satellite over the last few years. They (and Congress) regard satellite companies as essentially wanting to steal television from Over The Air broadcasters.
I quit watching the major networks (ABC/NBC/CBS/FOX) about 3 years ago, when I couldn't get a decent signal over-the-air. I get UPN and WB via satellite superstations, and I watch those quite a bit. Broacasters should have been fighting tooth and nail for this, but instead they generally opposed it, probably out of habit. I might actually start watching network TV again, if I could get it on sat.
I'm very angry at Rural TV, and other "rural" groups that opposed this merger. As a rural person in a DMA that will likely never get locals via satellite, I am very angry at these people that are supposedly representing me. They don't speak on my behalf.
You are absolutely correct, and I verified this using Google.
Do the following: Search on "Intentia quarter results" (no quotes) click on Cached for "[Intentia] Intentia's Second Quarter Results 2002" Find where it says "::: read the full report" and look at the URL.
It's not only not illegal, but it's common sense. It's as if Intentia was saying "This is where we put our quarterly results, so come back here later and get the Q3 results when available."
Send them an email, and tell them how stupid they are. Unless you actually believe this was an intential marketing ploy (which it may be).
1. Too costly 2. I can get (sometimes) lower quality stuff from free via P2P. 3. I'm afraid that it will be crippled
Combine #1 and #3 and #2 is the only choice left for me.
Some business models are just not meant to survive forever. The Recording Industry should have begun to realize this 4 or 5 years ago, when MP3's first began to become popular, but instead they missed the boat, and decided to fight anyone that got on the boat. Hurt your consumers. Hurt your musicians. Given the fact that many people see the Recording Industry as dishonest (anyone remember the fact that they were recently found guilty of price fixing?), it's no wonder why we don't feel the least bit guilty about downloading from Kazaa, Morpheus, etc.
Nevertheless, most people prefer to be honest, overall. If the music industry starts selling new MP3 songs for $1/song and old ones for $0.25/song, they would likely see their profits higher than ever before, and kazaa would simply become a fringe group of people.
I'll chalk this up to "We only have 10 years left on this planet!" stated by actor Ted Danson about 10 years ago (also from Hollywood).
Look at how piracy has destroyed the software industry! Oh, it hasn't? But people have been pirating software for 10 years, how can software vendors still be making money?!!! Funny, isn't it?
My hope for the future is that we get rid of alot of the "Fame and Fortune" aspect of acting. In the future (thanks to the Internet), I believe that anyone will be able to broadcast anything they want, and may become famous, but not necessarily rich.
Hollywood makes lots of great movies, and a lot of bad ones. But they've only been around for less than 100 years. They may simply be a short-lived 20th century phenomena, with other forms of entertainment eventually taking over. Don't boohoo about it. If they disappear, it will be because nobody wants their stuff, not because everyone wants DVD's...
For the record, I've never put off "going to the movies" with my wife, simply so that I could watch it on DVD/VHS/PPV three months later...
When I used to play chess, I would often find myself getting very angry. I'm generally a fairly passive person, but when playing chess, I would just plain get mad. In fact, I would sometimes get so mad that I felt like hitting someone, but I never did.
Anyway, that's somewhat beside the point. "Violent" implies that you are doing something to someone. Nobody gets hurt when I sit down and play "Return to Wolfenstein" on my computer. No real Nazis die. My health doesn't deteriorate, and I generally don't even eat any real chicken dinners while playing. When I play a videogame that simulates violence, I often find myself relieved of lots of stress built up over the workday. When I play chess, I get really stressed and want to hurt people.
Obviously, chess is bad, and games with simulated violence are good.
Slashdot Mirror
It's modded down because the question doesn't make sense.
It's like saying, "If it's illegal to steal gum from the candy store, then why is that guy chewing gum???"
Win4Lin will run Windows (98 it sounds like) under Linux. It runs Windows. It runs the Windows that Microsoft created, and that you already paid for (ideally). It does not emulate Windows other than a few things like passing of the clipboard, but even so, they're not using any Microsoft code, they are simply interfacing with Windows.
Again. In short. It runs Windows (TM) under Linux. They did not rewrite Windows, even though that would be nice.
Unless you obtained an illegal copy of Windows, most of us actually have to pay for it. Last I knew, Windows wasn't free.
Yes, this is sarcasm.
"I fail to understand"
Yes, you do. And you fail miserably.
This is not about copying Windows, it's simply about running Windows.
--
Slashdolt
If copying CD's is tantamount to stealing, why would anyone in their right minds want to invite criminals into their store?!!!
They're trying to get people to buy these DRM CD's that would rather "steal" the content. Would Walmart try to lure more shoplifters into their store?
So, what does this really do? It makes DVD's and CD's a little less useful for the people that buy them, which means that they buy less of them, which in turn means that they sell fewer. And of course that drop is business, is all result of piracy. Right?
A book is essentially a form of encryption. You cannot copy pages from a book into a digital form without using some sort of technological device that breaks this "analog" encryption, which under the DMCA is clearly illegal.
Expect to see these outlawed real soon. Either that, or expect a "Steven King" model to be available this fall.
--
Slashdolt
I quit visiting CBSMarketwatch (mentioned in the article) and MotleyFool simply because of those types of ads. When Weather.com got pop-ups, I nearly quit going there as well, but I guess I can live with pop-ups. What I can't live with is something that zips accross my screen and makes all kinds of sounds WHILE I'M AT WORK! But I'm sure no one visits CBSMarketwatch at work. Yeah, right.
You use, you lose. Would Google be search engine king if it had pop-ups, flash animation, things zipping across the screen, or 15 second full screen ads? I refuse to sink to the level to even answer such a simple common-sense question.
Those ads probably cost more and therefore generate more initial revenue for anyone visiting the sites that use them. But if you make enough surfers annoyed (as this will), eventually they won't come to your site anymore.
--
Slashdolt
I'm not sure what dickhead wasn't paying attention, but it sounds like it was you. I'm not sure where this post was meant to be, but it sure doesn't see to apply here.
I don't predict the demise of object-oriented programming, by the way. Though I don't think it has much to offer good programmers, except in certain specialized domains, it is irresistible to large organizations. Object-oriented programming offers a sustainable way to write spaghetti code. It lets you accrete programs as a series of patches. Large organizations always tend to develop software this way, and I expect this to be as true in a hundred years as it is today.
At that point, I quit reading... As someone who's seen tons of spaghetti code in my life-time, it's generally because people don't understand OOP. Well written OOP, with inheritance, interfaces, etc. nearly eliminates the possibility of spaghetti code.At that point, I believed the author didn't have a clue, so anything else he said was probably also irrelevant. Could he have meant visual programming? Beats me...
Slashdolt - A better dolt.
It would deter me from ever voting for him again!
After rereading my message, I removed a line of text. It was supposed to read something like:
"They're trying to get my to dismiss. Unfortunately, I probably do just that."
--
Slashdolt
Now why dont you sue me, you shitwit?
Because you didn't do anything illegal. They did. Read the law, shitwit.
-- SlashdoltI don't want to get myself into any possible legal trouble, so please excuse me if I'm somewhat vague in some respects. IANAL.
About 2 or 3 years ago, my wife visited a store in the Lansing, Michigan area and gave them my email address. From time to time, I would receive email from them. Eventually, I asked them to stop. They stopped.
On November 21, 2002, I received an email from them asking me if I would like to begin receiving advertisements and marketing offers from them again. There was a link to click on, if I didn't want to opt-in. I clicked on that link.
Approximately 2 months later, I received an email from them. They had an option to unsubscribe by sending an email to their unsubscribe address. It said I would be removed immediately. I even received a confirmation stating that I had unsubscribed. For the next month, I continued to get 2-3 emails from them per week. Each time, I clicked unsubscribe and was told that I had indeed been unsubscribed.
After the 2nd email, I contacted customer service and reported the problem. No response. After the fourth time, I contacted them again, and threatened legal action, if they didn't stop. No response. I called customer service, talked to a live person, and was told that I would be removed from all their lists. But the email continued to come.
I filed a lawsuit in Michigan small claims alleging violations of the "junk fax" law, having heard about a Michigan man who had won by doing so. 6 violations for $500 each, resulted in $3,000, the maximum allowable under Michigan Law for small claims. As evidence, I have nearly all of the advertisement emails as well as my requests to be unsubscribed, and their acknowlegements stating that I had been unsubscribed. Additionally, I have the emails I sent to customer service, which never received replies.
About 2 weeks after filing suit, I received an email from their customer service stating that they were finally looking into the problem. I haven't received an email from them in the last 2 weeks, so I assume that I'm finally off their list, and it only cost me $36.50 ($32 small claims, $4.50 certified mail).
However, now their attorneys have demanded that the case be removed from small claims and placed into general civil court (which is their right). Unfortunately, I plan to do just that.
The FTC has publicly stated that not honoring removal requests is illegal. However, I'm not sure I have a private right of action in this situation. Using the Junk Fax law in general civil court is probably a bad idea, and I think I would likely have to claim actual damages in order to pursue it in general civil court.
I don't really want to get in over my head. I'm sure they realize this, which then makes me WANT to get in over my head. However, I'm still not sure that I have a legal basis for my case. Even in a state like Washington, where anti-spam laws exist, half of the cases get dismissed by the judge.
I called a local attorney and was told that I should dismiss, or risk being counter-sued for a frivolous lawsuit. Essentially, what they did is illegal, but there really isn't much I can do about it other than contact the FTC and the state attorney general, and if I pursue my case against them, I could wind up paying them.
--
Slashdolt
Right... I can't say that the sky is blue because I'm not a confirmed researcher. I should rather look in the scientific journals and find where other scientists have already researched the sky and concluded that it is indeed blue or not before I jump to such conclusions.
Sigh...
"Placitas, NM, 07/19/2000 -- New research by investigators for the Enterprise Mission (www.enterprisemission.com), a private, not-for-profit space science research organization, has revealed strong evidence of present day liquid water on Mars in recent Mars Global surveyor images. Coming on the heels of the June 22nd, 2000 NASA press conference in which Malin Space Science Systems investigators Michael Malin and Kenneth Edgett asserted the possibility that Mars may have had liquid water in the geologically recent past, this new photographic evidence confirms that liquid water is almost certainly existent on Mars today."
m l
The rest is below.
http://www.enterprisemission.com/press-water.ht
Yes, that comment is borderline morbid, and probably in bad taste. But it would garner media attention, and probably result in the laws being changed...
My CD-RW drive quit working the very same day that I installed Turbo Tax (January 16th). It was 3 months old and barely used.
Yes, it was likely a simple hardware failure, but now I'm actually going to have to check into this...
Isn't it ironic that some of the same mega-corps that produce MP3 players also produce CD's from which you can't make MP3's?
What they NEED to understand, is that most people WANT to do the right thing. Most people would gladly pay $5 for a CD, even if it only had 2 or 3 songs that they liked. But $15+ is where most of us draw the line and simply refuse. Add to that the fact that (as stated above) you might not be able to use it on your MP3 player, and you've got even less incentive to purchase.
Does Madonna need to get any richer? Can Metallica stuff their heads any further up the RIAA's ass? Remember the days when Rock-'n'-Roll was about bucking the establishment? Now they ARE the establishment.
Watch for new inventions such as "Free Radio", where bands get air time because *shudder* they like to play music. It's not supposed to be about getting rich, it's supposed to be about sharing art. What good is art if it can't be shared?
Maybe they won't disappear in the next few years, but I see more and more younger people (I'm 34) realizing that success isn't all about getting rich. Open Source is the tip of the ice-berg. It may be a long hard process, but in the end, these types of businesses are going to go away.
"Long time privacy advocate Winona Ryder says that these chips are a severe threat to privacy..."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that this is the same country in which the farmer was sued for using seeds from last year's canola crop, rather than buying them (again) from Monsanto.
Slashdolt:
"Mr. Shatner, I was wondering blah, blah, blah, blah (5 paragraphs later). So what are your thoughts?"
Bill:
I really don't think about that very much.
In land mass, it's probably more than half, but in population, it's only about 15%.
If you read the FCC's decision (available from www.fcc.gov), they repeatedly mention that without the merger the two companies can still provide local into local service for 100 of the roughly 200 DMA's in the country. Had the merger been accepted, it would have been all 200.
I really don't see how satellite can possibly COMPETE EFFECTIVELY against cable, when they're only provide local-into-local service for the larger metropolitan areas, which may even have multiple cable companies also competing!
The DOJ could easily make sure that the New Echostar keeps its promise of uniform pricing, and make no mistake, They're not making a whole lot of money from us people in Farm Country (as I am), so it wouldn't make sense for them to create "uniformly high pricing", unless they wanted to just roll over and die.
The FCC generally makes decisions that are friendly to broadcasters. Look at their decisions against satellite over the last few years. They (and Congress) regard satellite companies as essentially wanting to steal television from Over The Air broadcasters.
I quit watching the major networks (ABC/NBC/CBS/FOX) about 3 years ago, when I couldn't get a decent signal over-the-air. I get UPN and WB via satellite superstations, and I watch those quite a bit. Broacasters should have been fighting tooth and nail for this, but instead they generally opposed it, probably out of habit. I might actually start watching network TV again, if I could get it on sat.
I'm very angry at Rural TV, and other "rural" groups that opposed this merger. As a rural person in a DMA that will likely never get locals via satellite, I am very angry at these people that are supposedly representing me. They don't speak on my behalf.
You are absolutely correct, and I verified this using Google.
Do the following:
Search on "Intentia quarter results" (no quotes)
click on Cached for "[Intentia] Intentia's Second Quarter Results 2002"
Find where it says "::: read the full report" and look at the URL.
It's not only not illegal, but it's common sense. It's as if Intentia was saying "This is where we put our quarterly results, so come back here later and get the Q3 results when available."
Send them an email, and tell them how stupid they are. Unless you actually believe this was an intential marketing ploy (which it may be).
1. Too costly
2. I can get (sometimes) lower quality stuff from free via P2P.
3. I'm afraid that it will be crippled
Combine #1 and #3 and #2 is the only choice left for me.
Some business models are just not meant to survive forever. The Recording Industry should have begun to realize this 4 or 5 years ago, when MP3's first began to become popular, but instead they missed the boat, and decided to fight anyone that got on the boat. Hurt your consumers. Hurt your musicians. Given the fact that many people see the Recording Industry as dishonest (anyone remember the fact that they were recently found guilty of price fixing?), it's no wonder why we don't feel the least bit guilty about downloading from Kazaa, Morpheus, etc.
Nevertheless, most people prefer to be honest, overall. If the music industry starts selling new MP3 songs for $1/song and old ones for $0.25/song, they would likely see their profits higher than ever before, and kazaa would simply become a fringe group of people.
I'll chalk this up to "We only have 10 years left on this planet!" stated by actor Ted Danson about 10 years ago (also from Hollywood).
Look at how piracy has destroyed the software industry! Oh, it hasn't? But people have been pirating software for 10 years, how can software vendors still be making money?!!! Funny, isn't it?
My hope for the future is that we get rid of alot of the "Fame and Fortune" aspect of acting. In the future (thanks to the Internet), I believe that anyone will be able to broadcast anything they want, and may become famous, but not necessarily rich.
Hollywood makes lots of great movies, and a lot of bad ones. But they've only been around for less than 100 years. They may simply be a short-lived 20th century phenomena, with other forms of entertainment eventually taking over. Don't boohoo about it. If they disappear, it will be because nobody wants their stuff, not because everyone wants DVD's...
For the record, I've never put off "going to the movies" with my wife, simply so that I could watch it on DVD/VHS/PPV three months later...
When I used to play chess, I would often find myself getting very angry. I'm generally a fairly passive person, but when playing chess, I would just plain get mad. In fact, I would sometimes get so mad that I felt like hitting someone, but I never did.
Anyway, that's somewhat beside the point. "Violent" implies that you are doing something to someone. Nobody gets hurt when I sit down and play "Return to Wolfenstein" on my computer. No real Nazis die. My health doesn't deteriorate, and I generally don't even eat any real chicken dinners while playing. When I play a videogame that simulates violence, I often find myself relieved of lots of stress built up over the workday. When I play chess, I get really stressed and want to hurt people.
Obviously, chess is bad, and games with simulated violence are good.