There seems to be a bit of wishful thinking of a twisted sort in Cringely's doomful prophesying. To paraphrase Twain at his most cliched, reports of the RIAA's death are indeed greatly exaggerated. Not only is the record industry adapting with more specialty packaging and combo CD-DVD packs, but more importantly, there's the fact that a whole lot of people just prefer to actually own the official package and are willing to pay for it. I myself...um, know a friend who...has on occasion downloaded an mp3 album and then bought the damn thing a few days later simply to have the real, legal, genuine, uncompressed item in my, um his, collection.
After all, many many years after the invention of libraries, book publishers are still in business. Heck, people actually plunk down premium dollars for hardcovers even after the mass-market paperback comes out in print. Amazing.
The reason VISA® can get away with this is because of The Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995, an expressly pro-big-business law which made it easier for companies owning "famous" marks to prevent others from using the same or a similar trademark. According to the referenced site, "it is possible to use a dilution cause of action against users of the same mark even when the defendant's goods and services bears no relation to the goods or services of the famous mark."
It also mentions that it's somewhat harder to successfully prosecute such a cause of action if the trademark is a common English word, (e.g. VISA®) as opposed to a distinctive word (like "Reebok"). Hpwever, given the cornucopaeic depths of VISA®'s pockets, I don't doubt they will be able to make the law bend in their favor.
Aw fuck, all that moderation I just did, down the drain. But what the hell...
You're on/. and haven't read LOTR??
Translation:
You're on/. and you're not a VIRGIN??
And the inevitable follow-up:
Er, wot's that? I've read LOTR twenty-eight times, that once every year since my 12th birthday, and I'm certainly no virgin...I've gotten laid twice in fact...once by a hot "Ensign Ro" bird at a Trek convo, another time by an "Akane" at a cosplay...what's so funny?...no I'm not really British, I just say "wot" and "bird" and "convo" naturally...cheers!
Is this what Windows improvements are going to amount to in the future? More shell games? There's really nothing in those screenshots that couldn't be implemented now on an XP system with a tweaked UI. How about improvements to the underlying stability and reliability of the OS? E.g., I'd like to see the file "Details" such as Author and Dimensions integrated into the actual filesystem instead of hacked on top so that it no longer takes forever to list a folder with a bunch of mp3s in it, and so that a command-line dir shows selected extended attributes. How about a self-defragging system with a self-repairing registry? Might put Norton Utilities out of business, but there's no reason why after all this time Windows should still be slow-loading and jerky after a few months of usage. How about a way to say "NEVER trust content from Gator Corp." so I don't have to worry about accidentally pressing YES when one of those damn spyware controls pops up on my browser? How about getting rid of modal dialog boxes, or at least being able to configure a task so it is not interrupted by an alert box from another application? Are we working on any of these things MS? Also, I suppose this is just a UI gripe, but I'd like to be able to move my scrollbar over to the left-hand side, seeing as I'm left-handed and all.
Since I'm sure MS has their spies reading this discussion, perhaps we should all go ahead and mention substantive improvements we'd like to see in Longhorn.
There is a perception that companies never like to use customers, but this is wrong. If you clog their pipes, they really don't want your business, and they may be saving money by seeing the back of you.
Assume Joe Mpeg "votes with his dollar" and leaves Foo Company, no longer downloading 50 GB a month. Guess what? Foo Company can replace him with 50 "normal" customers who only download 1 GB a month each. In fact, Foo Company is likely to implement download caps designed expressly to get rid of unprofitable customers like Joe Mpeg, whilst still keeping the casual user who will never hit the cap during normal use.
I'll agree with that, but now that the two top dogs are both ready for DirectX9, it's time for them to stop adding proprietary extensions and to compete on speed and price.
Ultimately, creeping featuritis is good for no-one, not for the manufacturers, who have to figure out a way to top each other, not for the consumers, who spend top dollar on cards that get obsoleted by superior technology, and most importantly, not for the game companies, who can't make money with products that only work on bleeding edge tech. Fine, GeForceFX has 63356 maximum instructions per vertex, but what if the gamer "only" has a Radeon 9700 Pro? They're limited to 1024 max instructions. What if they have a GeForce3? They're out of the loop altogether. That's why, despite all the advancements we've seen lately, games are just now coming out that list T&L accelerated cards as a requirement. Programmers (excepting id software, who are in the business of selling their engine more than in actually programming "games") aren't going to use the most advanced features until they can be reasonably sure a large segment of the buying public won't be shut out. So, please nVidia and ATI, slow down on the features, let's lock into what we have now (much as AMD and Intel have pretty much locked their feature set) and let's get these cards down to the price level where one doesn't have to take out a second mortgage to afford them. They're only toys, after all.
So the limited use of a work for purposes of criticism is, as I said, expressly permitted by law.
I find it inconceivable that you persist in claiming that the law you just quoted "expressly permits" criticism, so I suppose you are just fooling around after all.
However, for the benefit of others, it should be stated that what the law expressly permits is "fair use" and it includes examples of what might be considered fair use, such as "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use)..."
However, as Barbara Weil Gall" points out, "If all teaching use were fair use, there would be no need for students to purchase textbooks." In other words, just because something is teaching, or criticism, or whatever, doesn't make it "fair use" and doesn't, contrary to Twirlip's assertions, make it expressly permissible. Actually, no specific instantiation of fair use is "expressly permitted," but each possible infringement must be weighed against the totality of mitigating circumstances mentioned within.
So, we should be expecting those old DIVX disks to unlock after their copyright expires, too?
WTF does that have to do with Intertrust? I think you're confused.
It has to do with your blanket assertion that Intertrust technology is obliged to allow its encrypted work to return to the public domain when we have already seen in the recent past other technology which fails to do so. I don't recall any suits being brought for this reason against Digital Video Espress, LP back when it still existed, and tellingly, now that it does exist, who do I sue when my copy of "Flashdance, the Exclusive DIVX edition" falls out of copyright? But I suppose we ought to believe that this time it will be different, based upon the unsupported opinions of a self-described non-employee of Intertrust who has no vested interest in seeing the technology succeed or fail. Wink, wink.
If you have new questions, I'll be happy to respond to them
No, I agree that this has gone on quite long enough.
Limited quoting for the purpose of criticism is expressly allowed under Title 17. Read the law
Title 17 Sec 107 basically states that if an act is deemed as fair use, it is not an infringement of copyright. It doesn't "expressly allow" any particular usage but sets guidelines to determine whether that use is fair use or not. I'm only mentioning this because you seem to be unwilling to admit you are mistaken about anything, and yet, you are.
The only exceptions [to the absolute right of copyright holders] are those listed under the article describing fair use,
That would be incorrect as well. Fair use is Sec. 107. See Sec. 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 1008 and 1202(e) for more exceptions to the rights of copyright holders.
and trading music with friends doesn't qualify
Doesn't qualify under Sec. 107, although whether it qualifies under 1008 is an open question at this point.
The other thing you're failing to notice is what happens if someone wants to make a perfectly legal "fair use" of a digital recording? How does the rights package allow for that? Let's say I want to send a 20 second snippet of a song to a buddy to explain to him why he should or shouldn't buy it. (Criticism) That ought to be permissible under sec.107. How does the rights package allow me to assert my privilege to do this? And if it allows any given 20 second snippet, then how will it prevent 10 20-second snippets, i.e. the whole song?
What happens when the copyright runs out on those Intertrust encrypted tunes? Will they automatically unlock into the public domain?
Yes. This will be programmed into the rights package that governs the media's use. This provision is already mandated by law.
So, we should be expecting those old DIVX disks to unlock after their copyright expires, too? What law is it that you say "mandates" this provision? I don't see that there is any necessity on the part of a content creator to make sure its work passes smoothly into the public domain at the appropriate time. Furthermore, I don't think it's even a given that Intertrust will be around in 95 years or more to unlock all these packages.
If you're so concerned about being quoted, perhaps you'd best watch what you say.
Since Devon absolutely owns the copyright to his own statements, by your own admission he has absolute right to command you not to quote him out of context, or for that matter not to quote him at all.
Or do you think your grandiose pronouncement that "only the copyright holder of a work has the right to determine how that work is distributed" only applies to big corporations and not to ordinary blokes like Devon Bowen?
Or maybe you'll concede that there are exceptions to your apparent belief that copyright is paramount over user rights?
And BTW, what happens when the copyright runs out on those Intertrust encrypted tunes? Will they automatically unlock into the public domain? Do you still persist in this belief that it's impossible for Intertrust technology to possibly infringe upon a person's existing rights?
We've got TiVo type boxes with Hard Drives, and DVD type boxes with DivX...really what we need is a more generalized component-sized PC that works to augment out television viewing experience. I know it's been done before, but the public hadn't caught up with the idea of computational ubiquity. Now's the time for:
* Component-sized set top box format * 20G HD (minimum) for recording shows and user apps * Low heat processor (e.g. Transmeta or XScale) * A embedded operating system of one kind or another * CD-RW/DVD combo drive * Video in/out, RJ-45 for connectivity * Front port for wired/wireless keyboard/mouse/joystick
Something like this ought to be doable for less than $500. Advantage: DivX 3.11, Ogg, MAME. whatever you want would be just a download away. Of course, a hacked XBox is already pretty close to this already.
There is one O2k vulnerability involve IE that really frosts me. If you save a message as a file in O2k, then the extension is '.MSG'. If you save a message in OE as a file, the extension is '.EML'. Can you see the problem with the two different extensions? You can have O2k installed, but if you double click a message saved in OE format, then... BING it opens Outlook Express. (And all the annoyances that come with it..)
Maybe I'm missing part of your problem, but the usual method of dealing with an undesirable file association in Windows is to right-click (or SHIFT-right-click, depending on which version of Windows you use) on the datafile in question. Then when the "Open with" RMB selection comes up, look for the desired program file, and make sure the "Always use the selected program" box is selected. And voila.
I suppose/. really isn't the appropriate place to discuss actual workarounds, so my apologies in advance!
There is no case to be made because there's no requirement that millions upgrade their browsers. The beauty of the various *ML standards is that you don't have to use 'em if they aren't important to you. For example, even though XHTML has superseded HTML4 as a stamdard. it hasn't obsoleted it. In fact, the XML 1.1 Candidate Recommendation page itself is still written in HTML 4.01, (although the W3C's homepage has been revised to XHTML.) And Slashdot gets by with still using HTML 3.2. Those people (e.g. Mongolians) who need to use XML 1.1 or to access it will find themselves upgrading sooner, the rest of us will eventually receive an upgrade along with the latest Security Update Of The Week.
And what will an XML 1.0 parser ("millions served") do with an XML 1.1 document?
Really, that question isn't as insightful as you were thinking it was. Does a 2.0 browser know what to do with modern HTML4/CSS/XHTML? Does your BIOS from 1999 consider an 80GB partition on a 200GB HD to be "well-formed"? Point is that improvements are inevitable and they nearly always break forwards-compatibility to a greater or lesser extent. When XML 1.1 final appears, people will be directed to upgrade their browsers. End of story.
a computer sucks at Go because of the exponentially larger solution sets involved
More accurately, computers suck at Go because we don't know how the brain works well enough to program computers to think like people (to intuitively see the gestalt of a game position), therefore we must resort to modified brute force heuristics, and the exponentially larger solution set of Go makes it poorly adaptable to this method of programming.
However, if we did know how to program computers to work like brains, it's theoretically possible that even antiquated 386 level hardware would be adequate to beat us at Go, chess or any other sort of board game.
In a nutshell we are talking about the Holy Grail of computing: A.I.
Most EULA's have clauses in them stating that the agreement can retroactively change at the discretion of the company. Look at MS EULA's as a case-study.
Please. Any such "retroactive" change would be unenforceable. If you have an example of MS successfully doing so, enlighten us. What Microsoft can do is what Anon. Cupboard states below, slip revised EULAs into their product updates, and of course, you are obliged to accept them or else be suceptible to the latest of a series of "malformed MIME header" exploits. (And, to contrast with what I said earlier, this is the advantage of open source software. If you had it, you could fix that MIME vulnerability yourself, or to get someone more trustworthy than MS to do it.) But let's not confuse Microsoft, deemed guilty of monopolistic practices, with a typical software concern, which has to do certain things in order to retain its customer base. Look no further than at the uproar over BitMover's changes to the software it gives away for free, and imagine the hue and cry if people actually paid for such restrictions. I.e., BM's hands are tied. The power is in the hands of the (paying) consumer.
Office XP is no improvement over Office 98 for the vast vast vast majority of users.
Well, for one, Office XP runs on Windows and Office 98 on the (pre OSX) Mac. I'm not sure, though, how to gauge the utility of any improvements over the years in officeware. I know I mostly got through college by using Amiga "PageStream" but I think I can't extrapolate my needs onto everyone else.
When you think of people as consumers, you passify them, whereas users are active.
True, perhaps, when your users are the sort of people who post on/. Most other people would rather pay for the convenience of having things taken care of for them. People don't want to be "active" when it comes to their software.
The problem with EULA's is that they can be changed at any time by the developer, thus creating an unfair situation; BitKeeper could just as easily include such restrictions on its paid-for version. The other problem is that accepting them is mandatory, thus creating another power imbalance.
Just to be clear here. Yes, new versions of software can come with revised EULAs. Yes, accepting the EULA is mandatory if you want to use the software you purchase. But once you buy the software with the EULA, you're not compelled to accept any changes in future EULAs, which is what both you and RMS seem to be implying. In other words, they can't just unilaterally revoke the license you have already got. They can simply do their best to persuade you to accept a new EULA by releasing an improved product.
Note: This last point is a key difference between freeware projects and commercial software concerns. The latter are under pressure to release improved product because their bottom line depends upon it. The former can certainly improve a great deal as the various GNU projects demonstrate, but they improve on their own timetable. In a sense, there are no customers, just users. Users can wait for improvements, but customers usually won't. And reacting timely to the needs of the customers is why BitMover is a success.
I do, however, agree with you that RMS is worth listening to. Even when he is wrong, he is always compelling.
Those restrictions weren't part of the original terms under which I received the hammer
Sure they were. Maybe you're thinking of the old obsolete FreeHammer which didn't have those restrictions, but you voluntarily traded that one in for the new FreeHammer (with our new improved EULA) a long time ago. Remember?
It was funny but if someone's giving you a free hammer, so what? Either use it according to their restrictions or stop being a cheap bastard and pay for an "unrestricted" hammer.
The irony of this whole thing is that if BitMover completely withdrew its free offering, you folks wouldn't have a cause for complaint here. When the removal of choice is viewed somehow as an ethical improvement, it really makes me wonder about the FSM zealots.
ObLink: Here's a link to a lengthy critique of BitKeeper's license.
I cannot think of a single undertaking where a gov-controlled entity can out-compete private ones
The thing is that the Dragon Chip doesn't have to "out-compete" Intel, at least not at first. China has plenty of cash to manufacture this baby at a loss until it advances to the point where it is competitive with Western CPUs. Think "Airbus." Europe kept it on a lifeline for years, but now it's a very serious rival to Boeing.
The only question I have is whether this chip is really free of Western IP. It seems to me that it would be impossible to build a modern fab without stepping on all sorts of patents held by US companies. Is there any way to get a chip up to GHz speeds without using techniques recently invented and patented by the likes of Intel and IBM?
Both allow the trading of music on a massive scale without the artists' and record companies' consent.
It's the Internet which allows it. Kazaa merely facilitates it. And of course, it's the participants who perform it.*
Napster was deemed illegal because it was considered to be an active participant in the filesharing process. The case against Kazaa is somewhat harder to make.
The article concludes by making the excellent point that if the United States chooses to cripple its technological development by the means of overly restrictive intellectual property licenses, it will eventually see the torch of intellectual leadership pass to other nations.
This can't be stressed enough. Most people don't understand what's wrong with e.g. some company owning the rights to jpeg practically forever. The average American couldn't care in the slightest about such things except insofar as IP laws prevent them from downloading mp3 files. We (Americans) really need to convince our friends, neighbors, Congresscritters, etc., that such laws are really a disaster for the country as a whole...because, er, otherwise...the terrorists have won!
Slashdot Mirror
There seems to be a bit of wishful thinking of a twisted sort in Cringely's doomful prophesying. To paraphrase Twain at his most cliched, reports of the RIAA's death are indeed greatly exaggerated. Not only is the record industry adapting with more specialty packaging and combo CD-DVD packs, but more importantly, there's the fact that a whole lot of people just prefer to actually own the official package and are willing to pay for it. I myself...um, know a friend who...has on occasion downloaded an mp3 album and then bought the damn thing a few days later simply to have the real, legal, genuine, uncompressed item in my, um his, collection.
After all, many many years after the invention of libraries, book publishers are still in business. Heck, people actually plunk down premium dollars for hardcovers even after the mass-market paperback comes out in print. Amazing.
The reason VISA® can get away with this is because of The Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995, an expressly pro-big-business law which made it easier for companies owning "famous" marks to prevent others from using the same or a similar trademark. According to the referenced site, "it is possible to use a dilution cause of action against users of the same mark even when the defendant's goods and services bears no relation to the goods or services of the famous mark."
It also mentions that it's somewhat harder to successfully prosecute such a cause of action if the trademark is a common English word, (e.g. VISA®) as opposed to a distinctive word (like "Reebok"). Hpwever, given the cornucopaeic depths of VISA®'s pockets, I don't doubt they will be able to make the law bend in their favor.
Wow. Just like "B", "C" and "C#" ;-)
Aw fuck, all that moderation I just did, down the drain. But what the hell...
/. and haven't read LOTR??
/. and you're not a VIRGIN??
You're on
Translation:
You're on
And the inevitable follow-up:
Er, wot's that? I've read LOTR twenty-eight times, that once every year since my 12th birthday, and I'm certainly no virgin...I've gotten laid twice in fact...once by a hot "Ensign Ro" bird at a Trek convo, another time by an "Akane" at a cosplay...what's so funny?...no I'm not really British, I just say "wot" and "bird" and "convo" naturally...cheers!
Is this what Windows improvements are going to amount to in the future? More shell games? There's really nothing in those screenshots that couldn't be implemented now on an XP system with a tweaked UI. How about improvements to the underlying stability and reliability of the OS? E.g., I'd like to see the file "Details" such as Author and Dimensions integrated into the actual filesystem instead of hacked on top so that it no longer takes forever to list a folder with a bunch of mp3s in it, and so that a command-line dir shows selected extended attributes. How about a self-defragging system with a self-repairing registry? Might put Norton Utilities out of business, but there's no reason why after all this time Windows should still be slow-loading and jerky after a few months of usage. How about a way to say "NEVER trust content from Gator Corp." so I don't have to worry about accidentally pressing YES when one of those damn spyware controls pops up on my browser? How about getting rid of modal dialog boxes, or at least being able to configure a task so it is not interrupted by an alert box from another application? Are we working on any of these things MS? Also, I suppose this is just a UI gripe, but I'd like to be able to move my scrollbar over to the left-hand side, seeing as I'm left-handed and all.
Since I'm sure MS has their spies reading this discussion, perhaps we should all go ahead and mention substantive improvements we'd like to see in Longhorn.
Probably obvious, but s/use customers/lose customers.
Sorry for the typo.
There is a perception that companies never like to use customers, but this is wrong. If you clog their pipes, they really don't want your business, and they may be saving money by seeing the back of you.
Assume Joe Mpeg "votes with his dollar" and leaves Foo Company, no longer downloading 50 GB a month. Guess what? Foo Company can replace him with 50 "normal" customers who only download 1 GB a month each. In fact, Foo Company is likely to implement download caps designed expressly to get rid of unprofitable customers like Joe Mpeg, whilst still keeping the casual user who will never hit the cap during normal use.
it's definately the time to upgrade
I'll agree with that, but now that the two top dogs are both ready for DirectX9, it's time for them to stop adding proprietary extensions and to compete on speed and price.
Ultimately, creeping featuritis is good for no-one, not for the manufacturers, who have to figure out a way to top each other, not for the consumers, who spend top dollar on cards that get obsoleted by superior technology, and most importantly, not for the game companies, who can't make money with products that only work on bleeding edge tech. Fine, GeForceFX has 63356 maximum instructions per vertex, but what if the gamer "only" has a Radeon 9700 Pro? They're limited to 1024 max instructions. What if they have a GeForce3? They're out of the loop altogether. That's why, despite all the advancements we've seen lately, games are just now coming out that list T&L accelerated cards as a requirement. Programmers (excepting id software, who are in the business of selling their engine more than in actually programming "games") aren't going to use the most advanced features until they can be reasonably sure a large segment of the buying public won't be shut out. So, please nVidia and ATI, slow down on the features, let's lock into what we have now (much as AMD and Intel have pretty much locked their feature set) and let's get these cards down to the price level where one doesn't have to take out a second mortgage to afford them. They're only toys, after all.
So the limited use of a work for purposes of criticism is, as I said, expressly permitted by law.
I find it inconceivable that you persist in claiming that the law you just quoted "expressly permits" criticism, so I suppose you are just fooling around after all.
However, for the benefit of others, it should be stated that what the law expressly permits is "fair use" and it includes examples of what might be considered fair use, such as "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use)..."
However, as Barbara Weil Gall" points out, "If all teaching use were fair use, there would be no need for students to purchase textbooks." In other words, just because something is teaching, or criticism, or whatever, doesn't make it "fair use" and doesn't, contrary to Twirlip's assertions, make it expressly permissible. Actually, no specific instantiation of fair use is "expressly permitted," but each possible infringement must be weighed against the totality of mitigating circumstances mentioned within.
So, we should be expecting those old DIVX disks to unlock after their copyright expires, too?
WTF does that have to do with Intertrust? I think you're confused.
It has to do with your blanket assertion that Intertrust technology is obliged to allow its encrypted work to return to the public domain when we have already seen in the recent past other technology which fails to do so. I don't recall any suits being brought for this reason against Digital Video Espress, LP back when it still existed, and tellingly, now that it does exist, who do I sue when my copy of "Flashdance, the Exclusive DIVX edition" falls out of copyright? But I suppose we ought to believe that this time it will be different, based upon the unsupported opinions of a self-described non-employee of Intertrust who has no vested interest in seeing the technology succeed or fail. Wink, wink.
If you have new questions, I'll be happy to respond to them
No, I agree that this has gone on quite long enough.
Limited quoting for the purpose of criticism is expressly allowed under Title 17. Read the law
Title 17 Sec 107 basically states that if an act is deemed as fair use, it is not an infringement of copyright. It doesn't "expressly allow" any particular usage but sets guidelines to determine whether that use is fair use or not. I'm only mentioning this because you seem to be unwilling to admit you are mistaken about anything, and yet, you are.
The only exceptions [to the absolute right of copyright holders] are those listed under the article describing fair use,
That would be incorrect as well. Fair use is Sec. 107. See Sec. 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 1008 and 1202(e) for more exceptions to the rights of copyright holders.
and trading music with friends doesn't qualify
Doesn't qualify under Sec. 107, although whether it qualifies under 1008 is an open question at this point.
The other thing you're failing to notice is what happens if someone wants to make a perfectly legal "fair use" of a digital recording? How does the rights package allow for that? Let's say I want to send a 20 second snippet of a song to a buddy to explain to him why he should or shouldn't buy it. (Criticism) That ought to be permissible under sec.107. How does the rights package allow me to assert my privilege to do this? And if it allows any given 20 second snippet, then how will it prevent 10 20-second snippets, i.e. the whole song?
What happens when the copyright runs out on those Intertrust encrypted tunes? Will they automatically unlock into the public domain?
Yes. This will be programmed into the rights package that governs the media's use. This provision is already mandated by law.
So, we should be expecting those old DIVX disks to unlock after their copyright expires, too? What law is it that you say "mandates" this provision? I don't see that there is any necessity on the part of a content creator to make sure its work passes smoothly into the public domain at the appropriate time. Furthermore, I don't think it's even a given that Intertrust will be around in 95 years or more to unlock all these packages.
If you're so concerned about being quoted, perhaps you'd best watch what you say.
Since Devon absolutely owns the copyright to his own statements, by your own admission he has absolute right to command you not to quote him out of context, or for that matter not to quote him at all.
Or do you think your grandiose pronouncement that "only the copyright holder of a work has the right to determine how that work is distributed" only applies to big corporations and not to ordinary blokes like Devon Bowen?
Or maybe you'll concede that there are exceptions to your apparent belief that copyright is paramount over user rights?
And BTW, what happens when the copyright runs out on those Intertrust encrypted tunes? Will they automatically unlock into the public domain? Do you still persist in this belief that it's impossible for Intertrust technology to possibly infringe upon a person's existing rights?
We've got TiVo type boxes with Hard Drives, and DVD type boxes with DivX...really what we need is a more generalized component-sized PC that works to augment out television viewing experience. I know it's been done before, but the public hadn't caught up with the idea of computational ubiquity. Now's the time for:
* Component-sized set top box format
* 20G HD (minimum) for recording shows and user apps
* Low heat processor (e.g. Transmeta or XScale)
* A embedded operating system of one kind or another
* CD-RW/DVD combo drive
* Video in/out, RJ-45 for connectivity
* Front port for wired/wireless keyboard/mouse/joystick
Something like this ought to be doable for less than $500. Advantage: DivX 3.11, Ogg, MAME. whatever you want would be just a download away. Of course, a hacked XBox is already pretty close to this already.
[Re portable Mpeg4 players] Do you know of any that are coming?
Yes.
There is one O2k vulnerability involve IE that really frosts me. If you save a message as a file in O2k, then the extension is '.MSG'. If you save a message in OE as a file, the extension is '.EML'. Can you see the problem with the two different extensions? You can have O2k installed, but if you double click a message saved in OE format, then ... BING it opens Outlook Express. (And all the annoyances that come with it..)
/. really isn't the appropriate place to discuss actual workarounds, so my apologies in advance!
Maybe I'm missing part of your problem, but the usual method of dealing with an undesirable file association in Windows is to right-click (or SHIFT-right-click, depending on which version of Windows you use) on the datafile in question. Then when the "Open with" RMB selection comes up, look for the desired program file, and make sure the "Always use the selected program" box is selected. And voila.
I suppose
There is no case to be made because there's no requirement that millions upgrade their browsers. The beauty of the various *ML standards is that you don't have to use 'em if they aren't important to you. For example, even though XHTML has superseded HTML4 as a stamdard. it hasn't obsoleted it. In fact, the XML 1.1 Candidate Recommendation page itself is still written in HTML 4.01, (although the W3C's homepage has been revised to XHTML.) And Slashdot gets by with still using HTML 3.2. Those people (e.g. Mongolians) who need to use XML 1.1 or to access it will find themselves upgrading sooner, the rest of us will eventually receive an upgrade along with the latest Security Update Of The Week.
And what will an XML 1.0 parser ("millions served") do with an XML 1.1 document?
Really, that question isn't as insightful as you were thinking it was. Does a 2.0 browser know what to do with modern HTML4/CSS/XHTML? Does your BIOS from 1999 consider an 80GB partition on a 200GB HD to be "well-formed"? Point is that improvements are inevitable and they nearly always break forwards-compatibility to a greater or lesser extent. When XML 1.1 final appears, people will be directed to upgrade their browsers. End of story.
a computer sucks at Go because of the exponentially larger solution sets involved
More accurately, computers suck at Go because we don't know how the brain works well enough to program computers to think like people (to intuitively see the gestalt of a game position), therefore we must resort to modified brute force heuristics, and the exponentially larger solution set of Go makes it poorly adaptable to this method of programming.
However, if we did know how to program computers to work like brains, it's theoretically possible that even antiquated 386 level hardware would be adequate to beat us at Go, chess or any other sort of board game.
In a nutshell we are talking about the Holy Grail of computing: A.I.
Most EULA's have clauses in them stating that the agreement can retroactively change at the discretion of the company. Look at MS EULA's as a case-study.
/. Most other people would rather pay for the convenience of having things taken care of for them. People don't want to be "active" when it comes to their software.
Please. Any such "retroactive" change would be unenforceable. If you have an example of MS successfully doing so, enlighten us. What Microsoft can do is what Anon. Cupboard states below, slip revised EULAs into their product updates, and of course, you are obliged to accept them or else be suceptible to the latest of a series of "malformed MIME header" exploits. (And, to contrast with what I said earlier, this is the advantage of open source software. If you had it, you could fix that MIME vulnerability yourself, or to get someone more trustworthy than MS to do it.) But let's not confuse Microsoft, deemed guilty of monopolistic practices, with a typical software concern, which has to do certain things in order to retain its customer base. Look no further than at the uproar over BitMover's changes to the software it gives away for free, and imagine the hue and cry if people actually paid for such restrictions. I.e., BM's hands are tied. The power is in the hands of the (paying) consumer.
Office XP is no improvement over Office 98 for the vast vast vast majority of users.
Well, for one, Office XP runs on Windows and Office 98 on the (pre OSX) Mac. I'm not sure, though, how to gauge the utility of any improvements over the years in officeware. I know I mostly got through college by using Amiga "PageStream" but I think I can't extrapolate my needs onto everyone else.
When you think of people as consumers, you passify them, whereas users are active.
True, perhaps, when your users are the sort of people who post on
The problem with EULA's is that they can be changed at any time by the developer, thus creating an unfair situation; BitKeeper could just as easily include such restrictions on its paid-for version. The other problem is that accepting them is mandatory, thus creating another power imbalance.
Just to be clear here. Yes, new versions of software can come with revised EULAs. Yes, accepting the EULA is mandatory if you want to use the software you purchase. But once you buy the software with the EULA, you're not compelled to accept any changes in future EULAs, which is what both you and RMS seem to be implying. In other words, they can't just unilaterally revoke the license you have already got. They can simply do their best to persuade you to accept a new EULA by releasing an improved product.
Note: This last point is a key difference between freeware projects and commercial software concerns. The latter are under pressure to release improved product because their bottom line depends upon it. The former can certainly improve a great deal as the various GNU projects demonstrate, but they improve on their own timetable. In a sense, there are no customers, just users. Users can wait for improvements, but customers usually won't. And reacting timely to the needs of the customers is why BitMover is a success.
I do, however, agree with you that RMS is worth listening to. Even when he is wrong, he is always compelling.
Those restrictions weren't part of the original terms under which I received the hammer
Sure they were. Maybe you're thinking of the old obsolete FreeHammer which didn't have those restrictions, but you voluntarily traded that one in for the new FreeHammer (with our new improved EULA) a long time ago. Remember?
It was funny but if someone's giving you a free hammer, so what? Either use it according to their restrictions or stop being a cheap bastard and pay for an "unrestricted" hammer.
The irony of this whole thing is that if BitMover completely withdrew its free offering, you folks wouldn't have a cause for complaint here. When the removal of choice is viewed somehow as an ethical improvement, it really makes me wonder about the FSM zealots.
ObLink: Here's a link to a lengthy critique of BitKeeper's license.
I cannot think of a single undertaking where a gov-controlled entity can out-compete private ones
The thing is that the Dragon Chip doesn't have to "out-compete" Intel, at least not at first. China has plenty of cash to manufacture this baby at a loss until it advances to the point where it is competitive with Western CPUs. Think "Airbus." Europe kept it on a lifeline for years, but now it's a very serious rival to Boeing.
The only question I have is whether this chip is really free of Western IP. It seems to me that it would be impossible to build a modern fab without stepping on all sorts of patents held by US companies. Is there any way to get a chip up to GHz speeds without using techniques recently invented and patented by the likes of Intel and IBM?
Both allow the trading of music on a massive scale without the artists' and record companies' consent.
It's the Internet which allows it. Kazaa merely facilitates it. And of course, it's the participants who perform it.*
Napster was deemed illegal because it was considered to be an active participant in the filesharing process. The case against Kazaa is somewhat harder to make.
(*And it's me who italicizes it.)
The article concludes by making the excellent point that if the United States chooses to cripple its technological development by the means of overly restrictive intellectual property licenses, it will eventually see the torch of intellectual leadership pass to other nations.
This can't be stressed enough. Most people don't understand what's wrong with e.g. some company owning the rights to jpeg practically forever. The average American couldn't care in the slightest about such things except insofar as IP laws prevent them from downloading mp3 files. We (Americans) really need to convince our friends, neighbors, Congresscritters, etc., that such laws are really a disaster for the country as a whole...because, er, otherwise...the terrorists have won!
The problem is rouge reviewers putting the music on the internet
I hear ya brother! Those damn ladies' makeup magazine writers are the worst! Freaking Cosmo!!
Oh.
Never mind.