Re:more proof the RIAA/MPAA are insane
on
Death By DMCA
·
· Score: 1
Sorry, missed the obvious in my last comment.
If you're not an American, how does this bother you? Aren't companies in your country allowed to produce such a device? Then let 'em go at it! If not, then don't be dissing my country for the same flaws you guys have!
Re:more proof the RIAA/MPAA are insane
on
Death By DMCA
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Actually, the use of non-market strategies (i.e. legislative means) is very common in business. Businesses do it all the time. If you want that to change, time to work on your politicians!
How about "that's their fucking problem not mine"?
Sure is, and they're trying to solve it. Look at it this way - for the people working in those companies, it is their job to get you to watch TV and more specifically watch those ads. They will pursue all means that they think are ethical/legal and probably some that they don't. But it's their job, and you can hardly blame them for doing it any more than they can blame you for flipping burgers at the local Mickey Ds (or whatever your country has - but I live in Switzerland at the moment, and even these guys have the golden arches). Obviously they haven't yet come up with better ideas. When they do, they'll get implemented, and given the quality of technical skill some Slashdotters have, there's even a chance that the solution could come from here.
We're getting back to copyright issue, I think - it's their content, according to current copyright law, and they think they grant you a very specific use - to watch it on your TV. You, on the other hand, think that once they broadcast the content to you, it's yours to do with as you please. In this case, the law would appear to disagree with you. Until and unless a majority of people within the US share your view, which will not happen until you can share it without cussing and sounding like a fool, then US law will continue to protect the interests of those TV networks. Unbridled anger rarely serves effective change.
Sure is nice to see one of my posts stir up so many comments, though.;-)
Re:You are fooling only yourself.
on
Death By DMCA
·
· Score: 1
you are the only one here who probably thinks so.
I'll grant you that!
Re:more proof the RIAA/MPAA are insane
on
Death By DMCA
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Well, your post was passionate, I'll give you that.
However, I'd like to ask a simple question. If the networks can no longer count on people watching at least some ads, how are they to pay for content? The day most people have "auto-commercial-skip" is the day advertisers stop paying to be a part of the program. At that point, the networks would have to charge the consumers directly. Are you interested in paying even more for cable TV then?
I'm not saying it's theft or agreeing with any of the other comments made by those companies, but you need to put down emotion and maybe start coming up with reasonable alternative business models if you want to see devices like this suceed. Of course, once those business models are in use, there won't be any need for devices like this... so it's kind of pointless.
I don't know what the answer is, but venting on Slash about the end of society isn't any way to bring it about.
He falls back on the old saw of the environment being a complex system that's hard to understand as justification for not erring on the side of safety.
You had me interested until that point. Come on, that's just a little too obviously biased to let slide - side of safety for whom? Future generations who might be affected? Or current generations whose economic interests *will* be significantly affected?
I'm not arguing against the theory of global warming, but merely stating that "playing it safe" is an arbitrary term. Some of the anti-global-warming-hype people do think they're playing it safe, but they're looking out for different interests than those you espouse.
Not quite the same, because their content was still on the servers. It's more like going through and checking every other apartment in the same complex to which the suspects had a key.
Unless you have not heard, Verizon, AT&T, Bell South and other telecommunications giants are lobbying Congress to establish a legal basis for charging website owners for traffic with the help of two-tier Internet.
Sweet. So as long as we haven't heard about it, they're not actually doing it??? Then WTH is Slashdot doing, posting this crap and ruining the Internet for all of us?
One important point to note is that free speech does not trump all. For example, libel and slander are both illegal despite the first amendment. So while it is an important right, there is precedent for other considerations overruling free speech.
I'm a really big fan of Trend Micro ever since installing it a year and a half ago at a small business I consulted with. Their CSM solution covers all the bases for a small company (includes a very effective spam blocker at the Exchange level), their web-based management interface is great, updates are quick and painless, and remote managment is a breeze.
Before that I'd used Norton's solution, and while it worked, I never want to go back. In that version (7-something, I think, maybe 8) it was a real pain to try to configure central updates to save bandwidth (less of an issue now, admittedly).
Short version: give Trend Micro a try. I think they have demo licenses available.
Ignoring the rather troll responses to your comment, I'd just like to point out that there has been a lot of research lately in the area of corporations selling to 3rd-world countries. If you look up the work done by C.K. Prahalad, you'll find that current theory suggests that the world's 4 billion poor people can be a substantial source of profit for companies that approach the problem in unique ways, and that by selling to the poor you can make a big difference in the quality of their lives.
Say, for example, that you wanted to sell farm equipment to the poor in a given country. Unfortunately, they probably can't afford it, but you may be able to sell it to the community as a whole when they take turns using it. Alternatively, a company could establish micro-lending facilities within communities to finance the equipment - being careful to use social means to get paid back instead of legal, as legal contracts hold very little sway in these countries. However, for the farmers to make money, they have to be able to get their goods to a market, so the same company could offer transportation services (building infrastructure where necessary) and make a bit more on the way. The farmer makes money, and eventually so does the company. However, it's definitely a long-term investment. Take a look at Hindulever (Indian arm of Unilever) for an example of a company that's targeting tier 4 customers effectively.
To counter my own argument, doing any sort of work that relies on intellectual property protection (such as genetic engineering) is likely to fail. They'll be up in arms if you sell them sterile seeds, but if you don't, they'll simply share the excess seeds with their neighbors next year, and very quicly you won't have a market left.
So it's possible, but difficult, to make money off the poor while benefiting them as well. Then again, I'm studying in Switzerland, where there really aren't any poor ($5 small Starbucks coffee of the day, anyone?), so don't take my word for it.:)
That's not neccesarily true. While I'm not a big fan of outsourcing to India, I've been able to do my job (Unix Sysadmin and Network Admin before that) without entering a data center more than once or twice a year, and that usually to install new kit. Remote console access for teh win and all that. And if you do need physical access, you can keep one person around the company, or have support contracts with the hardware vendor, etc.
No, I think the bigger problem with Indian outsourcing remains customer service (internal variety). Customers generally feel more comfortable dealing with admins face to face and find it easier to describe their needs in person. Alternatively, I've seen cases where customers would yell and scream over the phone and demand to get their way, but would never do the same in person. "Bob" from India doesn't stand a chance when dealing with those kind of people, and the generally negative American view of offshoring won't help either.
I believe that the best areas for outsourcing/offshoring are those that don't have customer-facing responsibilities. Network management may or may not fit in this category, depending on your organisational structure.
Zero bucks for 15 cups of coffee??? Man, you've got to tell me where you're getting your coffee! E-mail me, otherwise that place will get seriously slashdotted!!!!
Well, that's hardly fair either. Another problem would be that the employee chose to go job hunting instead of opening a dialogue to improve the quality o his/her employment with their boss. It's no wonder the manager would want to fire him/her - if he/she is incapable expressing simple things like dissatisfaction with their current situation, then maybe he/she is not the sort of person that you want working for your company.
The street always goes both ways. Move on, move on.
Yes, I would fire people for that. I'd fire people for any intentional violation of corporate policy. It's one thing if you don't know, it's another if you choose to break the rules, especially after repeated warnings. I've often found that people who break little rules will ocassionally break big ones - like those kids in school you mentioned, those who tell little lies will from time to time tell a whopper.
It's an issue of trust, not to mention security (why bother with multiple user accounts at all if people are going to have access to all accounts anyway?).
Being able to trust your employees leads to them being able to trust you (and yes, vice versa, I'm aware of that implication). This in turn creates an atmosphere with good employee morale.
There's nothing worse than a./er trying to insult someone and having to pull from his own life example of being that poor little geeky kid that nobody liked....
I've mandated rotating passwords before. My thought was that I knew my users shared passwords over time (oh, I need to use your computer for a few minutes, but your screen is locked) so by forcing a change I was hoping that if a person left the company they wouldn't retain access to anyone's accounts. However, the better solution in that case would have been termination for people who shared passwords and/or forcing all users (only about 15-20 in the company) to change passwords everytime someone left.
And of course, there are times in larger companies where I simply got told by those higher up that passwords would be rotated.
No offense, but you're an idiot. Did you choose to disregard my point about cleaning up our own mistakes? I specifically mentioned both Iraq and Afghanistan. Aside from that, if you accuse me of living in the past, how long ago was it that we "toppled the Iranian government" etc.?
Also, to go back another 30 or 40 years beyond those events, the Soviets sustaining more casualties doesn't mean they did more. Manpower was ever their greatest asset, and they used it effectively. Stalin was always happy to kill his own people. They originally had a treaty with Hitler, by the way, which he broke a year too early. Had he waited till after Britain was conquered, and set up a an effective supply chain to deal with Russian winters, the Germans would easily have rolled over their country as well.
World War II ended 60 years ago. Really, two generations is not a long time, except maybe to those who don't read history. Those who don't are doomed to repeat it, by the way...
By the way: 1) "Oil prices" consists of two words, not a single hyphenated word. 2) "Something at pollution" is gramatically incorrect in this context. "Something about pollution" would be correct.
If you're going to get upset about spelling and grammar, get your own ducks in a row first. I would copy your "It's a shame" line here, but that one is also gramatically incorrect.
Maybe later we can have a discussion about Kyoto and how some of the largest polluters in the world were exempted from the treaty, thus removing any real environmental benefit while hampering U.S. economic interests.
Believe it or not, the US has done a little good in its time as well. A couple of World Wars resolved come to mind.
And if you think that the setting up and supporting of these rebels in Afghanistan and Saddam in Iraq, then is it really such a bad thing when we go in and clean up our mistakes? Bush didn't do the former, but he's doing the latter...
Fine, America makes mistakes - we're not perfect, we're just the best that currently exists.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, missed the obvious in my last comment.
If you're not an American, how does this bother you? Aren't companies in your country allowed to produce such a device? Then let 'em go at it! If not, then don't be dissing my country for the same flaws you guys have!
Actually, the use of non-market strategies (i.e. legislative means) is very common in business. Businesses do it all the time. If you want that to change, time to work on your politicians!
;-)
How about "that's their fucking problem not mine"?
Sure is, and they're trying to solve it. Look at it this way - for the people working in those companies, it is their job to get you to watch TV and more specifically watch those ads. They will pursue all means that they think are ethical/legal and probably some that they don't. But it's their job, and you can hardly blame them for doing it any more than they can blame you for flipping burgers at the local Mickey Ds (or whatever your country has - but I live in Switzerland at the moment, and even these guys have the golden arches). Obviously they haven't yet come up with better ideas. When they do, they'll get implemented, and given the quality of technical skill some Slashdotters have, there's even a chance that the solution could come from here.
We're getting back to copyright issue, I think - it's their content, according to current copyright law, and they think they grant you a very specific use - to watch it on your TV. You, on the other hand, think that once they broadcast the content to you, it's yours to do with as you please. In this case, the law would appear to disagree with you. Until and unless a majority of people within the US share your view, which will not happen until you can share it without cussing and sounding like a fool, then US law will continue to protect the interests of those TV networks. Unbridled anger rarely serves effective change.
Sure is nice to see one of my posts stir up so many comments, though.
you are the only one here who probably thinks so.
I'll grant you that!
Well, your post was passionate, I'll give you that.
However, I'd like to ask a simple question. If the networks can no longer count on people watching at least some ads, how are they to pay for content? The day most people have "auto-commercial-skip" is the day advertisers stop paying to be a part of the program. At that point, the networks would have to charge the consumers directly. Are you interested in paying even more for cable TV then?
I'm not saying it's theft or agreeing with any of the other comments made by those companies, but you need to put down emotion and maybe start coming up with reasonable alternative business models if you want to see devices like this suceed. Of course, once those business models are in use, there won't be any need for devices like this... so it's kind of pointless.
I don't know what the answer is, but venting on Slash about the end of society isn't any way to bring it about.
He falls back on the old saw of the environment being a complex system that's hard to understand as justification for not erring on the side of safety.
You had me interested until that point. Come on, that's just a little too obviously biased to let slide - side of safety for whom? Future generations who might be affected? Or current generations whose economic interests *will* be significantly affected?
I'm not arguing against the theory of global warming, but merely stating that "playing it safe" is an arbitrary term. Some of the anti-global-warming-hype people do think they're playing it safe, but they're looking out for different interests than those you espouse.
Then life's a bitch for the renters, but shit happens.
Not quite the same, because their content was still on the servers. It's more like going through and checking every other apartment in the same complex to which the suspects had a key.
Same owners, nothing more,
Yeah, cuz there's no reason why the cops would grab EVERYTHING belonging to someone when looking for evidence of a crime...
Unless you have not heard, Verizon, AT&T, Bell South and other telecommunications giants are lobbying Congress to establish a legal basis for charging website owners for traffic with the help of two-tier Internet.
Sweet. So as long as we haven't heard about it, they're not actually doing it??? Then WTH is Slashdot doing, posting this crap and ruining the Internet for all of us?
One important point to note is that free speech does not trump all. For example, libel and slander are both illegal despite the first amendment. So while it is an important right, there is precedent for other considerations overruling free speech.
I'm a really big fan of Trend Micro ever since installing it a year and a half ago at a small business I consulted with. Their CSM solution covers all the bases for a small company (includes a very effective spam blocker at the Exchange level), their web-based management interface is great, updates are quick and painless, and remote managment is a breeze.
Before that I'd used Norton's solution, and while it worked, I never want to go back. In that version (7-something, I think, maybe 8) it was a real pain to try to configure central updates to save bandwidth (less of an issue now, admittedly).
Short version: give Trend Micro a try. I think they have demo licenses available.
Ignoring the rather troll responses to your comment, I'd just like to point out that there has been a lot of research lately in the area of corporations selling to 3rd-world countries. If you look up the work done by C.K. Prahalad, you'll find that current theory suggests that the world's 4 billion poor people can be a substantial source of profit for companies that approach the problem in unique ways, and that by selling to the poor you can make a big difference in the quality of their lives.
:)
Say, for example, that you wanted to sell farm equipment to the poor in a given country. Unfortunately, they probably can't afford it, but you may be able to sell it to the community as a whole when they take turns using it. Alternatively, a company could establish micro-lending facilities within communities to finance the equipment - being careful to use social means to get paid back instead of legal, as legal contracts hold very little sway in these countries. However, for the farmers to make money, they have to be able to get their goods to a market, so the same company could offer transportation services (building infrastructure where necessary) and make a bit more on the way. The farmer makes money, and eventually so does the company. However, it's definitely a long-term investment. Take a look at Hindulever (Indian arm of Unilever) for an example of a company that's targeting tier 4 customers effectively.
To counter my own argument, doing any sort of work that relies on intellectual property protection (such as genetic engineering) is likely to fail. They'll be up in arms if you sell them sterile seeds, but if you don't, they'll simply share the excess seeds with their neighbors next year, and very quicly you won't have a market left.
So it's possible, but difficult, to make money off the poor while benefiting them as well. Then again, I'm studying in Switzerland, where there really aren't any poor ($5 small Starbucks coffee of the day, anyone?), so don't take my word for it.
That's not neccesarily true. While I'm not a big fan of outsourcing to India, I've been able to do my job (Unix Sysadmin and Network Admin before that) without entering a data center more than once or twice a year, and that usually to install new kit. Remote console access for teh win and all that. And if you do need physical access, you can keep one person around the company, or have support contracts with the hardware vendor, etc.
No, I think the bigger problem with Indian outsourcing remains customer service (internal variety). Customers generally feel more comfortable dealing with admins face to face and find it easier to describe their needs in person. Alternatively, I've seen cases where customers would yell and scream over the phone and demand to get their way, but would never do the same in person. "Bob" from India doesn't stand a chance when dealing with those kind of people, and the generally negative American view of offshoring won't help either.
I believe that the best areas for outsourcing/offshoring are those that don't have customer-facing responsibilities. Network management may or may not fit in this category, depending on your organisational structure.
'My impartial advice to Microsoft is that you have no chance. The search business has been formed,'
Yeah, cuz he's got nothing to gain or lose in this battle... impartial my aunt Susie!
Zero bucks for 15 cups of coffee??? Man, you've got to tell me where you're getting your coffee! E-mail me, otherwise that place will get seriously slashdotted!!!!
Could be worse. It was an attack by a British citizen on US military assets - we could consider it an act of war and sink their tiny little island. ;-)
Well, that's hardly fair either. Another problem would be that the employee chose to go job hunting instead of opening a dialogue to improve the quality o his/her employment with their boss. It's no wonder the manager would want to fire him/her - if he/she is incapable expressing simple things like dissatisfaction with their current situation, then maybe he/she is not the sort of person that you want working for your company.
The street always goes both ways. Move on, move on.
Did I forget anything?
:)
Only the fact that Dan Brown actually has a fourth book, Deception Point, that (gasp!) follows the same outline.
Yes, I would fire people for that. I'd fire people for any intentional violation of corporate policy. It's one thing if you don't know, it's another if you choose to break the rules, especially after repeated warnings. I've often found that people who break little rules will ocassionally break big ones - like those kids in school you mentioned, those who tell little lies will from time to time tell a whopper.
./er trying to insult someone and having to pull from his own life example of being that poor little geeky kid that nobody liked....
It's an issue of trust, not to mention security (why bother with multiple user accounts at all if people are going to have access to all accounts anyway?).
Being able to trust your employees leads to them being able to trust you (and yes, vice versa, I'm aware of that implication). This in turn creates an atmosphere with good employee morale.
There's nothing worse than a
From a comment I just made on Spaf's blog....
I've mandated rotating passwords before. My thought was that I knew my users shared passwords over time (oh, I need to use your computer for a few minutes, but your screen is locked) so by forcing a change I was hoping that if a person left the company they wouldn't retain access to anyone's accounts. However, the better solution in that case would have been termination for people who shared passwords and/or forcing all users (only about 15-20 in the company) to change passwords everytime someone left.
And of course, there are times in larger companies where I simply got told by those higher up that passwords would be rotated.
Man, aside from the ocassional desktop, who actually uses video cards on a Sun machine??? ;-)
No offense, but you're an idiot. Did you choose to disregard my point about cleaning up our own mistakes? I specifically mentioned both Iraq and Afghanistan. Aside from that, if you accuse me of living in the past, how long ago was it that we "toppled the Iranian government" etc.?
Also, to go back another 30 or 40 years beyond those events, the Soviets sustaining more casualties doesn't mean they did more. Manpower was ever their greatest asset, and they used it effectively. Stalin was always happy to kill his own people. They originally had a treaty with Hitler, by the way, which he broke a year too early. Had he waited till after Britain was conquered, and set up a an effective supply chain to deal with Russian winters, the Germans would easily have rolled over their country as well.
World War II ended 60 years ago. Really, two generations is not a long time, except maybe to those who don't read history. Those who don't are doomed to repeat it, by the way...
By the way:
1) "Oil prices" consists of two words, not a single hyphenated word.
2) "Something at pollution" is gramatically incorrect in this context. "Something about pollution" would be correct.
If you're going to get upset about spelling and grammar, get your own ducks in a row first. I would copy your "It's a shame" line here, but that one is also gramatically incorrect.
Maybe later we can have a discussion about Kyoto and how some of the largest polluters in the world were exempted from the treaty, thus removing any real environmental benefit while hampering U.S. economic interests.
Believe it or not, the US has done a little good in its time as well. A couple of World Wars resolved come to mind.
And if you think that the setting up and supporting of these rebels in Afghanistan and Saddam in Iraq, then is it really such a bad thing when we go in and clean up our mistakes? Bush didn't do the former, but he's doing the latter...
Fine, America makes mistakes - we're not perfect, we're just the best that currently exists.
That's a pretty extreme viewpoint in and of itself, ain't it fella? ;-)