Probably true for the majority, but there are enough people who who go out of their way to take advantage of others to make a society relying on that basic cooperation not work.
So the fix inevitably becomes iron grip nasty government. Of course the people that are comfortable in such a position of power are not particularly nice people, so it becomes worse over time, as the good people get killed or leave.
I also get the impression that of all the tech millionaires he appears to be the one smart enough to retire and enjoy his money and family best.
He really seams more human than Larry Ellison for example, and I definitely get the impression he is motivated by more than money and power (of course it is probably easy to look that way when you have plenty of both).
I actually changed a couple of the buttons even to make them look different when toggled to on (just inverted color on the.png files).
I just recently switched to KD 4.2 because it appears to use about 100MB less RAM, 150 if I use konqorer instead of Firefox, but I think the default Human theme is fantastic.
I can't wait for the KDE people to try to make their stuff work as smooth as the screen shots look.
Every time I try to assign a custom icon I stair at a window full of static for a solid second or 2, they need to just draw some white in there first.
Also my screen flashes white before the dashboard appears (maybe Nvidia's fault?).
I find so often I try to do something, and it works, often with decent speed, but it jars me ion the process.
I really with the dashboard would come up as quickly as OSX's though, since a lot of the widgets are quite great. And if the Amarok 2 team does decide to integrate with the desktop, it will be particularly cool.
I'm quite surprised. I really expected the commercial DVD or Codec packs to show up.
I guess as long as you limit it to copyright infringement, and not other things such as patent violations you can find legit torrents (I am going out on a limb and assuming some of my peers would be from the US if I downloaded one of the DVDs with Codecs installed.
I really think with watermarking they would win, because they could find the source of the leak so to speak.
I agree it would have to not reduce quality too much, but if the bitrate is high, I bet you could watermark in a 128 bit ID and have it not be noticeable. I mean were talking less than 0.1% of a second of data(I personally encode 192kbps when not using flac). It would still be trivial to remove, but less so than they meta data method of removal. And if you didn't know where it was, it would require a re-encode to remove, degrading the illegal copy.
I can't imagine it effecting quality a significant amount, and it certainly would lead to people not wanting to share their legit versions on the net at large, especially if they didn't know how it was marked.
Actually I just wanted to point out they do have a price for the rich and a price for the not so rich.
I thought the statement
A price for the rich and another for the poor does not fly.
was a little off.
I personally spend a lot of money on music and movies, and if there were legal purchases/viewing for TV and Movies that were legal, I would spend more.
If I could drop cable TV and get movies and TV for prices that were as reasonable as I get music, and it was easy to do, and without DRM I would be there.
As it is they get a few hundred a year out of me plus whatever they get from the cable companies and advertisers.
I would love to be able to spend $1-$2 and really be able to purchase from a large catalog of TV shows. I'll even take an few adds like what's on Hulu.
When partaking in a download, I am told by friends, it is largely a convenience thing, much like hopping a fence and cutting through a yard to save some walking.
The prices are not too bad really, especially with "Albums" costing around $10.00
The $2.00/TV show is probably a little high though.
As someone who knows someone who pirates a good deal, I can say there is a big piece of convenience, and a similar piece of cheapness, and a HUGE part of DRM (of course that is probably a lot less universal).
My friend WILL NOT purchase (as in one time fixed price) what comes to be a rental. He would like to be able to make a DVD and watch it on the TV at a friends, or stream it to the TV at home, or watch it on the computer, or his spouses (with whatever OS).
And does not want any of these privileges to be controlled by anything else but his own back-up procedure. Especially for music, which if it is good will be returned to years and even decades into the future (I know I still listen to CDs I purchased over 10 years ago).
I would probably pay $2.00 an episode if it were DRM free (I pay $.99 for a one time view when I'm lazy using on demand), though at prices like that my friend would need to be a little more discerning perhaps. But the ability to archive the season and re-visit it makes it a pretty fair price (for DVDs it is generally $1.00 - $3.00).
My order of precidence on TV is: Catch the Show > Watch On Demand > Watch on Hulu > visit my firend who downloads it
the download ends up costing $.16 or so already anyway (.75 GB * $.22/GB). It always looks better (by far) than SD digital cable too, which looks like when I burn a DVD at under 2000kbps.
I think that if they watermarked somehow the content in a way that was non-obvious they could disable accounts of people (preventing them from ordering) and sell DRM free. I assume for example this is what Amazon does. Since it is all available online within hours of release anyway, their exposure has a very minimal increase, and I at the very least would stop resorting to finding people who have broken the law to watch TV/movies with.
Similarly a family friends had some fancy knife sharpener they were selling. It started at $200, and was targeted to the rich. Later it was $20, and targeted to everyone.
Perhaps $9.00/viewing is not priced for the "rich", but it does price out a lot of people.
It probably had the dis-advantage of requiring people to do the right thing to get plastic to the machine.
The great advantage that bio-degradable "plastic" would have is the ability to break down when people did the wrong thing.
I can look out my window and see first hand how much plastic people don't put in proper places (we had pretty high wind Thursday and Friday, and for some reason all the trash in the area blows onto my lawn and stays there.)
I don't know who you are calling a troll here. Yourself?
Yes, though to be fair, I said trollish
No, I certainly did not say that.
How is one to read:
these guys don't have a hope in hell, all the speeches about fairness in copyright won't save them. they were running a site which made millions off porn advertising and it's primary product was providing links to copyright infringement.
Google and every other search engine would be equally culpable.
Whose attacks
I meant others in this thread against me, but you are correct, definition of their product is hazy at best, and tends towards advertising.
Of course that is not what I initially responded to. I initially responded to the notion that the sloppy summary of TPB was somehow an equally accurate sloppy summary of google.
As for the relevance of their links in a legal sense, time will tell in this case. In the US it is already settled that "link" sites that link primarily to copyright infringement are illegal.
I didn't reference porn, timmarhy did in a stupid attack on The Pirate Bay.
You simply said that the charge "...[making] millions off porn advertising and it's primary product was providing links to copyright infringement." was equally applicable to google. I thought that was a weak argument (in a trollish and ad hominem kind of way).
A better point to make would have been the one cbiltcliffe made:
Google provides links to infringed copyrighted content. So does Pirate Bay. Google makes money from advertising. So does Pirate Bay.
OOoooohhhh! But Pirate Bay's advertising is PORN!!
Oh, well. That settles it, then. We find the defendant guil-cup of the charge of accessory to copyright infringement.
Or as you essentially just said:
You reference to porn is stupid and pointless
Both Google and TPB provide an interface to search for material others have put online. And plenty of people have sued Google for their links. Google has a busy (but winning) legal department.
This would have attacked the weekness of the assertion that timmarhy made (that somehow advertising porn was relavent), and pointed out that linking so far has been fairly legal.
Instead you chose to say that Google advertises porn and as a primary product links to pirated material.
And for all the attacks, I think any reasonable person can admit that links to piracy is the primary product of TPB (even if it isn't exclusive, necessary, or their fault).
I bet you could find hundreds, if not thousands of them, and yet it has no relevance to what the primary product is, does it?
How many of the 1.6 million torrents do you truly believe are legit?
If they allow it to be perceived as relevant that they have a few legit torrents, they have lost already. It is much smarter for them to argue that they are not responsible for the links that their social community shares with each-other, because in the end this is what they are, a social network of link sharers (links to personal servers in the form of BT node).
Since they are not even publishing the links themselves they have a strong case, though it still would probably lose in the US (or at least require torrents to be removed as take-down letters are sent).
I can't burn a damned CD reliably in XP (not one that other computers can consistently read).
Well if it comes with Roxio I can, but the built in is shit. It is a terrible example (when compared to Gnome or OSX anyway).
I don't think showing people will help, but courteous teachers can walk them through printing photos for example (or burning CDs that even PCs can't reliably read), and they can learn it,
If Vista did not run dog slow on first and even some second generation Vista equipment I don't think there would have been a huge problem.
They probably should have continued selling XP, and have Vista only for "premium" equipment. Probably waited a little longer with it too, so that the hardware wasn't such an issue.
They let the haters (the ones that still run Windows pretty much exclusively) control the dialogue, and retail locations could of given them a chance to.
I bet "unfortunately you can only get Vista on this Model" was uttered many a time at Best Buy, by clerks who feel hating MS is cool (but never used anything else).
I really don't think OSX is that much easier to use (except compatible DVD/CD burning), yet in an inviting environment people try it out and like it.
Vista could do the same thing, of "PC Stores" could be made similarly inviting places to be.
What MS could offer is: 1) A place to buy PCs as electronics retailers are closing (No Comp USA, No Circuit City), they don't want the only retail option to be Apple Store.
2) Guided test drive, let people use Vista, but be shown a few things. Let the first experience with virtual bouncer be an explanation from someone about how it protects them, let them know it shouldn't happen when they aren't installing new software, and shortly after they get their new computer they won't be seeing it at all.
3) They can run it at a loss, and treat the guiding as a PR expense.
4) Unlike other retailers they can make money on computers, since like Apple they own the OS.
I think it is an intriguing idea for them, and if done right could help them a lot. I think the Mojave thing showed that people can like Vista when shown what new tools it has for them, but when just having it dumped upon they hated it. If they had 8 or 9 computers hi-lighting the different things you can do, people would be much warmer to it I think.
For example, there were tons of complaints about XP vs 2000, and even 98, but I liked XP. They ability to print a bunch of photos out strait from explorer was worth the extra shard of RAM on a new computer. There were a few other things that were nice, but that was the big one.
In Vista, I like the new start button (search by typing), the new explorer, and the new filtering. It feels like Gnome, plus KDE start button. These are things people could be shown and like (looking for a file in a big folder, type ANY part of it's name, I think I did this, if I am wrong correct me). I HATE the default theme though, and generally use the classic look.
Slashdot Mirror
Probably true for the majority, but there are enough people who who go out of their way to take advantage of others to make a society relying on that basic cooperation not work.
So the fix inevitably becomes iron grip nasty government. Of course the people that are comfortable in such a position of power are not particularly nice people, so it becomes worse over time, as the good people get killed or leave.
Way to perpetuate the myth that source is such a huge bonus when trying to crack a framework.
Thanks.
Rome also built the roads to allow the army to move faster, defending itself less costly (less armies moving to where they were needed).
The roads had the side effect of boosting the economy greatly though, as they allowed goods to be moved at a faster rate less expensively.
There is definitely room for innovation in both spheres.
The article says 50 years ahead of it's time.
If there were no other break-throughs the implication would indeed be that the knowledge had spread by mid 17th century.
I tend to agree.
I also get the impression that of all the tech millionaires he appears to be the one smart enough to retire and enjoy his money and family best.
He really seams more human than Larry Ellison for example, and I definitely get the impression he is motivated by more than money and power (of course it is probably easy to look that way when you have plenty of both).
Ouch.
That pun was so punny, I have to give props, even at the expense of offtopic mods.
Did you try xubuntu?
It may be a stretch with only 128MB though.
How about Ubuntulite, or even something real small like puppy?
I can't speak to what they have for browsing though. I know that Firefox alone regularly breaks 150MB, so perhaps IE6 is your best option.
I would think if an XFCE based distro worked it would be worth installing, it really does a great job of being "modern" with less resources.
I was with a friend from New York (well as he told me, a small town on Long Island).
Population was over 100k, the largest city in my state is under 100k. So I was amused.
I didn't think of it as a big city or anything, but I certainly didn't think of it as a small town either.
I think it's great.
When I installed 7.04 I smiled and never booted into anything else.
I did eventually switch to the Wombat Blue theme ( http://www.gnome-look.org/content/show.php/Wombat+Blue?content=70900 ), but mostly because I felt the need for an "Always on Top" button.
I actually changed a couple of the buttons even to make them look different when toggled to on (just inverted color on the .png files).
I just recently switched to KD 4.2 because it appears to use about 100MB less RAM, 150 if I use konqorer instead of Firefox, but I think the default Human theme is fantastic.
I can't wait for the KDE people to try to make their stuff work as smooth as the screen shots look.
Every time I try to assign a custom icon I stair at a window full of static for a solid second or 2, they need to just draw some white in there first.
Also my screen flashes white before the dashboard appears (maybe Nvidia's fault?).
I find so often I try to do something, and it works, often with decent speed, but it jars me ion the process.
I really with the dashboard would come up as quickly as OSX's though, since a lot of the widgets are quite great. And if the Amarok 2 team does decide to integrate with the desktop, it will be particularly cool.
That's wierd,
I saw an early lecture by a Nokia employee (it was just after the Troll Tech purchase). It was about the awesomeness and ease of use of plasma.
He touted it being usable everywhere as a major selling point for plasma, and KDE4's approach in general.
It's crazy sane.
Wow,
I'm quite surprised. I really expected the commercial DVD or Codec packs to show up.
I guess as long as you limit it to copyright infringement, and not other things such as patent violations you can find legit torrents (I am going out on a limb and assuming some of my peers would be from the US if I downloaded one of the DVDs with Codecs installed.
I think this is more like a car with a regular extension cord and a gasoline generator though.
I really think with watermarking they would win, because they could find the source of the leak so to speak.
I agree it would have to not reduce quality too much, but if the bitrate is high, I bet you could watermark in a 128 bit ID and have it not be noticeable. I mean were talking less than 0.1% of a second of data(I personally encode 192kbps when not using flac). It would still be trivial to remove, but less so than they meta data method of removal. And if you didn't know where it was, it would require a re-encode to remove, degrading the illegal copy.
I can't imagine it effecting quality a significant amount, and it certainly would lead to people not wanting to share their legit versions on the net at large, especially if they didn't know how it was marked.
Actually I just wanted to point out they do have a price for the rich and a price for the not so rich.
I thought the statement
A price for the rich and another for the poor does not fly.
was a little off.
I personally spend a lot of money on music and movies, and if there were legal purchases/viewing for TV and Movies that were legal, I would spend more.
If I could drop cable TV and get movies and TV for prices that were as reasonable as I get music, and it was easy to do, and without DRM I would be there.
As it is they get a few hundred a year out of me plus whatever they get from the cable companies and advertisers.
I would love to be able to spend $1-$2 and really be able to purchase from a large catalog of TV shows. I'll even take an few adds like what's on Hulu.
When partaking in a download, I am told by friends, it is largely a convenience thing, much like hopping a fence and cutting through a yard to save some walking.
Both are petty crimes of laziness.
The prices are not too bad really, especially with "Albums" costing around $10.00
The $2.00/TV show is probably a little high though.
As someone who knows someone who pirates a good deal, I can say there is a big piece of convenience, and a similar piece of cheapness, and a HUGE part of DRM (of course that is probably a lot less universal).
My friend WILL NOT purchase (as in one time fixed price) what comes to be a rental. He would like to be able to make a DVD and watch it on the TV at a friends, or stream it to the TV at home, or watch it on the computer, or his spouses (with whatever OS).
And does not want any of these privileges to be controlled by anything else but his own back-up procedure. Especially for music, which if it is good will be returned to years and even decades into the future (I know I still listen to CDs I purchased over 10 years ago).
I would probably pay $2.00 an episode if it were DRM free (I pay $.99 for a one time view when I'm lazy using on demand), though at prices like that my friend would need to be a little more discerning perhaps. But the ability to archive the season and re-visit it makes it a pretty fair price (for DVDs it is generally $1.00 - $3.00).
My order of precidence on TV is:
Catch the Show > Watch On Demand > Watch on Hulu > visit my firend who downloads it
the download ends up costing $.16 or so already anyway (.75 GB * $.22/GB). It always looks better (by far) than SD digital cable too, which looks like when I burn a DVD at under 2000kbps.
I think that if they watermarked somehow the content in a way that was non-obvious they could disable accounts of people (preventing them from ordering) and sell DRM free. I assume for example this is what Amazon does. Since it is all available online within hours of release anyway, their exposure has a very minimal increase, and I at the very least would stop resorting to finding people who have broken the law to watch TV/movies with.
Both movies and goods have 2 prices though.
In movies Theaters are the price for the rich.
DVDs start high and slowly decrease too.
Similarly a family friends had some fancy knife sharpener they were selling. It started at $200, and was targeted to the rich. Later it was $20, and targeted to everyone.
Perhaps $9.00/viewing is not priced for the "rich", but it does price out a lot of people.
Your wife should probably have a phone too.
I think they have to talk over the start.
It makes it a public performance, and they don't need to pay the performer.
It probably had the dis-advantage of requiring people to do the right thing to get plastic to the machine.
The great advantage that bio-degradable "plastic" would have is the ability to break down when people did the wrong thing.
I can look out my window and see first hand how much plastic people don't put in proper places (we had pretty high wind Thursday and Friday, and for some reason all the trash in the area blows onto my lawn and stays there.)
I don't know who you are calling a troll here. Yourself?
Yes, though to be fair, I said trollish
No, I certainly did not say that.
How is one to read:
these guys don't have a hope in hell, all the speeches about fairness in copyright won't save them. they were running a site which made millions off porn advertising and it's primary product was providing links to copyright infringement.
Google and every other search engine would be equally culpable.
Whose attacks
I meant others in this thread against me, but you are correct, definition of their product is hazy at best, and tends towards advertising.
Of course that is not what I initially responded to. I initially responded to the notion that the sloppy summary of TPB was somehow an equally accurate sloppy summary of google.
As for the relevance of their links in a legal sense, time will tell in this case. In the US it is already settled that "link" sites that link primarily to copyright infringement are illegal.
I didn't reference porn, timmarhy did in a stupid attack on The Pirate Bay.
You simply said that the charge "...[making] millions off porn advertising and it's primary product was providing links to copyright infringement." was equally applicable to google. I thought that was a weak argument (in a trollish and ad hominem kind of way).
A better point to make would have been the one cbiltcliffe made:
Google provides links to infringed copyrighted content. So does Pirate Bay.
Google makes money from advertising. So does Pirate Bay.
OOoooohhhh! But Pirate Bay's advertising is PORN!!
Oh, well. That settles it, then. We find the defendant guil-cup of the charge of accessory to copyright infringement.
Or as you essentially just said:
You reference to porn is stupid and pointless
Both Google and TPB provide an interface to search for material others have put online. And plenty of people have sued Google for their links. Google has a busy (but winning) legal department.
This would have attacked the weekness of the assertion that timmarhy made (that somehow advertising porn was relavent), and pointed out that linking so far has been fairly legal.
Instead you chose to say that Google advertises porn and as a primary product links to pirated material.
And for all the attacks, I think any reasonable person can admit that links to piracy is the primary product of TPB (even if it isn't exclusive, necessary, or their fault).
Wow,
one counter example?
I bet you could find hundreds, if not thousands of them, and yet it has no relevance to what the primary product is, does it?
How many of the 1.6 million torrents do you truly believe are legit?
If they allow it to be perceived as relevant that they have a few legit torrents, they have lost already. It is much smarter for them to argue that they are not responsible for the links that their social community shares with each-other, because in the end this is what they are, a social network of link sharers (links to personal servers in the form of BT node).
Since they are not even publishing the links themselves they have a strong case, though it still would probably lose in the US (or at least require torrents to be removed as take-down letters are sent).
I can't burn a damned CD reliably in XP (not one that other computers can consistently read).
Well if it comes with Roxio I can, but the built in is shit. It is a terrible example (when compared to Gnome or OSX anyway).
I don't think showing people will help, but courteous teachers can walk them through printing photos for example (or burning CDs that even PCs can't reliably read), and they can learn it,
If Vista did not run dog slow on first and even some second generation Vista equipment I don't think there would have been a huge problem.
They probably should have continued selling XP, and have Vista only for "premium" equipment. Probably waited a little longer with it too, so that the hardware wasn't such an issue.
They let the haters (the ones that still run Windows pretty much exclusively) control the dialogue, and retail locations could of given them a chance to.
I bet "unfortunately you can only get Vista on this Model" was uttered many a time at Best Buy, by clerks who feel hating MS is cool (but never used anything else).
I really don't think OSX is that much easier to use (except compatible DVD/CD burning), yet in an inviting environment people try it out and like it.
Vista could do the same thing, of "PC Stores" could be made similarly inviting places to be.
What MS could offer is:
1) A place to buy PCs as electronics retailers are closing (No Comp USA, No Circuit City), they don't want the only retail option to be Apple Store.
2) Guided test drive, let people use Vista, but be shown a few things. Let the first experience with virtual bouncer be an explanation from someone about how it protects them, let them know it shouldn't happen when they aren't installing new software, and shortly after they get their new computer they won't be seeing it at all.
3) They can run it at a loss, and treat the guiding as a PR expense.
4) Unlike other retailers they can make money on computers, since like Apple they own the OS.
I think it is an intriguing idea for them, and if done right could help them a lot. I think the Mojave thing showed that people can like Vista when shown what new tools it has for them, but when just having it dumped upon they hated it. If they had 8 or 9 computers hi-lighting the different things you can do, people would be much warmer to it I think.
For example, there were tons of complaints about XP vs 2000, and even 98, but I liked XP. They ability to print a bunch of photos out strait from explorer was worth the extra shard of RAM on a new computer. There were a few other things that were nice, but that was the big one.
In Vista, I like the new start button (search by typing), the new explorer, and the new filtering. It feels like Gnome, plus KDE start button. These are things people could be shown and like (looking for a file in a big folder, type ANY part of it's name, I think I did this, if I am wrong correct me). I HATE the default theme though, and generally use the classic look.