HavenCO doesn't have any of the protection most companies in most nation's have. Therefore they have to take paranoid precautions, as there is no real government, military or police to protect them.
MISC has been used to refer to Minimal Instruction Set Chips for a while now. A little research would have shown them this; now the acronym recognition is severely diluted. MIS Chips
You're correct, but so is the person you replied to. MPEG-# refers to the encoding group (ie. MPEG-2, which contains AAC and VQF; MPEG-1, which has the famous mp2's and mp3's), MPEG # refers to the encoding bit rates and sample rates. The layers 1, 2, or 3 refer to the codecs within the MPEG-#.
This is a hardware DVD/Audio decoder. It might be one of the first with explicit support for Linux, but it's hardly the first one. Why would the Recording Industry and Artists Association care about a DVD/CSS matter? If anybody would, it'd be the MPAA, and SiS doesn't seem to be doing anything that would annoy them. One would thing the MPAA would appreciate a non-DeCSS method of playing DVD's on Linux.
It is much easier to get around copyright, though. One must simply reword enough. It is much harder to get around a patent.
The written word/code also has the ability to, if used improperly, denigrate the reputation of the original writer. The object of a patent, per say, usually does not.
"How do you conclude that they aren't going after the traders, if they are trying to get them banned? I mean sure, they are basically trying to ping-flood Napster with lots of paper, but... it's not just an attempt to waste Napster Inc.'s resources, but an attempt to wear them down until they become "responsible" and manage to prevent the users from trading their (i.e. Metallica's) music."
Napster didn't allow them any other recourse to getting their songs off the list. Metallica didn't *legally* go after the users. Napster did state that Metallica would have to give them the id's of the users if they wanted this stopped... so Metallica did.
Metallica also gave fans permission to make bootleg tapes of concerts, they didn't give the fans permission to trade mpeg's of the cd's.
There is a distinct difference between actions of differing magnitudes. Such would be the difference between a murder, and serial murder; a couple of bucks to a bellringer, and the donation of one's estate to a charity.
"Right now Metallica is just policing Napster's users for them."
Because Napster refused to do it themselves (according to Lars, that is).
Meta-moderation is useful for something, without it I wouldn't have seen your post.
Are Metallica CD's "information" in the respect that you place on it? Is access to *all* information a right? If so, I'd have the right to know the most intimate details of your life.
There is also the distinction to be made of whether access to information *over the net* is a right. You do have access to all of Metallica's songs off of the net. Just go to a music store and use their listening station. That's free access. Are you guaranteed the right to any information you wish, through any channel you wish?
The right to information is not the only right people have. It must be weighed against the intellectual rights, the privacy rights, &c....
"Sure, Napster trading isn't causing our income to go down, but it's the principle of the thing -- unless the trading is on a smaller scale, like the guy down the street with the Iron Maiden record; that's a different principle I guess."
That was only part of his beef. The other was that Napster was potentially profiting from this. The bootleggers of old generally were not. You have to look at his argument in it's entirety.
At the very least, they are being non-hypocritical by *not* going after the individual mp3-traders (ie. the bootleggers in your example), but after the Napster corporation.
Not true. The only way a company can *ensure* it's monopoly is to be a government. Even then, it's only ensured until someone with a bigger army comes along.
If a government will not protect it, an entity will never have "enough control over a commodity."
Given the large sales of certain products (MS Windows, Office, etc...), I'm sure MS could affford to do some advanced error catching procedures, without losing too much of their net profit.
Re:I speak for myself when I say...
on
Athlons Sold Out
·
· Score: 1
Odds are many Europeans are descended from more than one of these women, just through their son's line. So your 1% rounding error may very well be killing his own cousin.
How many women disappeared because they only had male children or grand-children?
Will Andover and/or Katz take a tax break based on the donations of the profits? Depending on how much is donated, this could make Andover or Katz a very nice bit of money, if they do so.
I'd be more than happy to pay $7.95 for a 3 year movie. When I had something else to do, I'd merely leave the theater and use my ticket to get back in a week later.
Loss leading is an inherently risky business practice; It can also pay off big. I'm sure the manufacturer was aware of this when they began doing it.
Playing poker, or any game, for money, when you know that you are a very good player, is just as much a rip-off. The manufacturer knew they were playing the game of the market. I don't see how winning a hand against them is any more wrong than winning a hand in a card game.
I-opener is competing with companies such as PeoplePC, Gateway, and all the other plug-n-surf, monthly payment, isp-contract/one-isp companies. This loss-lead is merely a way to divert sales to themselves from the other companies. If people find a way to take advantage of it, it'll teach I-opener to modify their business practice, thereby increasing their marketplace fitness.
(Wow, I actually convinced myself with this argument.)
You state that R implies F, does this mean that F also implies R?
"But morals and ethics ARE essential for a society to function."
Could not philosophy, psychology, politics, or goals-based reasoning do just as well as religion? Religions have been responsible for millions of horrible deaths over the years, as has science.
Some people will be psychopaths no matter what religion tells them, others will be benevolent no matter what religion (or religious authorites) tell them.
"Poor people are hungry because they lack jobs, not because food is scarce. What jobs are there for illiterate third world peasants? They could farm the land. Only farming is so unprofitable today, since the US export food at such low prices. Anything that raises the cost of US produced grain is good, both for the US and for the rest of the world.'
I'm sure these poor people would be more than willing to stay poor, while farming enough to feed themselves. Even if they didn't make a cent, I'm sure they'd be glad of the food.
People are starving because of corruption, generally, or wars, etc.... Millions of people in Ireland survived (until the famine) greatly on potatos.
Certainly a decrease in animal farming would put people out of work, but eventually people would adapt, as we adapted when improved farming methods no longer made it necessary for 95% of the population to farm.
The problem with this statement is that if the entire universe has recently come into being (ala Odin), everything you'd be dating *would* be recent. I happen to agree that the assumptions you make are the most beneficial ones (ie. they allow further research, where other assumptions wouldn't). I also happen to agree with your assumptions. However, that doesn't mean that your assumptions are correct.
I'm aware that there are counter arguments to a recent earth type argument (ie. why do certain things consistently radio-carbon date to certain eras, when they should be completely screwed up if their all recent), but just wanted to question the basis for this one assumption.
The message said he "should be obligated" not that he is. The following sentence also states that he can do whatever he wants with his site, thus making your first unnecessary.
Slashdot Mirror
HavenCO doesn't have any of the protection most companies in most nation's have. Therefore they have to take paranoid precautions, as there is no real government, military or police to protect them.
MISC has been used to refer to Minimal Instruction Set Chips for a while now. A little research would have shown them this; now the acronym recognition is severely diluted.
MIS Chips
You're correct, but so is the person you replied to. MPEG-# refers to the encoding group (ie. MPEG-2, which contains AAC and VQF; MPEG-1, which has the famous mp2's and mp3's), MPEG # refers to the encoding bit rates and sample rates. The layers 1, 2, or 3 refer to the codecs within the MPEG-#.
This is a hardware DVD/Audio decoder. It might be one of the first with explicit support for Linux, but it's hardly the first one. Why would the Recording Industry and Artists Association care about a DVD/CSS matter? If anybody would, it'd be the MPAA, and SiS doesn't seem to be doing anything that would annoy them. One would thing the MPAA would appreciate a non-DeCSS method of playing DVD's on Linux.
It is much easier to get around copyright, though. One must simply reword enough. It is much harder to get around a patent.
The written word/code also has the ability to, if used improperly, denigrate the reputation of the original writer. The object of a patent, per say, usually does not.
"How do you conclude that they aren't going after the traders, if they are trying to get them banned? I mean sure, they are basically trying to ping-flood Napster with lots of paper, but... it's not just an attempt to waste Napster Inc.'s resources, but an attempt to wear them down until they become "responsible" and manage to prevent the users from trading their (i.e. Metallica's) music."
Napster didn't allow them any other recourse to getting their songs off the list. Metallica didn't *legally* go after the users. Napster did state that Metallica would have to give them the id's of the users if they wanted this stopped... so Metallica did.
Metallica also gave fans permission to make bootleg tapes of concerts, they didn't give the fans permission to trade mpeg's of the cd's.
There is a distinct difference between actions of differing magnitudes. Such would be the difference between a murder, and serial murder; a couple of bucks to a bellringer, and the donation of one's estate to a charity.
"Right now Metallica is just policing Napster's users for them."
Because Napster refused to do it themselves (according to Lars, that is).
Did he try JPEG2000 encoding the downsampled version the same way he did with normal JPEG? I'd like to see how such a comparison favored.
JPEG2000 might not be too great an improvement, but it looks to be an improvement nonetheless.
Meta-moderation is useful for something, without it I wouldn't have seen your post.
Are Metallica CD's "information" in the respect that you place on it? Is access to *all* information a right? If so, I'd have the right to know the most intimate details of your life.
There is also the distinction to be made of whether access to information *over the net* is a right. You do have access to all of Metallica's songs off of the net. Just go to a music store and use their listening station. That's free access. Are you guaranteed the right to any information you wish, through any channel you wish?
The right to information is not the only right people have. It must be weighed against the intellectual rights, the privacy rights, &c....
"Sure, Napster trading isn't causing our income to go down, but it's the principle of the thing -- unless the trading is on a smaller scale, like the guy down the street with the Iron Maiden record; that's a different principle I guess."
That was only part of his beef. The other was that Napster was potentially profiting from this. The bootleggers of old generally were not. You have to look at his argument in it's entirety.
At the very least, they are being non-hypocritical by *not* going after the individual mp3-traders (ie. the bootleggers in your example), but after the Napster corporation.
Not true. The only way a company can *ensure* it's monopoly is to be a government. Even then, it's only ensured until someone with a bigger army comes along.
If a government will not protect it, an entity will never have "enough control over a commodity."
Given the large sales of certain products (MS Windows, Office, etc...), I'm sure MS could affford to do some advanced error catching procedures, without losing too much of their net profit.
Yeah! That's why I use 0, I can't afford 2.
Surfing the net by listening to the line noise.
Should have waited a minute before submitting. Darn latency on thoughts!
It was, after all, mostly the males who went pillaging and raping.
Odds are many Europeans are descended from more than one of these women, just through their son's line. So your 1% rounding error may very well be killing his own cousin.
How many women disappeared because they only had male children or grand-children?
Will Andover and/or Katz take a tax break based on the donations of the profits? Depending on how much is donated, this could make Andover or Katz a very nice bit of money, if they do so.
I'd be more than happy to pay $7.95 for a 3 year movie. When I had something else to do, I'd merely leave the theater and use my ticket to get back in a week later.
I meant the politics of human-human interaction. Not the politics of elected or appointed governing bodies. Thanks for answering.
Loss leading is an inherently risky business practice; It can also pay off big. I'm sure the manufacturer was aware of this when they began doing it.
Playing poker, or any game, for money, when you know that you are a very good player, is just as much a rip-off. The manufacturer knew they were playing the game of the market. I don't see how winning a hand against them is any more wrong than winning a hand in a card game.
I-opener is competing with companies such as PeoplePC, Gateway, and all the other plug-n-surf, monthly payment, isp-contract/one-isp companies. This loss-lead is merely a way to divert sales to themselves from the other companies. If people find a way to take advantage of it, it'll teach I-opener to modify their business practice, thereby increasing their marketplace fitness.
(Wow, I actually convinced myself with this argument.)
"...faith is the foundation of all religion"
You state that R implies F, does this mean that F also implies R?
"But morals and ethics ARE essential for a society to function."
Could not philosophy, psychology, politics, or goals-based reasoning do just as well as religion? Religions have been responsible for millions of horrible deaths over the years, as has science.
Some people will be psychopaths no matter what religion tells them, others will be benevolent no matter what religion (or religious authorites) tell them.
Do fission or fusion reactions such as the ones operating when nuclear bombs explode create any? I'd imagine they'd make at least some carbon.
"Poor people are hungry because they lack jobs, not because food is scarce. What jobs are there for illiterate third world peasants? They could farm the land. Only farming is so unprofitable today, since the US export food at such low prices. Anything that raises the cost of US produced grain is good, both for the US and for the rest of the world.'
I'm sure these poor people would be more than willing to stay poor, while farming enough to feed themselves. Even if they didn't make a cent, I'm sure they'd be glad of the food.
People are starving because of corruption, generally, or wars, etc.... Millions of people in Ireland survived (until the famine) greatly on potatos.
Certainly a decrease in animal farming would put people out of work, but eventually people would adapt, as we adapted when improved farming methods no longer made it necessary for 95% of the population to farm.
"don't try to date anything recent"
The problem with this statement is that if the entire universe has recently come into being (ala Odin), everything you'd be dating *would* be recent. I happen to agree that the assumptions you make are the most beneficial ones (ie. they allow further research, where other assumptions wouldn't). I also happen to agree with your assumptions. However, that doesn't mean that your assumptions are correct.
I'm aware that there are counter arguments to a recent earth type argument (ie. why do certain things consistently radio-carbon date to certain eras, when they should be completely screwed up if their all recent), but just wanted to question the basis for this one assumption.
"The Last Question" By Isaac Asimov. Available in The Complete Storiese Volume 1.
The message said he "should be obligated" not that he is. The following sentence also states that he can do whatever he wants with his site, thus making your first unnecessary.
They're gonna be in suits most of the time, right? CGI, with some blue-screen should probably be all that's necessary.