Wow, I am astonished at such a Troll-Baiting headline on Slashdot.
This executive order did not grant diplomatic immunity to INTERPOL. What it did do was:
Allow their records to be protected from search and seizure, unless specifically allowed by the President. Section 2(c)
They don't have to pay customs duties or import taxes on their belongings. Section 3
They don't have to pay income taxes, for either their employees, or their investments. Section 4
They don't have to pay Social Security taxes. Section 5
They don't have to pay property taxes. Section 6
As for FOIA, they were never bound by the FOIA, since they are not a part of the US Government. If you tried to sue them and use discovery to gain access to their records, that was not possible since they were already covered by Section 2(b), which protects them from judicial processes.
First off, the campus is most likely using a Campus Agreement, which gives them the software at a lower price, and has 3 built-in gotchas.
They pay for the software based on Full Time Employees, and often that is seen as the same thing as EVERY MACHINE. That means they think that every machine they don't install the software on, is wasting them money.
The agreement is for all of the applications listed in the Product Use Rights document, and can include a large list of applications. Therefore, they may not be having to pay extra, just base price.
The software is not purchased, but can be used for the time of the agreement, which means that campuses HAVE TO RENEW or they loose all of their software rights. If the campus has been purchasing computers without any software (as some will do), then every computer would be useless to them if they allowed the agreement to expire.
This is insidious in that for less than $50 per Full Time Employee (FTE), the campus can install the OS, Office, and a large number of applications ON EVERY MACHINE. However, whenever this runs out, they have no software that they can use, so unless they have completely transitioned to non-MS software during the last year of the agreement, they have to renew.
The other side of the problem is that there are applications that will require them to use Windows and even MS Office. Some of this are back-ground programs you will never know about,such as document imaging and retrieval in the administrative departments, or systems such as the student use systems like Blackboard. While there may be alternatives for some systems, there may not be some for other, critical, applications. Also, switching can not be done incrementally, but has to be done all at once. This causes concerns with data migration, upkeep, and end-user training.
However, all hope is not lost. First, since lab computers don't have to pay for licenses, it can be argued that they are freebies, and not using them is not wasting money. You can then start trying out alternatives there. This can also be done in smaller departments which will not see as much money lost by not using licenses off the Campus Agreement.
Also, Campus Agreements can be negotiated by department. Therefore, you can see if some departments can be exempted completely from having to participate. You can then show them how much they would save by going with the FOSS options, as compared to being forced into the MS CA.
Finally, look for departments with lots of Macs. While they are often hooked on MS Office for the Mac, they are usually more open to alternatives. Showing them NeoOffice or OO.org on OS X can be a first step for them.
As in all things, here is what you need to remember:
All universities have money issues, saving them money is always good. However, they see spending money for something (like a Campus Agreement) and then not using it (even on a few computers) as wasting money. Try to ween them off of smaller items first.
Educational value is important. Show them how using this software can, and will, actually improve the education that students receive. This is usually good with Faculty Senate or other faculty based legislative bodies.
The administrative departments are usually walled fortresses of information. Some are based on necessity, such as the Registrar's Office protecting student data, others are based on fear of loosing budget money. Don't expect to walk up to such a department and expect them to roll out the red carpet for you.
Remember, you want to help them, you want to help students, and they want to help students. Therefore (paraphrasing Jerry Maguire) you are trying to help them help students.
I wouldn't really expect any applications to run faster on Windows 7 unless the hardware was upgraded.
If that were true, then there shouldn't have been performance differences between XP and Vista, but there were. These differences continued on into the Vista SP 1 and XP SP3 upgrades.
Theoretically, there is a maximum "speed" that any application can run at. This is based upon the raw speed of the CPU, Memory, disks, graphics, and other subsystems, used in the most efficient manner. While no OS can ever achieve that, it is the function of the OS to maximize system performance.
System performance will always be a moving target, not just because of hardware changes or hardware options, but also because what is the best performance for a server differs from what is the best performance for a workstation.
As for the "Apple fanboys," they do have reason to poke fun. With each release of OS X, there have been performance improvements over the previous release; 10.210.310.410.5. This has been improvements on the same physical hardware.
It appears that Microsoft has chosen to focus their work on improving the UI's responsiveness, or adding new bells and whistles, while not dealing with the performance issues that individual applications run into. While UI responsiveness can be helpful, if the application doesn't finish any faster, the UI being able to show you that it is still busy, doesn't make that much 'real' difference.
You are editing a file that is saved directly to a shared folder on WHS, which WHS accepts and gives the A-OK signal to your software, then later has a problem writing the file, and tells you about it, with no chance of recovering the file at that time. Since this can happen after you have exited your software, you have no way of recovering the file.
The problem is not:
You make backup files, then try to edit them directly on the WHS share folder.
Your backup files get corrupted.
You are doing something that WHS was not intended for.
The third one is the trickiest. See, if you go to the current WHS Discover site (click Help and How-To's) you will see that the big thing is Remote Access, Media Sharing, and Computer Backup. This would lead people to believe that any other use, is not what it was meant for, and when something goes wrong, you should have known better.
But, one only needs to look back at previous pages for WHS to see that Sharing was a central feature. Yes, full sharing, not just Media Sharing. Even the Overview of that page focuses on sharing first, and backup (protection) was third. The first overview item was Sharing, and that is simply what this problem is about, shared folders. Either for your own use as a networked server, or to share with other users.
Now, if you go to Eric Bott's blog, you will see the explanation that the largest factor is "a home server is under extreme load." Well, I'm sorry, but if the touted role, even at the beginning and not right now, was acting as a share folder to save your stuff to, then by damn it better do that. If the server gets loaded down, it should not pretend it got the file and tell you later that it didn't, it should just either not respond (and your software would have to let you know it couldn't do it) or it should give an error response (your software's problem now).
Honestly, this product was marketed as a home server for storing and sharing your files, with acting as a backup server making 3rd on the list of features. Now, they want to change that and say that it is for backup first, file sharing from special locations and under special conditions, and not really for file storage.
I am using a TC1000 from Compaq. When I first booted it, I found that I could NOT click AGREE on the EULA. So, I did what I always do, I installed Slackware. Here is what I use on mine.
Overall, it isn't bad. I think the keyboard is a little dainty, but since it has USB, I can attach a(n) USB keyboard to it. I also get about 3 hours from the battery, this is while compiling kernels, so I know that it is a good test of battery life.
I got lucky, I didn't have to buy this, I got it via work. My wife feels that it is OK, but it is a bit pricy for a small(ish) computer.
Honestly speaking, if I had to go out and buy one today, I would get a thin notebook that had a wider screen. Oh yeah, and had a built-in DVD drive!
I work in Television. I can tell you, Sony has been designing their Commercial Electronics to die in a certain amount of time.
One Sony BETA deck had a separation down all of the boards along the same line. They then had thin tracers connecting the boards across this separation. To make sure these would break, they held the boards together with a special kind of glue, one that dried out and spread apart after 3 years. This is not a joke, the boards would break all of those fine tracers that would be almost impossible to field repair. You HAD to go to SONY to get it fixed. If not, you had to buy a new one.
Or more usefully fit the conventional drill with an optical fibre, so they do not need to go to the time and expense of pulling the whole thing out.
A 2.2 MEGAWATT LASER running through fiber! Damn, that some high-bandwith fiber there!
Really, the high wattage of this laser would not make it usable through a fibre cable. I think their idea is for places where the hard rock, possibly metamorphic, and/or salt domes are near the surface and the distance they would have to drill at an angle would be cost-prohibitive, or there is no feasable way around it.
Some of the largest problems with drilling is when it comes to hard rock. Someone posted earlier that drilling often involves making turns (usually a few degrees angle at a time), to make use of porous rock. This is because of the problems with trying to drill straight through hard rock and salt domes (many oil pockets have a dome of salt over it). This laser could be useful where normal drilling would have a problem because of extensive domes or rock layers large enough to require drilling through the layers because they can not go around them.
As for explosions, since there would be no oxygen component, there would not be an "explosion," but because it would be difficult to both fire the laser and secure the hole at the same time, there could be blowouts. I doubt that they plan on using this to actually get to the oil/gas they are looking for.
So a scenario would look like this. They start drilling, encounter a large rock layer or salt dome. After examing the geological information, decide that they have to drill through this layer or dome. They pull in the laser, fire it for a few minutes to bore most of the way through, then let the regular drilling systems take over to lay pipe and finish the job.
As I read this article, I think about the meaning of the word revolution and about the state of the Internet. I do not think the Internet has cause a revolution, yet. What has happened is a massive change in the way people communicate and share ideas, where a revolution is an act of defiance against specific groups or organizations. The Internet has not brought a revolution because it has been growing in a vacuum. There has been no resistance to it.
As with all things, times change. Now there is a growing resistance, not to the Internet, per se, but rather to the ideals that people have become accustomed to.
The single most prominant of these ideals has been the belief that if I purchase/own something, I have the right to do whatever I want to with it. If I own a movie, I have the right to watch it, let my friends watch it, watch parts of it, watch it fifty times a day, or even sell it at a used items store when I am done. Under the terms of fair use and first purchase, I have the right to do all of these things.
Now, "content providers" want to change their "revenue model" to take away my rights. They want to be able to say that I can watch that movie, but I must pay each time I watch it. If I let my children watch it, I have to pay for each time each one of them watch it. If my friends come over and watch it, then they have to pay to watch it. I can see it now...
I take the movie to the VideoBuster counter...
Employee "Hey there. Nice movie, I saw it myself the other day, pretty cool."
Me "Yeah, I heard it was pretty good myself."
E "OK, how many times are you planning on watching it?"
M "Huh? I dunno, maybe 2 or 3 times."
E "Well, I put you down for 3. Are you having friends coming over to watch it?"
M "A few were planning to come by. Why?"
E "I am just filling out the information for you to rent this video. Let's just say a total of 3 people will be seeing it once, and then you will watch it another 2 times. OK?"
M "I guess so, I really don't know what this is all about."
E "OK, a total of 5 viewings... with regular rental... plus tax... that will be $14.38."
M "What!?!? The video rental is only $2.99 plus tax! How can it be $14?"
E "The video rental itself is $2.99, then each person-viewing is $2, which brings it up to $12.99 and then you add in tax."
M "What do you mean a $2 per person-viewing?"
E "Yes sir. This movie is copyrighted material. It is all explained in your license agreement."
M "What license agreement..."
E "The one on the label of the movie."
M "The label I haven't seen yet?"
E "Yes sir."
You get my point.
Although this may seem a bit far-fetched, look at this, the movie industry wants to "maximize their revenue stream," which simply means they want to get more money out of each person that watches a movie. This means that instead of there being a handful of pay-per-view movies, all movies will be pay-per-view. The discs (most likely DVD) will be really cheap, but you will have to pay each time you want to view it.
Although this method has been attempted by DivX, it did not have enough push from groups like the MPAA to keep going. If DivX started today, I bet that the MPAA would quickly support it, and every major studio would be phasing out their regular DVDs to support the DivX style of pay-per-play system.
It is these, and similar, restrictions to existing rights that could cause a revolution. The Internet is just the medium of communication that is organizing those who are against these restrictions. The Internet is not the bringer of a revolution, but rather a catalyst or system that can help bring the revolutionaries together.
Actaully, it is how to get to DeCSS from the MPAA's web site.
First, go to the MPAA web site. Next you click on the link to their related sites. Next you click on Buena Vista International, Inc.. This will take a moment to go the Disneys Go.com web page. When that page comes up, click on the link near the top of the page, next to the Disney page logo. Go on to the Go.com web site where you can search for DeCSS.
Well, there you have it, a simple way to get to DeCSS from MPAA and Buena Vista (AKA:Disney). Have fun and remember that stealing isn't right, but neither is stopping free speach by threatening lawsuits.
Why some stories cannot be done in just one movie.
Consider, in the interviews with George Lucas about the original Star Wars movies, he mentions that his first idea was for one big movie, but then he decided that it was too much to cram into one. He then took the idea, divided it up into logical groups, and found that it would be about three movies worth. Of course he had to go and fill in some spaces so that the movies would be about the correct length and be filled with nice extra sub-plots to entertain.
Now try to consider taking Star Wars, Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi and cramming them into one long movie. What subtle ideas would be lost? Would the movie just stink?
The more I think about it, the more I decide that it would stink about the same that Battlefield Earth stank.
What should have been done: This movie should either have been made into more than one movie with each piece written to stand on it's own but further the overall story, or as a season-long, one-hour per episode television series. I know that a television show that complex would be difficult, but it would offer more time to build the subtle nuances of the characters and story line that one movie can not.
So, to restate, this movie is a fine example of why some stories need either to be in more than one movie, or to be a story-controlled television series.
I would like to thank M$ for including article numbers in thier email. I would have searched for days for the information and they have made it easier for me. Thank you M$.
Prior censorship - This would have web sites controlling what would and would not be allowed on their sites, evectively censoring what goes out before anyone can try to decide if it is legal or not.
Attacking individuals - What would happen if a large company demanded the email, IP logs, user signin information, whatever, to help them try to track down the people who posted the information in comments. Could those people then be charge with violating the DMCA by saying what they know. Then you could actually be charged for legally knowing things. All comments about non-disclosure agreements aside, what would happen if company A decided that their interface is proprietary and any statement you made about it on the Internet violated their copyright. My saying that company A's program sucked because you couldn't do this or that, would be a violation! I could be charged with violating federal law! Wow!
In any case, do only what you need done. Then release. When people submit changes, roll them in and re-release. It's really very easy.
Yes this is easy, in theory. The problem is, if you are in charge of a program, like the people at Source Forge have done, then others expect you to keep the code up. When somebody else submits changes, it is still up to you to 'roll it and release it.'
Let's look at your example... Programmer A wrote a program that does 1, 2, and 3. Programmer B added 4 and 5. Programmer C rewrote 3 and 4 and added 6. While Programmer C was making changes, Programmer A was rewriting 3 and 5 to make a new combined one, lets call it 7. When Programmer C submits his modifications, it is up to Programmer A to check and make sure everything works right, if not, people don't track down Programmer C to complain, they complain directly to Programmer A.
When people submit patches, often they are poorly documented about what they modify and what they do. It is up to the person in charge of the program to try and pull all of it together.
A good example of how to run a program update system is Torvalds et al with the kernel. One person with final say-so over it, but many in the second-ring who are in charge of components or packages. Those people oversee any contributions and make sure they are tested before it goes up the line. That way no one person is completely overwhelmed with upkeeping the system.
When you have a handful of people working on something, and especially if it is not full-time, and lots of people sending in updates, then that handful gets overwhelmed and is unable to keep up with the changes, or even the udpates.
For Source Forge, this means that they may need to re-evaluate how they are handling their updates and maybe assign parts of the system to volunteers or be willing to let volunteers or other maintainers have a little more control over the development.
The largest problem facing the Patent Office is not that they are dullards, but that many are not skilled software designers or technicians. They are engineers, from the classical engineering fields of Mechanical, Electrical, Industrial, Civil, etc. They do not have the technical expertise or knowledge to tackle the software side of patents.
A second problem, which merely compounds the first, is that many patents may be originally prepared by technicians, they are definately edited by lawyers. Most patent applications seem like a 21st century Dante's Inferno of legalise and consultant-speak. It takes a bit of time to simply read one of these, mustless decipher their technical details.
Finally, other than litigation, there is no actual process to handle post-award complaints or patent infringements. This favors the business with the largest pocketbooks, and then the only real winners are lawyers. What the patent process needs is a seperate entity from the businesses involved, to act as an arbitrator for reviewing of awards for prior-art or non-patentable technology. This could even be the PTO itself, because it has no real reason to find in favor of one side or the other.
The process of disputing an awarded patents could require that the entity which brings the dispute, provide any research or evidence to dispute the award. This would keep the PTO from spending all of its time reviewing disputes, but not stop valid disputes from being brought up because of high cost, by making the majority of the cost being time involved.
Actually, they record viewing habits (so do the new Digital CableBoxes) and transmit that to the central network. Possible uses of it is to be seeing which commercials keep viewers, which ones don't. How often do viewer record and rewatch certain movies, what type, how often. What shows are watched and taped and the like. This is supposed to help the network pinpoint which shows you may be interested in, and for marketing uses. Although they are not saying they will sell the information, they are also not denying it.
The law does not say that the person that I have directed it to is offended. The law says that it has to be obscene and intended to offend or annoy (sic). That is up to the DA or courts to decide. If you don't think that a DA would jump on a chance to prosecute someone under the "Computer Decency Act," you need to learn a little more about politics. Think of it, it would definately boost chances of getting re-elected, "I protected your children from obscene material!"
So I will say again, this is dangerous because sometimes it is not up to the sender or receiver to decide what is appropriate, but to others who might not see it the same way you do.
I think I want a plane ticket out of this place! It's good to know that our rights can be stripped away just by someone else claiming that it was obscene.
I know, "it's not nice to be harrassing or obscene to others." The law does not differentiate between whether or not the receiver was offended, just if it was offensive content. So I could be joking around with a friend, say something obscene, and if his SysAdmin at work came across it, I could be charged!
Thank you oh so much! When is the next flight out...
HEY! He can't even have his name on the web...
on
Kevin Mitnick Speaks
·
· Score: 1
You know, if the SS (Secret Service) had their way, his name wouldn't even be allowed on the Web. Yeah, we are all sick and tired of hearing about KM, but face it, what he did, he paid for a long time ago. He has been in prison longer than most people who do violent crimes. These days, it is more illegal to be kinda smart, than it is to shoot somebody.
Slashdot Mirror
As for FOIA, they were never bound by the FOIA, since they are not a part of the US Government. If you tried to sue them and use discovery to gain access to their records, that was not possible since they were already covered by Section 2(b), which protects them from judicial processes.
This is insidious in that for less than $50 per Full Time Employee (FTE), the campus can install the OS, Office, and a large number of applications ON EVERY MACHINE. However, whenever this runs out, they have no software that they can use, so unless they have completely transitioned to non-MS software during the last year of the agreement, they have to renew.
The other side of the problem is that there are applications that will require them to use Windows and even MS Office. Some of this are back-ground programs you will never know about ,such as document imaging and retrieval in the administrative departments, or systems such as the student use systems like Blackboard. While there may be alternatives for some systems, there may not be some for other, critical, applications. Also, switching can not be done incrementally, but has to be done all at once. This causes concerns with data migration, upkeep, and end-user training.
However, all hope is not lost. First, since lab computers don't have to pay for licenses, it can be argued that they are freebies, and not using them is not wasting money. You can then start trying out alternatives there. This can also be done in smaller departments which will not see as much money lost by not using licenses off the Campus Agreement.
Also, Campus Agreements can be negotiated by department. Therefore, you can see if some departments can be exempted completely from having to participate. You can then show them how much they would save by going with the FOSS options, as compared to being forced into the MS CA.
Finally, look for departments with lots of Macs. While they are often hooked on MS Office for the Mac, they are usually more open to alternatives. Showing them NeoOffice or OO.org on OS X can be a first step for them.
As in all things, here is what you need to remember:
Remember, you want to help them, you want to help students, and they want to help students. Therefore (paraphrasing Jerry Maguire) you are trying to help them help students.
Good luck to you.
I wouldn't really expect any applications to run faster on Windows 7 unless the hardware was upgraded.
If that were true, then there shouldn't have been performance differences between XP and Vista, but there were. These differences continued on into the Vista SP 1 and XP SP3 upgrades.
Theoretically, there is a maximum "speed" that any application can run at. This is based upon the raw speed of the CPU, Memory, disks, graphics, and other subsystems, used in the most efficient manner. While no OS can ever achieve that, it is the function of the OS to maximize system performance.
System performance will always be a moving target, not just because of hardware changes or hardware options, but also because what is the best performance for a server differs from what is the best performance for a workstation.
As for the "Apple fanboys," they do have reason to poke fun. With each release of OS X, there have been performance improvements over the previous release; 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5. This has been improvements on the same physical hardware.
It appears that Microsoft has chosen to focus their work on improving the UI's responsiveness, or adding new bells and whistles, while not dealing with the performance issues that individual applications run into. While UI responsiveness can be helpful, if the application doesn't finish any faster, the UI being able to show you that it is still busy, doesn't make that much 'real' difference.
You are editing a file that is saved directly to a shared folder on WHS, which WHS accepts and gives the A-OK signal to your software, then later has a problem writing the file, and tells you about it, with no chance of recovering the file at that time. Since this can happen after you have exited your software, you have no way of recovering the file.
The problem is not:
The third one is the trickiest. See, if you go to the current WHS Discover site (click Help and How-To's) you will see that the big thing is Remote Access, Media Sharing, and Computer Backup. This would lead people to believe that any other use, is not what it was meant for, and when something goes wrong, you should have known better.
But, one only needs to look back at previous pages for WHS to see that Sharing was a central feature. Yes, full sharing, not just Media Sharing. Even the Overview of that page focuses on sharing first, and backup (protection) was third. The first overview item was Sharing, and that is simply what this problem is about, shared folders. Either for your own use as a networked server, or to share with other users.
Now, if you go to Eric Bott's blog, you will see the explanation that the largest factor is "a home server is under extreme load." Well, I'm sorry, but if the touted role, even at the beginning and not right now, was acting as a share folder to save your stuff to, then by damn it better do that. If the server gets loaded down, it should not pretend it got the file and tell you later that it didn't, it should just either not respond (and your software would have to let you know it couldn't do it) or it should give an error response (your software's problem now).
Honestly, this product was marketed as a home server for storing and sharing your files, with acting as a backup server making 3rd on the list of features. Now, they want to change that and say that it is for backup first, file sharing from special locations and under special conditions, and not really for file storage.
- Slackware 9.1
- Kernel 2.4.22 gcc 3.2.3
- XFCE4 (but have KDE and GNOME installed)
- jarnal ( http://www.dklevine.com/general/software/tc1000/j
a rnal.htm )
- xvkbd ( http://member.nifty.ne.jp/tsato/ )
- mplayer ( http://www.mplayerhq.hu )
I use kdm for bootup and log-in to the tablet.Overall, it isn't bad. I think the keyboard is a little dainty, but since it has USB, I can attach a(n) USB keyboard to it. I also get about 3 hours from the battery, this is while compiling kernels, so I know that it is a good test of battery life.
I got lucky, I didn't have to buy this, I got it via work. My wife feels that it is OK, but it is a bit pricy for a small(ish) computer.
Honestly speaking, if I had to go out and buy one today, I would get a thin notebook that had a wider screen. Oh yeah, and had a built-in DVD drive!
Thanks,
Mage...
I work in Television. I can tell you, Sony has been designing their Commercial Electronics to die in a certain amount of time.
One Sony BETA deck had a separation down all of the boards along the same line. They then had thin tracers connecting the boards across this separation. To make sure these would break, they held the boards together with a special kind of glue, one that dried out and spread apart after 3 years. This is not a joke, the boards would break all of those fine tracers that would be almost impossible to field repair. You HAD to go to SONY to get it fixed. If not, you had to buy a new one.
Fun, isn't it?
A 2.2 MEGAWATT LASER running through fiber! Damn, that some high-bandwith fiber there!
Really, the high wattage of this laser would not make it usable through a fibre cable. I think their idea is for places where the hard rock, possibly metamorphic, and/or salt domes are near the surface and the distance they would have to drill at an angle would be cost-prohibitive, or there is no feasable way around it.
As for explosions, since there would be no oxygen component, there would not be an "explosion," but because it would be difficult to both fire the laser and secure the hole at the same time, there could be blowouts. I doubt that they plan on using this to actually get to the oil/gas they are looking for.
So a scenario would look like this. They start drilling, encounter a large rock layer or salt dome. After examing the geological information, decide that they have to drill through this layer or dome. They pull in the laser, fire it for a few minutes to bore most of the way through, then let the regular drilling systems take over to lay pipe and finish the job.
Just my $.02 worth.
As with all things, times change. Now there is a growing resistance, not to the Internet, per se, but rather to the ideals that people have become accustomed to.
The single most prominant of these ideals has been the belief that if I purchase/own something, I have the right to do whatever I want to with it. If I own a movie, I have the right to watch it, let my friends watch it, watch parts of it, watch it fifty times a day, or even sell it at a used items store when I am done. Under the terms of fair use and first purchase, I have the right to do all of these things.
Now, "content providers" want to change their "revenue model" to take away my rights. They want to be able to say that I can watch that movie, but I must pay each time I watch it. If I let my children watch it, I have to pay for each time each one of them watch it. If my friends come over and watch it, then they have to pay to watch it. I can see it now...
You get my point.Although this may seem a bit far-fetched, look at this, the movie industry wants to "maximize their revenue stream," which simply means they want to get more money out of each person that watches a movie. This means that instead of there being a handful of pay-per-view movies, all movies will be pay-per-view. The discs (most likely DVD) will be really cheap, but you will have to pay each time you want to view it.
Although this method has been attempted by DivX, it did not have enough push from groups like the MPAA to keep going. If DivX started today, I bet that the MPAA would quickly support it, and every major studio would be phasing out their regular DVDs to support the DivX style of pay-per-play system.
It is these, and similar, restrictions to existing rights that could cause a revolution. The Internet is just the medium of communication that is organizing those who are against these restrictions. The Internet is not the bringer of a revolution, but rather a catalyst or system that can help bring the revolutionaries together.
Well, there you have it, a simple way to get to DeCSS from MPAA and Buena Vista (AKA:Disney). Have fun and remember that stealing isn't right, but neither is stopping free speach by threatening lawsuits.
Mage...
Consider, in the interviews with George Lucas about the original Star Wars movies, he mentions that his first idea was for one big movie, but then he decided that it was too much to cram into one. He then took the idea, divided it up into logical groups, and found that it would be about three movies worth. Of course he had to go and fill in some spaces so that the movies would be about the correct length and be filled with nice extra sub-plots to entertain.
Now try to consider taking Star Wars, Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi and cramming them into one long movie. What subtle ideas would be lost? Would the movie just stink?
The more I think about it, the more I decide that it would stink about the same that Battlefield Earth stank.
What should have been done:
This movie should either have been made into more than one movie with each piece written to stand on it's own but further the overall story, or as a season-long, one-hour per episode television series. I know that a television show that complex would be difficult, but it would offer more time to build the subtle nuances of the characters and story line that one movie can not.
So, to restate, this movie is a fine example of why some stories need either to be in more than one movie, or to be a story-controlled television series.
Thanks.
I would like to thank M$ for including article numbers in thier email. I would have searched for days for the information and they have made it easier for me. Thank you M$.
Yes this is easy, in theory. The problem is, if you are in charge of a program, like the people at Source Forge have done, then others expect you to keep the code up. When somebody else submits changes, it is still up to you to 'roll it and release it.'
Let's look at your example...
Programmer A wrote a program that does 1, 2, and 3.
Programmer B added 4 and 5.
Programmer C rewrote 3 and 4 and added 6.
While Programmer C was making changes, Programmer A was rewriting 3 and 5 to make a new combined one, lets call it 7.
When Programmer C submits his modifications, it is up to Programmer A to check and make sure everything works right, if not, people don't track down Programmer C to complain, they complain directly to Programmer A.
When people submit patches, often they are poorly documented about what they modify and what they do. It is up to the person in charge of the program to try and pull all of it together.
A good example of how to run a program update system is Torvalds et al with the kernel. One person with final say-so over it, but many in the second-ring who are in charge of components or packages. Those people oversee any contributions and make sure they are tested before it goes up the line. That way no one person is completely overwhelmed with upkeeping the system.
When you have a handful of people working on something, and especially if it is not full-time, and lots of people sending in updates, then that handful gets overwhelmed and is unable to keep up with the changes, or even the udpates.
For Source Forge, this means that they may need to re-evaluate how they are handling their updates and maybe assign parts of the system to volunteers or be willing to let volunteers or other maintainers have a little more control over the development.
The largest problem facing the Patent Office is not that they are dullards, but that many are not skilled software designers or technicians. They are engineers, from the classical engineering fields of Mechanical, Electrical, Industrial, Civil, etc. They do not have the technical expertise or knowledge to tackle the software side of patents.
A second problem, which merely compounds the first, is that many patents may be originally prepared by technicians, they are definately edited by lawyers. Most patent applications seem like a 21st century Dante's Inferno of legalise and consultant-speak. It takes a bit of time to simply read one of these, mustless decipher their technical details.
Finally, other than litigation, there is no actual process to handle post-award complaints or patent infringements. This favors the business with the largest pocketbooks, and then the only real winners are lawyers. What the patent process needs is a seperate entity from the businesses involved, to act as an arbitrator for reviewing of awards for prior-art or non-patentable technology. This could even be the PTO itself, because it has no real reason to find in favor of one side or the other.
The process of disputing an awarded patents could require that the entity which brings the dispute, provide any research or evidence to dispute the award. This would keep the PTO from spending all of its time reviewing disputes, but not stop valid disputes from being brought up because of high cost, by making the majority of the cost being time involved.
---------------------------------------------
Actually, they record viewing habits (so do the new Digital CableBoxes) and transmit that to the central network. Possible uses of it is to be seeing which commercials keep viewers, which ones don't. How often do viewer record and rewatch certain movies, what type, how often. What shows are watched and taped and the like. This is supposed to help the network pinpoint which shows you may be interested in, and for marketing uses. Although they are not saying they will sell the information, they are also not denying it.
Hmmm....
Mage...
The law does not say that the person that I have directed it to is offended. The law says that it has to be obscene and intended to offend or annoy (sic). That is up to the DA or courts to decide. If you don't think that a DA would jump on a chance to prosecute someone under the "Computer Decency Act," you need to learn a little more about politics. Think of it, it would definately boost chances of getting re-elected, "I protected your children from obscene material!"
So I will say again, this is dangerous because sometimes it is not up to the sender or receiver to decide what is appropriate, but to others who might not see it the same way you do.
I think I want a plane ticket out of this place! It's good to know that our rights can be stripped away just by someone else claiming that it was obscene.
I know, "it's not nice to be harrassing or obscene to others." The law does not differentiate between whether or not the receiver was offended, just if it was offensive content. So I could be joking around with a friend, say something obscene, and if his SysAdmin at work came across it, I could be charged!
Thank you oh so much!
When is the next flight out...
You know, if the SS (Secret Service) had their way, his name wouldn't even be allowed on the Web. Yeah, we are all sick and tired of hearing about KM, but face it, what he did, he paid for a long time ago. He has been in prison longer than most people who do violent crimes. These days, it is more illegal to be kinda smart, than it is to shoot somebody.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0446168076/ slashdotA/002-8746209-0394043
/. took notice.
Do you see the word SLASHDOT in that, me too. That's right, I think the kids over at Amazon wanted to see how long it would take before
If you think media people don't have attitude or humor, you haven't heard of the ADDY awards.
mage...