Your example is more akin to software, not the devices used to protect it.
A good case for this would be Discreet's 3DS Max R3.x. It used a parallel port hardware dongle made by Rainbow. The dongles were exceedingly fragile and would blow out (thus rendering the software useless) quite often. The problem was so bad that eventually Discreet set up a web page to automate the process of entering complaints and getting new dongles sent out.
While Discreet is on R6 of Max now (with software based licensing schemes), R3 is still a valid product and can be used on modern hardware. A lot of motherboards don't have parallel ports, though. And, even for those that do, Discreet doesn't support R3 any more. They won't replace dead dongles. I don't think that Rainbow is around any more, either. So, when (not if, because it will happen) your dongle goes PFFFFT you will probably be out of luck.
Now the LoC is saying that in such an instance downloading, or creating, a hack to 3ds max R3 that circumvents the dongle check would be allowable. That is a good thing.
I know you want us to all shout "Linux". But, I'd consider lagging sales, a stagnant stock price, loss of maintenance subscriptions, and lack of people upgrading from the Win9X and Office9X sereies OSs and Office suites to be more of a concern to them.
True. But, even in civil cases the burden of proof is squarely on the plaintiff.
A case can not be tried by the plaintiff standing up and saying, "Your honor, this is what I think the defendant did. It is now his job to explain in detail whether he did, or what he was doing if he wasn't doing that."
The plaintiff has to provide proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant is in the wrong. All the defendant has to do is shoot down the claims the plaintiff is making. They aren't required to do anything beyond that. They don't have to testify to anything beyond the level of casting doubt on the plaintiff's case.
SCO saying (basically), "Your honor, IBM will now tell you why we are suing them, because we can't be bothered to take the time to provide proof that we are in the right." just won't fly.
To get Musicmatch to sub-sort by track # all you have to do is right-click on the library column headings, pick "Track #" from the drop down menu, and then click that new column heading to sort that column in ascending order.
It's not hard, but it's not obvious, either. I don't know why they leave that column out by default.
Does fb2000 provide a library, cataloging, automatic ID3 tag retrieval, online music shopping, downloading playlists to portable devices, burning playlists to CDs, smart playlists, etc...?
The three programs that come closest to a 1:1 comparison with (Win)iTunes are MusicMatch Jukebox, Real Jukebox, and WMP9. All three are much more than simplistic audio players, offering pretty much the same features as iTunes. All three have about the same download footprint as iTunes. All three take up about the same amount of memory when they run.
MusicMatch offers online music shopping. Real Jukebox and WM9 don't (at the moment).
iTunes and MusicMatch can download playlists to an iPod or other portable devices. I know WM9 can download music to players that support the Windows media format. I'm not sure about Real, but I would guess that it can.
If someone just wants a player, then yes, there are better alternatives. But, if someone wants an all inclusive music library system then iTunes and MusicMatch are the two top contenders on Windows (imho). iTunes is more attractive than MusicMatch because it offers all of it's functionality for free. MusicMatch requires you to buy a premium version to get all of the equivalent features.
Easy, this article is your ticket to fame.
You don't even need to read the article or understand it. You just need to remember that PHP = Good and Java = suck.
Now march right into your CTO, CEO, CFO, C*O's office(s) and proclaim, "PHP is good, Java is for suck!" You'll have a corner office and a company car in no time!
And don't think for a minute that that cute secretary won't start talking to you at the next birthday-cake gathering. She WILL! She'll recognize an intellectual. She'll want to be with a man who knows his place in a stupid adovcacy war. She'll be all over you man!!
Repeat it one more time, "PHP R0xx0rz, Java is for Suck"!
I have a Qualcomm 2760 handset. It is 3+ years old now. No fancy color LCD screen, camera, GPS, integrated Palm pilot, or anything else. It has a keypad, a microphone, a speaker, and it lets me store names and numbers. It has been serving me well and I see no reason to change it.
nTelos sees otherwise, though. First (about 2 years ago) they 'upgraded' their system so that the voicemail button on the keypad no longer worked. "Sir, you should get a new handset if you want that functionality to continue!". No problem, I'll just add *86 to the speed dial.
Then, another system upgrade (about a year ago) caused the 'you have voicemail' icon to stay lit continually. Again, "Sir a new handset would take care of that problem. Come in and we'll show you all of our new phones with great extra features!!" Ok, so now I just have wait for the phone to beep if I have voicemail. No biggy.
Now, it seems that if someone leaves a message the system may decide to let me know I have voicemail right then, sometime later, sometime much later, or never. Again, a new handset would solve all of my problems.
These "system upgrades" all in the name of nTelos wanting to lock customers into another contract and pay for an expensive handset are ridiculous. This phone does everything I need.
I've only stayed with nTelos this long after the fiasco started because I've had this phone # for ~8 years (yeah, nTelos got me into a new handset once) and I don't want to go through the hassle of having to change it. Come 11/24 I'm off to a nice nationwide carrier that has a wide range of handsets---not like the 3-5 that nTelos uses. If they wanted my business they'd not be screwing with me like this.
Just because Microsoft was granted the patent now doesn't really mean anything. It takes years for a patent application to wind its way through the Patent Office. Because of that they are retroactive to the time of application.
The question shouldn't be, "How can they do this if had it in '96?" It should be, "When did Microsoft apply for this patent?"
And how is that VoIP transmission getting into your house? I'd assume it's on those same cables that cause the physical limitation to competition you are talking about.
If the VoIP transmission is coming across a telephone or cable company's lines I can see why they would want the VoIP companies to have to play by the same rules.
Do you have to pay any telephone operator regulatory charges now?
Do you sell your VoIP services to end users?
If you answered yes to either/both of those, then you probably are affected. If you're not a VoIP provider then I doubt you have anything to worry about.
I don't see this as as big a deal as the submittor of the article does. If a company is a telephone provider, regardless of the trasmission mechanism used, then they should have to play using the same set of rules/regulations as the other telephone providers.
In any other development model, TSL would have died and been sold off in small peices, no longer much use to anyone.
You mean, "no longer much use to anyone who couldn't afford the purchase price", right? Or, do you really believe that when one company buys part (or all) of another company's assets they don't expect to get anything of worth out of the deal?
Yeah, whatever, My sarcastic rant at the infalibility of Apple zealots to claim any innovation as a derivative of their works got marked as a troll. I take that one of two ways; Either it came across as troll-like, or Apple users are as I portrayed them and they didn't like the mirror being shown to them.
I'm not sure what a "crapflooder" is, but I did have Mexican food today.
It would be pretty easy to search the posting history of anyone with a registered user name here on Slashdot and find at least one example of a negative rating. Does that mean the poster is nothing but a troll? No, it can as easily mean that what they thought was interesting/funny/etc... wasn't taken the same way by the community.
You sure are hypocritcal, standing up for Slashdotter's rights while hiding behind an "Anonymous Poster" tag.
If you really want to penis measure here on Slashdot, go ahead. I'll sit back with my five digit user ID and excellent Karma rating and continue to enhance the experience around here by speaking my mind, sharing my opinions, and knowing that the modding of my posts by other intelligent people will give me proper feedback on how my ideas are being received.
10 minutes executing a work around for the non-square pixel issue is 10 minutes of lost creativity. That's 10 minutes that could've better spent making the project better, not just workable.
Adobe did a version of Photoshop 3.0 for IRIX in the mid-90's. Even though SGI was the king of VFX back then, and *everyone* doing VFX had SGI's, it never sold.
First off, to address your assumption that all creative professionals "spent two years at a community college". My bachelor's degree from a Big 10 school is testament to how utterly ignorant you actually are.
Now on to the meat of the matter, as has been discussed here numerous times before (albeit with the GIMP). Show me the CMYK and spot color handling (with licensed PANTONE libraries, no less) in these MS applications. Show me the fast super-high resolution image editting that these apps provide. Show me the strict adherance to the PostScript Level 3 file specifications. Show me a job house that will be able to take output from these consumer level applications and do anything worthwhile with them.
waiting...
Thought so...
And that is just for a replacement to Photoshop. Now provide me with software on par with InDesign. After that go find equivilents for Premiere Pro, Audition, After Effects, and Encore DVD.
Some Russian company built a circumvention device for Adobe's (arguably laughable) eBook encryption, yes. They sold it in the US. They got called on it. They were acquited. They stopped making it. If I were to catch someone using my copyrighted works in improper/illegal ways I'm pretty certain that I would pursue the matter to the extent of my abilities. Stealing is stealing. The DMCA, as written, gave Adobe the powers they used. Are the circumvention and reverse engineer portions of the DMCA wrong? Probably. Is that Adobe's fault? no. Your anger should be directed at the lawmakers that passed the DMCA and yourself for not asserting yourself to your representatives and ensuring that they understood that you didn't want it passed.
Care to tell us how many letters & phone calls you made to your senators and representatives against the DMCA?
If I am macking my date, do I care if the person calling me is from 'chaney gas guzzler rewards program' or the 'bush drunk driver defense fund'. Hell no.
So, what you are saying is that you have ample time on your hands to care if the person calling you is from 'chaney gas guzzler rewards program' or the 'bush drunk driver defense fund'?
Re:Complain about SCO to FTC and BBB
on
SCO's Plan Examined
·
· Score: 5, Informative
The BBB is great if you want to check out a plumber, HVAC company, or other small business. It is totally worthless for large corporations.
Why? Because it is funded by corporations, therefore it is biased.
Besides, the BBB has no legal ability to sanction, criminally charge, or otherwise take to task a company that receives negative comments. The best it can do is tell a requestor how many and complaints a company has received and how severe they are. That's great if you need a sound bite for the evening news, but totally useless for policing corrupt businesses.
No.. global warming is not a myth, there is solid data to show that the averge global temperature is rising.
No, there is solid data to show that the average global temperature is rising during the times that we've been able to record it. That time span is infinitesimally small compared to the history of the world.
What isn't certain is WHY.
Correct. It's unfortunate that all of the lunatic fringe geologists & scientists will attribute this warming to human causes. They never bother, or are too closed minded to consider, that the cause could be something totally out of our control.
Slashdot Mirror
A good case for this would be Discreet's 3DS Max R3.x. It used a parallel port hardware dongle made by Rainbow. The dongles were exceedingly fragile and would blow out (thus rendering the software useless) quite often. The problem was so bad that eventually Discreet set up a web page to automate the process of entering complaints and getting new dongles sent out.
While Discreet is on R6 of Max now (with software based licensing schemes), R3 is still a valid product and can be used on modern hardware. A lot of motherboards don't have parallel ports, though. And, even for those that do, Discreet doesn't support R3 any more. They won't replace dead dongles. I don't think that Rainbow is around any more, either. So, when (not if, because it will happen) your dongle goes PFFFFT you will probably be out of luck.
Now the LoC is saying that in such an instance downloading, or creating, a hack to 3ds max R3 that circumvents the dongle check would be allowable. That is a good thing.
(runs off to Staples...)
I know you want us to all shout "Linux". But, I'd consider lagging sales, a stagnant stock price, loss of maintenance subscriptions, and lack of people upgrading from the Win9X and Office9X sereies OSs and Office suites to be more of a concern to them.
A case can not be tried by the plaintiff standing up and saying, "Your honor, this is what I think the defendant did. It is now his job to explain in detail whether he did, or what he was doing if he wasn't doing that."
The plaintiff has to provide proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant is in the wrong. All the defendant has to do is shoot down the claims the plaintiff is making. They aren't required to do anything beyond that. They don't have to testify to anything beyond the level of casting doubt on the plaintiff's case.
SCO saying (basically), "Your honor, IBM will now tell you why we are suing them, because we can't be bothered to take the time to provide proof that we are in the right." just won't fly.
I've never heard of such a thing. I can't ever recall seeing an IDE optical drive for sale that didn't use ATAPI to communicate with the computer.
Even if this came to the States I couldn't use it. Thanks Apple, thanks bunches.
You pushed a patch without trying it in a test environment. The resultant downtime is not necessarily 100% attributable to SUS, now is it?
For him there is no statute of limitations. It is illegal to make a law and then charge people for offenses that happened before the law was enacted.
It's not hard, but it's not obvious, either. I don't know why they leave that column out by default.
MusicMatch offers online music shopping. Real Jukebox and WM9 don't (at the moment).
iTunes and MusicMatch can download playlists to an iPod or other portable devices. I know WM9 can download music to players that support the Windows media format. I'm not sure about Real, but I would guess that it can.
If someone just wants a player, then yes, there are better alternatives. But, if someone wants an all inclusive music library system then iTunes and MusicMatch are the two top contenders on Windows (imho). iTunes is more attractive than MusicMatch because it offers all of it's functionality for free. MusicMatch requires you to buy a premium version to get all of the equivalent features.
Now march right into your CTO, CEO, CFO, C*O's office(s) and proclaim, "PHP is good, Java is for suck!" You'll have a corner office and a company car in no time!
And don't think for a minute that that cute secretary won't start talking to you at the next birthday-cake gathering. She WILL! She'll recognize an intellectual. She'll want to be with a man who knows his place in a stupid adovcacy war. She'll be all over you man!!
Repeat it one more time, "PHP R0xx0rz, Java is for Suck"!
Oh, wait...not everyone did that. A lot of us kept our series 1 boxes specficially because the hacking potential on them was known and understood.
nTelos sees otherwise, though. First (about 2 years ago) they 'upgraded' their system so that the voicemail button on the keypad no longer worked. "Sir, you should get a new handset if you want that functionality to continue!". No problem, I'll just add *86 to the speed dial.
Then, another system upgrade (about a year ago) caused the 'you have voicemail' icon to stay lit continually. Again, "Sir a new handset would take care of that problem. Come in and we'll show you all of our new phones with great extra features!!" Ok, so now I just have wait for the phone to beep if I have voicemail. No biggy.
Now, it seems that if someone leaves a message the system may decide to let me know I have voicemail right then, sometime later, sometime much later, or never. Again, a new handset would solve all of my problems.
These "system upgrades" all in the name of nTelos wanting to lock customers into another contract and pay for an expensive handset are ridiculous. This phone does everything I need.
I've only stayed with nTelos this long after the fiasco started because I've had this phone # for ~8 years (yeah, nTelos got me into a new handset once) and I don't want to go through the hassle of having to change it. Come 11/24 I'm off to a nice nationwide carrier that has a wide range of handsets---not like the 3-5 that nTelos uses. If they wanted my business they'd not be screwing with me like this.
The question shouldn't be, "How can they do this if had it in '96?" It should be, "When did Microsoft apply for this patent?"
If the VoIP transmission is coming across a telephone or cable company's lines I can see why they would want the VoIP companies to have to play by the same rules.
Do you sell your VoIP services to end users?
If you answered yes to either/both of those, then you probably are affected. If you're not a VoIP provider then I doubt you have anything to worry about.
I don't see this as as big a deal as the submittor of the article does. If a company is a telephone provider, regardless of the trasmission mechanism used, then they should have to play using the same set of rules/regulations as the other telephone providers.
You mean, "no longer much use to anyone who couldn't afford the purchase price", right? Or, do you really believe that when one company buys part (or all) of another company's assets they don't expect to get anything of worth out of the deal?
I'm not sure what a "crapflooder" is, but I did have Mexican food today.
It would be pretty easy to search the posting history of anyone with a registered user name here on Slashdot and find at least one example of a negative rating. Does that mean the poster is nothing but a troll? No, it can as easily mean that what they thought was interesting/funny/etc... wasn't taken the same way by the community.
You sure are hypocritcal, standing up for Slashdotter's rights while hiding behind an "Anonymous Poster" tag.
If you really want to penis measure here on Slashdot, go ahead. I'll sit back with my five digit user ID and excellent Karma rating and continue to enhance the experience around here by speaking my mind, sharing my opinions, and knowing that the modding of my posts by other intelligent people will give me proper feedback on how my ideas are being received.
10 minutes executing a work around for the non-square pixel issue is 10 minutes of lost creativity. That's 10 minutes that could've better spent making the project better, not just workable.
Adobe did a version of Photoshop 3.0 for IRIX in the mid-90's. Even though SGI was the king of VFX back then, and *everyone* doing VFX had SGI's, it never sold.
Now on to the meat of the matter, as has been discussed here numerous times before (albeit with the GIMP). Show me the CMYK and spot color handling (with licensed PANTONE libraries, no less) in these MS applications. Show me the fast super-high resolution image editting that these apps provide. Show me the strict adherance to the PostScript Level 3 file specifications. Show me a job house that will be able to take output from these consumer level applications and do anything worthwhile with them.
waiting...
Thought so...
And that is just for a replacement to Photoshop. Now provide me with software on par with InDesign. After that go find equivilents for Premiere Pro, Audition, After Effects, and Encore DVD.
Some Russian company built a circumvention device for Adobe's (arguably laughable) eBook encryption, yes. They sold it in the US. They got called on it. They were acquited. They stopped making it. If I were to catch someone using my copyrighted works in improper/illegal ways I'm pretty certain that I would pursue the matter to the extent of my abilities. Stealing is stealing. The DMCA, as written, gave Adobe the powers they used. Are the circumvention and reverse engineer portions of the DMCA wrong? Probably. Is that Adobe's fault? no. Your anger should be directed at the lawmakers that passed the DMCA and yourself for not asserting yourself to your representatives and ensuring that they understood that you didn't want it passed.
Care to tell us how many letters & phone calls you made to your senators and representatives against the DMCA?
Take a rare item and sell it for more than you purchased it. Exploit the supply/demand factor to your own gain!!
You sir, are a genius!
So, what you are saying is that you have ample time on your hands to care if the person calling you is from 'chaney gas guzzler rewards program' or the 'bush drunk driver defense fund'?
The BBB is great if you want to check out a plumber, HVAC company, or other small business. It is totally worthless for large corporations. Why? Because it is funded by corporations, therefore it is biased. Besides, the BBB has no legal ability to sanction, criminally charge, or otherwise take to task a company that receives negative comments. The best it can do is tell a requestor how many and complaints a company has received and how severe they are. That's great if you need a sound bite for the evening news, but totally useless for policing corrupt businesses.
No, there is solid data to show that the average global temperature is rising during the times that we've been able to record it. That time span is infinitesimally small compared to the history of the world.
What isn't certain is WHY.
Correct. It's unfortunate that all of the lunatic fringe geologists & scientists will attribute this warming to human causes. They never bother, or are too closed minded to consider, that the cause could be something totally out of our control.