I have nothing against MS giving this stuff away, or even selling it if someone will pay. If another tool does a better job, use the other tool.
Monopolies are usually a problem because they hold all the cards, all the resources. It's impossible to compete. But there's nothing about MS's monopoly that prevents Adaware from existing. MS Antispiware, and now this tool, are both out. So if Adaware wants to continue existing, it had better to a better job or offer a better deal. If it doesn't, than what's the harm (to users) in it dieing out?
And to some extent, I'd say MS is OBLIGATED to help us fight malware, although I'd rather they fixed the fundamental design problems that make it so easy to wind up on your system. But that takes quite a bit of work, and even if they're working on it, it'll be a slow process. If my roof on my new house was leaking, and the contractor told me he didn't know any way to fix it that would take less than a year, I'd make damn sure he gave me free buckets to last me for a year's worth of rainstorms.
And just try to do some serious multimedia work or real hefty multitasking on the old 386, with windows for workgroups. Have all the fonts in your 16 million color display antialiased, and play 3d games at a decent speed.
I'm not saying bloat and cruft aren't serious issues, but we ask our computers to do much more now than we did when the 386 was still the bees knees. There are reasons why a modern *nix gui, OS X and Windows XP run more slowly than WFWG -- they do a hell of a lot more.
It's not just waiting for the memory to give it something to do... It's waiting for the user to. How much computing did the machine do while you read this paragraph of text?
Computers won't be fast enough until they can do anything we'd want of them near instantly. If I have to wait for feedback, it's not fast enough.
My Athlon64 3200, which isn't top-of-the-line but it's pretty close, still takes quite a bit of time to convert a DVD to divx. It takes a few minutes (because IO needs to get faster) to copy large volumes of files. Photoshop filters on huge, detailed files can take a few minutes to run. Machines only slightly slower choke on playback of HDTV. I can't imagine how long it takes to encode.
When I can do all those things instantly, do accurate global weather predictions in realtime and have my true-to-life recreation of the voyager doctor realize his sentience, THEN computers will be fast enough. Until the next killer app comes, of course.
No, it was because the VCR allowed for substantial non-infringing uses... just like tivo+tivo2go+dvd does. There's no infringement in keeping your own personal copy of data the content providers sent you over the air or over cable lines. You can even edit the content - remove the commercials or create your own version of the Phantom Edit. Just don't redistribute it - that's copyright infringement.
And this stands true whether we're talking about perfect digital reproductions (which we're usually not with over the air and cable recordings, but as HDTV and digital cable become more common, maybe we will be eventually). The principle isn't dictated by the quality of the recording, or how long you expect to keep it, or the ease of redistribution. Keeping your own personal copy is ALWAYS ok. Redistributing it without permission is ALWAYS infringement. That's the distinction made when the courts talk about fair use copies.
After all, even in the pre-everything-is-digital age, you could still create a remarkably good copy with a high-end video deck and good cables/components to reduce line noise. And you could sell them for a few bucks on the street. It wouldn't be legal, and infringers were often punished/sued, but the tech was there.
The fact that this is even a point of concern shows that we've been conditioned to accept new norms for IP.
Burning to DVD is a problem for the studios? Yes. They'll certainly fight for DRM or other limitations. But why should it be this way? For years and years everyone KNEW they had a right to videotape whatever they pleased for their own personal collections. Many fans of shows videotaped every episode, and kept a complete personal archive. In what way is it different to do this with a Tivo and DVD than it is with a videotape? Hell, leave out the middleman - there are plenty of DVD recorder decks now available for consumers, and they work more or less like VCRs.
But we've gotten to a point where we assume that just because the studios have found a business model, anything that rips into it is fair game for litigation. And the studios might win such litigation. And that's just sad.
And can you tell me what about common (non-geek) sense suggests that opening up an e-mail and the included file should be at all hazardous? Common sense suggests you should jsut get to see what's in the file. If it's junk, you'd delete it.
Unless you've been specifically told otherwise, it wouldn't seem dangerous at all. When you open junk mail at home, or mail from a sender you don't recognize, you don't expect it to take pictures of your house and mail them back to the sender. You don't expect the opened mail to leave dogcrap on your doorstep or make your refridgerator stop working. It seems like a fairly harmless thing to do.
It's only because of severe design flaws in e-mail programms and OSes that there's an issue.
Personally, I'm an anti-IP extremist. I don't believe in owning ideas. Peroid. I don't believe that law should make easily reproduceable items artificially scare and inflate their economic value. I think if you want to sell something, it's up to you to be sure the next guy can't make another just as easily. IF that means you can't make a living selling CDS and have to get a day job or live off of concert performances, so be it. If you can't make a living selling code but instead have to get a job creating it for in-house purposes on demand, so be it. No one has a right to assume their chosen business model will be viable.
But let's look at the logic of the maximum penalty in a society that does accept as a given IP is a valid concept. This person, under that thinking, potentially deprived several companies of thousands upon thousands of dollars in lost sales (although difficult to quantify because you don't know how many people would have purchased the item if they couldn't get it free). Companies are made of people. Those dollars equal jobs and salaries. So this man victimized hundreds or thousands of employees and potential employees. It's a pretty broad-reaching crime.
So if you accept IP as a reasonable concept (and there are rational arguments for doing so) then 15 years isn't an unreasonable penalty.
If the asteroid gets too close, all we have to do is hook it up to a cable or dsl line, and post an article about emulating a C64 under a homebrew nintendo close running a linux port onto the asteroid. then link it from slashdot.
How does that invalidate the statement in the post? It says there's a 1/233 chance. Of course that's based on all available knowledge and understanding of the circumstances surrounding the asteroid's cource. If we knew more, would have a more specific prediction.
If anyone thought there was truly a random element, we couldn't even come up with statistics like 1/233. It would be entirely unpredictable.
That will only work if the supposed terrorist acts like your typical 11- to 99-year-old male, who is in the game for fun but can't help drool at the prospect of a single, female fellow gamer.
More likely than not, anyone with nefarious purposes in mind has more important things to worry about than asking a/s/l. He'll likely just answer "no."
I thought I read sometime ago that not much was being done with Aquafying the 1.1 line, because the plan was to work closely with the core team on 2.0, and keep it Aqua-port-friendly from the beginning. Is that no longer the case?
I'm about as qualified to comment on development as the average armchair quaterback is to comment on football plays, but it seems to be the current approach means the OS X port will always be a bit behind windows and linux. Is that the case? Can this adaptable theming business they're doing for gtk/qt/windows be made to work well with osx easily?
FRom what I've seen poking around the site, native Aqua/OSX support didn't quite pan out for 2.0 the way it was supposed to. It looks like it still requires an X server, and still uses its own toolkit instead of aqua or a smart approximation.
Neooffice/J was the proof of concept to bring OO 1.x to the Aqua system. It looks like they made some progress - using Aqua widgets and controls in some places, but only a few, and doing away with the need for an X server. But it doesn't look like they've gotten much farther than that, or readied 2.0 to be aqua-native. That's a shame.
I'm a little surprised at the need to select "windows xp" style - is it that the program can't tell the difference between winxp and win2k (or others) on its own?
what does it look like under winxp when the option isn't selected?
Also - does anyone know how this will play with windowblinds, stylexp or other theming programs? If you have winxp style selected but another theme for the rest of windows, will this be the only app that appears to have the regular xp look?
Slashdot Mirror
I have nothing against MS giving this stuff away, or even selling it if someone will pay. If another tool does a better job, use the other tool.
Monopolies are usually a problem because they hold all the cards, all the resources. It's impossible to compete. But there's nothing about MS's monopoly that prevents Adaware from existing. MS Antispiware, and now this tool, are both out. So if Adaware wants to continue existing, it had better to a better job or offer a better deal. If it doesn't, than what's the harm (to users) in it dieing out?
And to some extent, I'd say MS is OBLIGATED to help us fight malware, although I'd rather they fixed the fundamental design problems that make it so easy to wind up on your system. But that takes quite a bit of work, and even if they're working on it, it'll be a slow process. If my roof on my new house was leaking, and the contractor told me he didn't know any way to fix it that would take less than a year, I'd make damn sure he gave me free buckets to last me for a year's worth of rainstorms.
Gee, Captain Unwaranted Sarcasm and Hostility ...
"Manufacturing 11,000 titles a year, the industry would have a sizeable say in the debate."
It's not the size of the say of the debate, it's how fast you can mass produce those discs. DISCS, perv.
And just try to do some serious multimedia work or real hefty multitasking on the old 386, with windows for workgroups. Have all the fonts in your 16 million color display antialiased, and play 3d games at a decent speed.
I'm not saying bloat and cruft aren't serious issues, but we ask our computers to do much more now than we did when the 386 was still the bees knees. There are reasons why a modern *nix gui, OS X and Windows XP run more slowly than WFWG -- they do a hell of a lot more.
It's not just waiting for the memory to give it something to do ... It's waiting for the user to. How much computing did the machine do while you read this paragraph of text?
Computers won't be fast enough until they can do anything we'd want of them near instantly. If I have to wait for feedback, it's not fast enough.
My Athlon64 3200, which isn't top-of-the-line but it's pretty close, still takes quite a bit of time to convert a DVD to divx. It takes a few minutes (because IO needs to get faster) to copy large volumes of files. Photoshop filters on huge, detailed files can take a few minutes to run. Machines only slightly slower choke on playback of HDTV. I can't imagine how long it takes to encode.
When I can do all those things instantly, do accurate global weather predictions in realtime and have my true-to-life recreation of the voyager doctor realize his sentience, THEN computers will be fast enough. Until the next killer app comes, of course.
Mods don't find marketspeak funny, apparently.
If they cut through the power line, what do you expect to power the computer, broadband modem-type-device and router anyway?
Aren't they on satellite radio now?
It's like the whuzahuh?
In what way are those two alike?
No, it was because the VCR allowed for substantial non-infringing uses ... just like tivo+tivo2go+dvd does. There's no infringement in keeping your own personal copy of data the content providers sent you over the air or over cable lines. You can even edit the content - remove the commercials or create your own version of the Phantom Edit. Just don't redistribute it - that's copyright infringement.
And this stands true whether we're talking about perfect digital reproductions (which we're usually not with over the air and cable recordings, but as HDTV and digital cable become more common, maybe we will be eventually). The principle isn't dictated by the quality of the recording, or how long you expect to keep it, or the ease of redistribution. Keeping your own personal copy is ALWAYS ok. Redistributing it without permission is ALWAYS infringement. That's the distinction made when the courts talk about fair use copies.
After all, even in the pre-everything-is-digital age, you could still create a remarkably good copy with a high-end video deck and good cables/components to reduce line noise. And you could sell them for a few bucks on the street. It wouldn't be legal, and infringers were often punished/sued, but the tech was there.
Hit a link. That "special codec" is mpeg-2, and this will work just fine if you have something like powerdvd installed.
The fact that this is even a point of concern shows that we've been conditioned to accept new norms for IP.
Burning to DVD is a problem for the studios? Yes. They'll certainly fight for DRM or other limitations. But why should it be this way? For years and years everyone KNEW they had a right to videotape whatever they pleased for their own personal collections. Many fans of shows videotaped every episode, and kept a complete personal archive. In what way is it different to do this with a Tivo and DVD than it is with a videotape? Hell, leave out the middleman - there are plenty of DVD recorder decks now available for consumers, and they work more or less like VCRs.
But we've gotten to a point where we assume that just because the studios have found a business model, anything that rips into it is fair game for litigation. And the studios might win such litigation. And that's just sad.
And can you tell me what about common (non-geek) sense suggests that opening up an e-mail and the included file should be at all hazardous? Common sense suggests you should jsut get to see what's in the file. If it's junk, you'd delete it.
Unless you've been specifically told otherwise, it wouldn't seem dangerous at all. When you open junk mail at home, or mail from a sender you don't recognize, you don't expect it to take pictures of your house and mail them back to the sender. You don't expect the opened mail to leave dogcrap on your doorstep or make your refridgerator stop working. It seems like a fairly harmless thing to do.
It's only because of severe design flaws in e-mail programms and OSes that there's an issue.
The marketing department called.
She's now your eXtreme-Wife! (TM)
Personally, I'm an anti-IP extremist. I don't believe in owning ideas. Peroid. I don't believe that law should make easily reproduceable items artificially scare and inflate their economic value. I think if you want to sell something, it's up to you to be sure the next guy can't make another just as easily. IF that means you can't make a living selling CDS and have to get a day job or live off of concert performances, so be it. If you can't make a living selling code but instead have to get a job creating it for in-house purposes on demand, so be it. No one has a right to assume their chosen business model will be viable.
But let's look at the logic of the maximum penalty in a society that does accept as a given IP is a valid concept. This person, under that thinking, potentially deprived several companies of thousands upon thousands of dollars in lost sales (although difficult to quantify because you don't know how many people would have purchased the item if they couldn't get it free). Companies are made of people. Those dollars equal jobs and salaries. So this man victimized hundreds or thousands of employees and potential employees. It's a pretty broad-reaching crime.
So if you accept IP as a reasonable concept (and there are rational arguments for doing so) then 15 years isn't an unreasonable penalty.
Man, you're living it up.
If the asteroid gets too close, all we have to do is hook it up to a cable or dsl line, and post an article about emulating a C64 under a homebrew nintendo close running a linux port onto the asteroid. then link it from slashdot.
we'll be fine.
And?
How does that invalidate the statement in the post? It says there's a 1/233 chance. Of course that's based on all available knowledge and understanding of the circumstances surrounding the asteroid's cource. If we knew more, would have a more specific prediction.
If anyone thought there was truly a random element, we couldn't even come up with statistics like 1/233. It would be entirely unpredictable.
There aren't a whole lot of stories where a post like this could get modded informative, but it works here.
That will only work if the supposed terrorist acts like your typical 11- to 99-year-old male, who is in the game for fun but can't help drool at the prospect of a single, female fellow gamer.
More likely than not, anyone with nefarious purposes in mind has more important things to worry about than asking a/s/l. He'll likely just answer "no."
glad to hear it. sounds like the groundwork has been laid for a smoother osx transition. we in the user-only world thank you :)
I thought I read sometime ago that not much was being done with Aquafying the 1.1 line, because the plan was to work closely with the core team on 2.0, and keep it Aqua-port-friendly from the beginning. Is that no longer the case?
I'm about as qualified to comment on development as the average armchair quaterback is to comment on football plays, but it seems to be the current approach means the OS X port will always be a bit behind windows and linux. Is that the case? Can this adaptable theming business they're doing for gtk/qt/windows be made to work well with osx easily?
FRom what I've seen poking around the site, native Aqua/OSX support didn't quite pan out for 2.0 the way it was supposed to. It looks like it still requires an X server, and still uses its own toolkit instead of aqua or a smart approximation.
Neooffice/J was the proof of concept to bring OO 1.x to the Aqua system. It looks like they made some progress - using Aqua widgets and controls in some places, but only a few, and doing away with the need for an X server. But it doesn't look like they've gotten much farther than that, or readied 2.0 to be aqua-native. That's a shame.
I'm a little surprised at the need to select "windows xp" style - is it that the program can't tell the difference between winxp and win2k (or others) on its own?
what does it look like under winxp when the option isn't selected?
Also - does anyone know how this will play with windowblinds, stylexp or other theming programs? If you have winxp style selected but another theme for the rest of windows, will this be the only app that appears to have the regular xp look?