I recently purchased the new Ben Folds album, Songs for Silverman, and was delightfully surprised to find that the disc was dual sided. On one was the regular CD Audio stuff, and the other contained the album mastered in 5.1 Dolby DVD Audio. The second side also contained a great documentary done by Ben's wife on the making of the album with some live performances, again in 5.1 Surround.
This is one of the first times in a while that I purchased a new CD at full retail (normally I'm primarily a used CD buyer primarily). I have to say it was also one of the first times in a LONG while that I felt like I got a great value from a new album purchase. I know it had to cost a little more to produce the record than a normal CD release, but I loved the documentary and listening to the album in my home theatre REALLY rocks.
I sure hope this trend continues with more artists!
I'm not certain of this at all. IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that if I sell cars with radios in them, and it turns out that the radios I sold with my cars were stolen, I'm liable for the sale of stolen property. Claiming ignorance is not an excuse, as I am required to exercise due dilligence in sourcing of my components. Why should this be ANY different with Software?
I understand that we're talking intellectual vs. physical property here, so the courts may not have set a precedent yet, but perhaps it's time to do so?;)
Although I applaud all efforts to raise awareness of the issue through our personal lives / interactions with people, if we really want to effect change we need to also act where we can have the largest concerted impact - in our professional jobs / roles. I beleive the truth of the matter is that this issue has a HUGE potential for widespread business impact if your company permits users to listen to music on their company computers (my firm does). Exert your influence in any way you can by rationally explaining the imapact of this software and plan for problem mitigation. If your users are anything like ours, you've probably already got a system or two infected on your network with this so-called 'software.'
From a business perspective, there is usually only one way ANY company can effectively learn about the seriousness of an issue: Revenue Risk. Either a competitor gets publicly impacted and management gets worried they will be also or perhaps the company directly starts to lose revenue or face government fines. I anticipate that getting consumers to change purchasing habits may take some time, but should Sony start being removed from authorized vendor agreements because of the actions of Sony BMG, I am fairly confident the parent group will take notice.
I'd like to echo on this point. I was literally amazed when I completed my first OpenBSD 3.5 install on an old Compaq Presario 1920 laptop. It recognized and configured my NetGear wireless pcmcia adapter and also a REALLY old linksys 10/100 ethernet card I had difficulties with even on previous Linux installations.
I was so impressed I took a plunge and attempted the 3.5 install on a new Averatec laptop with a built-in Intel wireless adapter. It properly detected and auto-configured the wireless adapter AND the crappy Realtek based 10/100 interface.
Really, I think MAJOR kudos should go out to the OpenBSD team for the 3.5 release. The latest failover utilities (carp and pfsynch) and driver support have really made it easier for me to setup and maintain WAPs on my ever-growing collection of used laptops. I've always been a bit paranoid about setting up wireless networks for friends and family but it's becoming much easier for me to do so with this latest release.
If you also consider the latest kernel support for the VPN Accelerator products from soekris (obligatory link - www.soekris.com) they've also come a LONG way to providing a platform for incredibly secure enterprise firewall and wireless access point systems. Given the cost of the soekris hardware (even their high end stuff) comes in at about HALF of what you'd pay for comparable cisco gear EVEN ON EBAY, I can't but help to throw some props their way.
Give the latest 3.5 release a shot. And order the CD if you like it. If for no other reason buy it for the HILARIOUS audio track of their Python-tribute. You'll piss yourself laughing...or at least I heard that some people did that....
Is it just me or does it seem a stretch that within the first couple of paragraphs the assumption is made that there is somehow a direct relation between the number of intrusions and the cost of those intrusions:
"If a vulnerability isfound by good guys and a fix is made available, then the number of intrusions--and hence the cost of intru-sions--resulting from that vulnerability is less than if it were discovered by bad guys"
While I'm not certain that there is NO relationship between the two, I'm certainly NOT comfortable positing such a blanket assessment.
Perhaps there is a relationship between the net economic cost and the number of intrusions, but it seems equally likely that it would be possible through full disclosure the marginal cost of each instrusion could be reduced; a possible seemingly left lightly treated at best in this essay.
I'm not so sure that this would work as well as you think. I am not as familiar with O'caml or SML, but if we're talking Java, it needs a VM to be loaded and running before any native code can execute. I haven't seen too many JVM's written in other languages besides C. Maybe some in assembly or something for the mobile J2EE platform, but it's definitely not the majority now.
If that truly is the case, then doesn't it mean that the languages introduce at least the same level of risk in the buffer vulnerabilities? And since the JVM would have to be loaded before any Java systems are, it would seem counterintuitive to code your security critical components in a language that can't be used until "supposedly" non-secure language systems have been?
I'm not extremely familiar with really low-level system programming yet (or the systems hacks on that level), so please correct me if I am wrong.
How can anyone even bother to rate this as insightful?
Don't you read the Agreements you click through when you install your software? I must admit that I often skim through the provisions of the EULA's for most of the apps I install, but I've read a few. AFAIK, I have yet to see a software provider that makes ANY claims as to the ability of the software to perform any task at any time. Most EULA's, in fact, expressly attempt to shield the authors from any liability whatsoever.
Of course, the situation may be different when you're spending a few million or so on a custom SAP job, but as far as the average (even mid size) business is concerned, you are on your own.
The GPL, of course, is no exception. Read the "No Warranty Clause" of the GPL (similar clauses appear in other Open Licenses) which you can find at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/. It's pretty clear that all risks are beared by the user.
But don't think that it's just the Open Source developers. IANAL, but it would seem that any contract worth the paper it's printed on would try and get the developer out of as much liability as possible. For Microsoft's part, I haven't been able to dig up an online version of their recent EULA's for any of their products. Found a link at http://nl.linux.org/geldterug/license.html which shows the Win98 License, and wouldn't you be surprised to know they have a VERY SIMILAR CLAUSE. As far as I could tell, the only difference was that Microsoft will refund the cost of the software.
[sarcasm] Thanks. [/sarcasm]
The truth appears to be that all software vendors try to limit their liability just as every other product vendor does. It's a weird incentive built into the marketplace, since it appears that it's more economical to lobby for legislation like UCITA and it's cousins (which help shield software developers from some forms of legal liability) than it is to spend the money to develop software that really works.
I am not saying Open Source is right for every application. Clearly it has its strengths and weaknesses. But I whould never base any enterprise software decision on the "who am i gonna sue?" argument. Evaluate your apps on how well they solve your particular business needs.
If anything, this seems to be a point that is all too often overlooked in both corporate environments and my own instructional classes.
It's terribly unfortunate, since I've found this is also the best way I can explore new programming concepts. Design, Prototype, Code, Revise, Repeat...AS OFTEN AS POSSIBLE. I really wish I would have been taught this in my own curriculum, but it became apparant to me (and I assume many others) the more and more I used open software.
The same truism, I beleive, would apply to any development project, closed or open. I would, however, venture to say that the cycle is more effective the more developers you can involve in the process, since the revisions can happen at a faster rate. If there is anything that open source has taught me is that the process of developing open software can enable rapid evolution of projects and help both weed out the bugs or inefficiencies in applications and also stimulate the development of new extensions at an incredible pace.
If anything, I think this should be emphasized as not one, but perhaps THE MOST IMPORTANT aspect of managing development and / or implementation of open projects. Just my $.02, though.;)
And, regarding the second part, I very much doubt that an article describing a new idea about computer programming would pass the review process if it was written in, say, C. Hardly anybody expresses abstract ideas in concrete programming languages.
You may be correct in the sense that if the article was written entirely in source code, it would perhaps be used by "hardly anybody." At the same time, I can never recall an article that described a new idea in computer programming that at least didn't reference source code. At least never one that I found particularly useful. And the best ones always include the code or link to it online IMHO
The bottom line that all programmers have to realize (and I think really do at their core) is that source code IS ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL to any kind of complete and holistic understanding of an application. At some point we all reach a point in our investigation of a particular application (should we venture to delve deep enough) where some element of source code would help communicate the idea and intent of the application most effectively.
Which to me, at least, means that source code must be considered speech. Access to it is essential to communcicating the true intended nature and function of an application.
To me, it seems that my personal experiences in which I have not access to the source code has prevented me from resolving problems that I am fairly certain could be resolved is a testament to this fact. I mean, what programmer hasn't run into a bug or odd behavior in an application or API provided proprietarily where they didn't think...."If only I knew EXACTLY how the code was supposed to work (or did operate) I might be better able to resolve this problem...".....then we called support and waited for a fix ; )
A language, by definition, has to be human readable, since we create them. If that language can be also read and interpreted or used by another one of humanity's creations, that CAN NOT make it any less of a language, and thus isn't expressions in that language speech?
This is a horrible analogy. First of all, the First Sale doctrine DOES APPLY to recordings of Musical works - meaning when I buy a CD (admittedly it's a copy of a piece of art) I have the right to sell that CD to anyone whom I chose.
Hence used CD shops all around the world.
What's different about software is that you agree to the EULA before you open or install the software.
The real question is whether or not that EULA is even a valid agreement, since it attempts to nullify certain rights the courts have traditionally upheld, such as First Sale doctrine.
In a similar note, I remember reading about IBM getting into Anti-Trust trouble back in the 70's because they would NEVER sell their software or hardware. You HAD to lease it from them, meaning they never transferred ownership of anything to you.
Of course, from a corporate standpoint this makes perfect sense. Economically, a firm will always maximize profits if it only leases (either rights of use or whatever) it's products and services. My question is why no one ever thought to bring this up in the Microsoft case.
IBM was forced by the courts to sell products and software if they were also going to lease them. Of course, they continue to do both, but it's interesting that this was the focus of one of the most successful anti-trust cases in our nation's history, and yet somehow the DOJ missed it in the Microsoft Case.
Anyone have any ideas on how this doctrine has held up in the courts and how it might affect the future of Software as Services???
BJ Hoffpauir
Sr. Systems Architect
Time Trend, Inc.
The truth of the matter is that the rights it affects are the rights of the publishers of the website.
I am a recent victim of Top Text. I am a systems architect for a VAR/distributor of IBM Products. We have several custom sites we have developed for contracts with State Governments for the purchase of IBM and other hardware.
One of the explicit requirements of several of these contracts is that there be NO LINKS TO EXTERNAL SITES, supposedly to prevent their users from downloading any infected programs or files. We can't even offer files for download on the site ourselves.
So, when IBM bought ads on Top Text to create those hideous yellow links to their own ecommerce site, they appeared on our own catalogs. Not only were they causing to break a contract worth MILLIONS of dollars, they were stealing business from us. Great way to treat a business partner, no?
Anyhow, we found an interesting solution that did NOT require the sending of email to Top Text. We added the meta tag MS provides to disable Smart Tag rendering. Bye-Bye Top Text links.
So, apparantly Top Text is lying. We never emailed them, all we did was add the meta tags to all of our pages, and those nasty yellow links disappeared. Apparantly, the plug-in is using the Smart Tag SDK or something, and you can easily disable it.
On IE, it's an ActiveX control (and so is flash) on NN, it's using both C & Java....at least on the Linux Platform...not sure about others...anyone care to comment?
I am assuming that Macromedia followed a similar design philosophy with Shockwave as they did with Flash -- that is, they wrote the plug-in using the best tools for the job, and let's face it, ActiveX is the way to write plug-ins for IE. Of course, you have to re-write the code for other browsers / platforms, but that's a whole other debate, I suppose.
It's easy - Ban contributions from corporations. People can donate their own personal fortunes or lack thereof to those who will represent their interests.
You know it makes no sense to me why corps are allowed to contribute. Some may say they have an interest since they are legal entities, but the problem inevitably arises that their interests conflict with those of the general public.
Since people were around BEFORE the development of corporations, and ultimately, people are essential to the success of these corps, then they should ALWAYS have the benefit of having the government protect their interests first.
I've always wondered why corporate interests are so afraid of this tactic. Ultimately, they could convince their employees / shareholders / partners to lobby on their behalf. I think this would in fact probably be the best situation.
Any comments???
- BJ
Are you insane? The primary motivation of the whole 55 is the impact on PUBLIC SAFETY, not fuel efficiency.
The whole point is that if you choose to drive faster than the speed limit you are endangering the lives of others, who have no choice in the situation.
Totally different situations here. In fact, the situation is even further off, because everyone (from recording companies to the artists themselves) have already given to users the right to share.
They just didn't notice how easy it had become until Napster was 30 million strong. Too bad. Sharing is sharing. While it may be illegal for a company like Napster to profit off of the sharing of files by users, it is certainly no more illegal for me to email an mp3 to a friend than it was 10 years ago for me to make a tape of a new album.
Artists will simply have to figure out how to survive in the new media. The idea that all artists will starve is farsical at best. I think many will fail. Good Riddence. The ones who survive will be that much better.
I'm interested in seeing how long will it take to develop a black market in non-protected (read old) components to use to upgrade your existing PC's....can ebay supply those who refuse to be lambs led to the slaughter of fair-use??????
Slashdot Mirror
I recently purchased the new Ben Folds album, Songs for Silverman, and was delightfully surprised to find that the disc was dual sided. On one was the regular CD Audio stuff, and the other contained the album mastered in 5.1 Dolby DVD Audio. The second side also contained a great documentary done by Ben's wife on the making of the album with some live performances, again in 5.1 Surround.
This is one of the first times in a while that I purchased a new CD at full retail (normally I'm primarily a used CD buyer primarily). I have to say it was also one of the first times in a LONG while that I felt like I got a great value from a new album purchase. I know it had to cost a little more to produce the record than a normal CD release, but I loved the documentary and listening to the album in my home theatre REALLY rocks.
I sure hope this trend continues with more artists!
I'm not certain of this at all. IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that if I sell cars with radios in them, and it turns out that the radios I sold with my cars were stolen, I'm liable for the sale of stolen property. Claiming ignorance is not an excuse, as I am required to exercise due dilligence in sourcing of my components. Why should this be ANY different with Software?
;)
I understand that we're talking intellectual vs. physical property here, so the courts may not have set a precedent yet, but perhaps it's time to do so?
Bravo!
Although I applaud all efforts to raise awareness of the issue through our personal lives / interactions with people, if we really want to effect change we need to also act where we can have the largest concerted impact - in our professional jobs / roles. I beleive the truth of the matter is that this issue has a HUGE potential for widespread business impact if your company permits users to listen to music on their company computers (my firm does). Exert your influence in any way you can by rationally explaining the imapact of this software and plan for problem mitigation. If your users are anything like ours, you've probably already got a system or two infected on your network with this so-called 'software.'
From a business perspective, there is usually only one way ANY company can effectively learn about the seriousness of an issue: Revenue Risk. Either a competitor gets publicly impacted and management gets worried they will be also or perhaps the company directly starts to lose revenue or face government fines. I anticipate that getting consumers to change purchasing habits may take some time, but should Sony start being removed from authorized vendor agreements because of the actions of Sony BMG, I am fairly confident the parent group will take notice.
I'd like to echo on this point. I was literally amazed when I completed my first OpenBSD 3.5 install on an old Compaq Presario 1920 laptop. It recognized and configured my NetGear wireless pcmcia adapter and also a REALLY old linksys 10/100 ethernet card I had difficulties with even on previous Linux installations.
I was so impressed I took a plunge and attempted the 3.5 install on a new Averatec laptop with a built-in Intel wireless adapter. It properly detected and auto-configured the wireless adapter AND the crappy Realtek based 10/100 interface.
Really, I think MAJOR kudos should go out to the OpenBSD team for the 3.5 release. The latest failover utilities (carp and pfsynch) and driver support have really made it easier for me to setup and maintain WAPs on my ever-growing collection of used laptops. I've always been a bit paranoid about setting up wireless networks for friends and family but it's becoming much easier for me to do so with this latest release.
If you also consider the latest kernel support for the VPN Accelerator products from soekris (obligatory link - www.soekris.com) they've also come a LONG way to providing a platform for incredibly secure enterprise firewall and wireless access point systems. Given the cost of the soekris hardware (even their high end stuff) comes in at about HALF of what you'd pay for comparable cisco gear EVEN ON EBAY, I can't but help to throw some props their way.
Give the latest 3.5 release a shot. And order the CD if you like it. If for no other reason buy it for the HILARIOUS audio track of their Python-tribute. You'll piss yourself laughing...or at least I heard that some people did that....
Is it just me or does it seem a stretch that within the first couple of paragraphs the assumption is made that there is somehow a direct relation between the number of intrusions and the cost of those intrusions:
"If a vulnerability isfound by good guys and a fix is made available, then the number of intrusions--and hence the cost of intru-sions--resulting from that vulnerability is less than if it were discovered by bad guys"
While I'm not certain that there is NO relationship between the two, I'm certainly NOT comfortable positing such a blanket assessment.
Perhaps there is a relationship between the net economic cost and the number of intrusions, but it seems equally likely that it would be possible through full disclosure the marginal cost of each instrusion could be reduced; a possible seemingly left lightly treated at best in this essay.
I'm not so sure that this would work as well as you think. I am not as familiar with O'caml or SML, but if we're talking Java, it needs a VM to be loaded and running before any native code can execute. I haven't seen too many JVM's written in other languages besides C. Maybe some in assembly or something for the mobile J2EE platform, but it's definitely not the majority now.
If that truly is the case, then doesn't it mean that the languages introduce at least the same level of risk in the buffer vulnerabilities? And since the JVM would have to be loaded before any Java systems are, it would seem counterintuitive to code your security critical components in a language that can't be used until "supposedly" non-secure language systems have been?
I'm not extremely familiar with really low-level system programming yet (or the systems hacks on that level), so please correct me if I am wrong.
BJ Hoffpauir
How can anyone even bother to rate this as insightful?
Don't you read the Agreements you click through when you install your software? I must admit that I often skim through the provisions of the EULA's for most of the apps I install, but I've read a few. AFAIK, I have yet to see a software provider that makes ANY claims as to the ability of the software to perform any task at any time. Most EULA's, in fact, expressly attempt to shield the authors from any liability whatsoever.
Of course, the situation may be different when you're spending a few million or so on a custom SAP job, but as far as the average (even mid size) business is concerned, you are on your own.
The GPL, of course, is no exception. Read the "No Warranty Clause" of the GPL (similar clauses appear in other Open Licenses) which you can find at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/. It's pretty clear that all risks are beared by the user.
But don't think that it's just the Open Source developers. IANAL, but it would seem that any contract worth the paper it's printed on would try and get the developer out of as much liability as possible. For Microsoft's part, I haven't been able to dig up an online version of their recent EULA's for any of their products. Found a link at http://nl.linux.org/geldterug/license.html which shows the Win98 License, and wouldn't you be surprised to know they have a VERY SIMILAR CLAUSE. As far as I could tell, the only difference was that Microsoft will refund the cost of the software.
[sarcasm] Thanks. [/sarcasm]
The truth appears to be that all software vendors try to limit their liability just as every other product vendor does. It's a weird incentive built into the marketplace, since it appears that it's more economical to lobby for legislation like UCITA and it's cousins (which help shield software developers from some forms of legal liability) than it is to spend the money to develop software that really works.
I am not saying Open Source is right for every application. Clearly it has its strengths and weaknesses. But I whould never base any enterprise software decision on the "who am i gonna sue?" argument. Evaluate your apps on how well they solve your particular business needs.
bjh
If anything, this seems to be a point that is all too often overlooked in both corporate environments and my own instructional classes.
It's terribly unfortunate, since I've found this is also the best way I can explore new programming concepts. Design, Prototype, Code, Revise, Repeat...AS OFTEN AS POSSIBLE. I really wish I would have been taught this in my own curriculum, but it became apparant to me (and I assume many others) the more and more I used open software.
The same truism, I beleive, would apply to any development project, closed or open. I would, however, venture to say that the cycle is more effective the more developers you can involve in the process, since the revisions can happen at a faster rate. If there is anything that open source has taught me is that the process of developing open software can enable rapid evolution of projects and help both weed out the bugs or inefficiencies in applications and also stimulate the development of new extensions at an incredible pace.
If anything, I think this should be emphasized as not one, but perhaps THE MOST IMPORTANT aspect of managing development and / or implementation of open projects. Just my $.02, though. ;)
BJ Hoffpauir
Time Trend, Inc.
I found some interesting eclipse links via google:
http://www.alphaworks.ibm.com/tech/eclipse4ca d_id=8561#277820 054,00.html
http://www.new-age.nl/eclipse/main.php?res=Links
http://www.theserverside.com/home/thread.jsp?thre
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,243
You may be correct in the sense that if the article was written entirely in source code, it would perhaps be used by "hardly anybody." At the same time, I can never recall an article that described a new idea in computer programming that at least didn't reference source code. At least never one that I found particularly useful. And the best ones always include the code or link to it online IMHO
The bottom line that all programmers have to realize (and I think really do at their core) is that source code IS ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL to any kind of complete and holistic understanding of an application. At some point we all reach a point in our investigation of a particular application (should we venture to delve deep enough) where some element of source code would help communicate the idea and intent of the application most effectively.
Which to me, at least, means that source code must be considered speech. Access to it is essential to communcicating the true intended nature and function of an application.
To me, it seems that my personal experiences in which I have not access to the source code has prevented me from resolving problems that I am fairly certain could be resolved is a testament to this fact. I mean, what programmer hasn't run into a bug or odd behavior in an application or API provided proprietarily where they didn't think...."If only I knew EXACTLY how the code was supposed to work (or did operate) I might be better able to resolve this problem...".....then we called support and waited for a fix ; )
A language, by definition, has to be human readable, since we create them. If that language can be also read and interpreted or used by another one of humanity's creations, that CAN NOT make it any less of a language, and thus isn't expressions in that language speech?
BJ HoffpauirTime Trend, Inc.
www.timetrend.com
This is a horrible analogy. First of all, the First Sale doctrine DOES APPLY to recordings of Musical works - meaning when I buy a CD (admittedly it's a copy of a piece of art) I have the right to sell that CD to anyone whom I chose.
Hence used CD shops all around the world.
What's different about software is that you agree to the EULA before you open or install the software.
The real question is whether or not that EULA is even a valid agreement, since it attempts to nullify certain rights the courts have traditionally upheld, such as First Sale doctrine.
In a similar note, I remember reading about IBM getting into Anti-Trust trouble back in the 70's because they would NEVER sell their software or hardware. You HAD to lease it from them, meaning they never transferred ownership of anything to you.
Of course, from a corporate standpoint this makes perfect sense. Economically, a firm will always maximize profits if it only leases (either rights of use or whatever) it's products and services. My question is why no one ever thought to bring this up in the Microsoft case.
IBM was forced by the courts to sell products and software if they were also going to lease them. Of course, they continue to do both, but it's interesting that this was the focus of one of the most successful anti-trust cases in our nation's history, and yet somehow the DOJ missed it in the Microsoft Case.
Anyone have any ideas on how this doctrine has held up in the courts and how it might affect the future of Software as Services???
BJ Hoffpauir
Sr. Systems Architect
Time Trend, Inc.
www.timetrend.com
PS - I read about the IBM issue in "Proudly Serving My Corporate Masters" - a great book!!!
http://www.proudlyserving.com/
Geez.
:P
meta name="MSSmartTagsPreventParsing" content="TRUE"
add the opening & closing brackets. slashcode rejected the actual html meta tag.
BJ
Sorry for the delay. Here's the code:
This misses the point.
The truth of the matter is that the rights it affects are the rights of the publishers of the website.
I am a recent victim of Top Text. I am a systems architect for a VAR/distributor of IBM Products. We have several custom sites we have developed for contracts with State Governments for the purchase of IBM and other hardware.
One of the explicit requirements of several of these contracts is that there be NO LINKS TO EXTERNAL SITES, supposedly to prevent their users from downloading any infected programs or files. We can't even offer files for download on the site ourselves.
So, when IBM bought ads on Top Text to create those hideous yellow links to their own ecommerce site, they appeared on our own catalogs. Not only were they causing to break a contract worth MILLIONS of dollars, they were stealing business from us. Great way to treat a business partner, no?
Anyhow, we found an interesting solution that did NOT require the sending of email to Top Text. We added the meta tag MS provides to disable Smart Tag rendering. Bye-Bye Top Text links.
So, apparantly Top Text is lying. We never emailed them, all we did was add the meta tags to all of our pages, and those nasty yellow links disappeared. Apparantly, the plug-in is using the Smart Tag SDK or something, and you can easily disable it.
Still Sucks, Though !!!!!
BJ Hoffpauir
Systems Architect
Time Trend, Inc.
www.timetrend.com
Actually, it depends.....
On IE, it's an ActiveX control (and so is flash) on NN, it's using both C & Java....at least on the Linux Platform...not sure about others...anyone care to comment?
Relevant code and more details at http://www.macromedia.com/support/flash/ts/documen ts/linux_player_readme.htm
Shockwave is a little different (of course), and from all that I can tell from the FAQ on shockwave.com (http://www.shockwave.com/bin/shockwave/entry.jsp? page=/help/faq_swplayer.html&skip=detection)
there's no unix version....on my win2k box now, so can't test....any other experiences to share?
I am assuming that Macromedia followed a similar design philosophy with Shockwave as they did with Flash -- that is, they wrote the plug-in using the best tools for the job, and let's face it, ActiveX is the way to write plug-ins for IE. Of course, you have to re-write the code for other browsers / platforms, but that's a whole other debate, I suppose.
NO SIGS ALLOWED
It's easy - Ban contributions from corporations. People can donate their own personal fortunes or lack thereof to those who will represent their interests. You know it makes no sense to me why corps are allowed to contribute. Some may say they have an interest since they are legal entities, but the problem inevitably arises that their interests conflict with those of the general public. Since people were around BEFORE the development of corporations, and ultimately, people are essential to the success of these corps, then they should ALWAYS have the benefit of having the government protect their interests first. I've always wondered why corporate interests are so afraid of this tactic. Ultimately, they could convince their employees / shareholders / partners to lobby on their behalf. I think this would in fact probably be the best situation. Any comments??? - BJ
Are you insane? The primary motivation of the whole 55 is the impact on PUBLIC SAFETY, not fuel efficiency. The whole point is that if you choose to drive faster than the speed limit you are endangering the lives of others, who have no choice in the situation. Totally different situations here. In fact, the situation is even further off, because everyone (from recording companies to the artists themselves) have already given to users the right to share. They just didn't notice how easy it had become until Napster was 30 million strong. Too bad. Sharing is sharing. While it may be illegal for a company like Napster to profit off of the sharing of files by users, it is certainly no more illegal for me to email an mp3 to a friend than it was 10 years ago for me to make a tape of a new album. Artists will simply have to figure out how to survive in the new media. The idea that all artists will starve is farsical at best. I think many will fail. Good Riddence. The ones who survive will be that much better.
I'm interested in seeing how long will it take to develop a black market in non-protected (read old) components to use to upgrade your existing PC's....can ebay supply those who refuse to be lambs led to the slaughter of fair-use??????