Skimed through the text of the link and I can't help but wonder when, if ever, legislatures are going to realize they don't have the technical expertiese to understand, predict, nor control issues such as these?
These issues exist in all modern contries, AU just happens to of reached the extreme first. I soon forsee a world 10 years from now when AU is the land of the Amish, as all advanced technology has been baned since the lawmakers didn't understand what it was.
Are we doomed to tighter legislation on computers and computing until 'Generation X' finally passes a few of it's members into office? Can somone teach the congress about these issues? Frankly, how to we stop this in AU and prevent this from happening elsewhere?
Unfortuatly, that's not exactly true. When I was consulting to the IT department of a steelworking company, we would order Win98 machines (as 98 was the only OS our supplier would ship) and then whipe and install Win95. The reason behind it was the version of CA-OpenIngres we were using, along with a custom written app, wouldn't run correctly on Win98. Everything was going fine until some third party bitch was asked to audit our office site license. Apparently, according to the auditors, we were violating license agreement by transfering Win98 licenses to Win95 installations.
The resulting payout the company was forced to do for licenses cost me and a few other contractors our jobs. The budget could no longer afford us. Several other projects got scrapped. Big pain in the arse.
So, according to licenses, you are forced to upgrade. Thought I'd give you a heads up of potential problems you could run into if this is a buisness you are installing the old software on.
--Demonspawn
Kant speel, don't kare.
3D from a 2D surface? Don't work for me
on
Review of a 3D LCD
·
· Score: 1
Unfortunatly I, along with every male member of my family, have a genetic defect of one eye being nearsighted and the other farsighted (and an alergy to sunlight, but that's a different subject). I've tried glasses, headgear, even the old optic based video coin-ops. Any 2D surface that tries to trick my eyes into 3D leaves me with a splitting headache in 10 seconds flat. When we get to the technology of projecting a 3D image into a smoke screen cube or something more along those lines I'll be able to cheer. Until then I'm left wondering what it must be like to play quake with these things
My appologies for the double post. I should of hit the preview button. Here it is with HTML breaks coded in:
I've thought about this subject quite a bit lately, and the one thought that just can't slip past my mind is this:
How do we define, exactly, fair use for IP?
The real question is where do we draw the line. I will cover music, as music is most revelent to the Napster discussion. Truth be told at this point, I don't have an view on Napster yet, although I think I might by the time this is done.
Everyone here can agree on the two extremes: 1. Copying music onto new CD's and selling them on the street corners is wrong. 2. Listening to music by yourself in your own home using a player the recording company approved is ok. If we stretch downward from point one, most of us can agree that selling the CD's online, or even passing out free physical CD's is not ok either. I would go to say that 99% of us here would agree that actively distrubuting someone else's IP in any form (phsical media or digital), for pay or free, wholy intact is wrong. I guess the big question here is do whole songs constute enough to be a violation? I will pause there and give you a moment to think about it while I make a few more comments on the other end of the spectrum.
Notice that I mentioned 1. alone 2. in your own house, and 3. on an approved player under the 'ok' catagory. Why? if you remove any one of the three, some people will disagree with the 'ok-ness' of the action. An approved player is a large portion of this argument. Theroretically, I could use DeCSS to rip movies to my hard drive or MP3 to rip audio and simply listen to the tracks or watch the movies by myself at home. (Before anyone scoffs, I have an impressive MP3 collection of all the CD's I own that isn't shared with anyone.) The problem with this is the RIAA will bitch about 'potential infringement' that I could incur. I think it's a bunch of bullcrap, but it is the way society is allowing itself to be lead. On to the next point, not listening to a CD at home is, technically, illegal. If an artist wanted to get nit-picky, Lars could bust somone crusing down the freeway with the windows down and "Sandman" blasting for unlicensed public performance. Yes, IANAL, but think about that and any movie-and-food parties you had at school. Again, the teachers could of technically been busted, but charges are almost never pressed. Lastly, you must listen by yourself. The reason behind this is YOU have purcased the CD, not your wife, not your brother, and not your friend. While I'm sure fair use entitles you to loan the CD to them (not for long, however, I'm sure the RIAA will go after that next), we can't say for ceritian that it allows anyone other than one person to use it at once. If it does, where is the line drawn? Can you and your family listen? Can your 10 person get together listen? Can your 100 person wild party listen? Can your 1000 person rave listen? That line is a whole other long covluted post from yours truely.
Summing that up, we have a WORLD of Grey area inbetween the two endpoints. Napster falls solidly within those bounds. So if you choose (as your post would seem to imply) that anything within the grey area is bad, remember this post next time you're at a party and they play a CD you don't own you wicked nasty person you.
Ugh... I was about to start talking about resale of used CD's, and then expand that into the question of "can I resale one track off of this CD?" but I realized whole books can and probally have been writen about this subject. And when you find that book, remember not to Xerox it, ok?
Anyways guys, the reason I went so extreme on the 'ok' end is because I want you all to do one thing: learn what your rights are. That way you're more pissed when they are taken away.
I've thought about this subject quite a bit lately, and the one thought that just can't slip past my mind is this:
How do we define, exactly, fair use for IP?
The real question is where do we draw the line. I will cover music, as music is most revelent to the Napster discussion. Truth be told at this point, I don't have an view on Napster yet, although I think I might by the time this is done.
Everyone here can agree on the two extremes: 1. Copying music onto new CD's and selling them on the street corners is wrong. 2. Listening to music by yourself in your own home using a player the recording company approved is ok. If we stretch downward from point one, most of us can agree that selling the CD's online, or even passing out free physical CD's is not ok either. I would go to say that 99% of us here would agree that actively distrubuting someone else's IP in any form (phsical media or digital), for pay or free, wholy intact is wrong. I guess the big question here is do whole songs constute enough to be a violation? I will pause there and give you a moment to think about it while I make a few more comments on the other end of the spectrum.
Notice that I mentioned 1. alone 2. in your own house, and 3. on an approved player under the 'ok' catagory. Why? if you remove any one of the three, some people will disagree with the 'ok-ness' of the action. An approved player is a large portion of this argument. Theroretically, I could use DeCSS to rip movies to my hard drive or MP3 to rip audio and simply listen to the tracks or watch the movies by myself at home. (Before anyone scoffs, I have an impressive MP3 collection of all the CD's I own that isn't shared with anyone.) The problem with this is the RIAA will bitch about 'potential infringement' that I could incur. I think it's a bunch of bullcrap, but it is the way society is allowing itself to be lead. On to the next point, not listening to a CD at home is, technically, illegal. If an artist wanted to get nit-picky, Lars could bust somone crusing down the freeway with the windows down and "Sandman" blasting for unlicensed public performance. Yes, IANAL, but think about that and any movie-and-food parties you had at school. Again, the teachers could of technically been busted, but charges are almost never pressed. Lastly, you must listen by yourself. The reason behind this is YOU have purcased the CD, not your wife, not your brother, and not your friend. While I'm sure fair use entitles you to loan the CD to them (not for long, however, I'm sure the RIAA will go after that next), we can't say for ceritian that it allows anyone other than one person to use it at once. If it does, where is the line drawn? Can you and your family listen? Can your 10 person get together listen? Can your 100 person wild party listen? Can your 1000 person rave listen? That line is a whole other long covluted post from yours truely.
Summing that up, we have a WORLD of Grey area inbetween the two endpoints. Napster falls solidly within those bounds. So if you choose (as your post would seem to imply) that anything within the grey area is bad, remember this post next time you're at a party and they play a CD you don't own you wicked nasty person you.
Ugh... I was about to start talking about resale of used CD's, and then expand that into the question of "can I resale one track off of this CD?" but I realized whole books can and probally have been writen about this subject. And when you find that book, remember not to Xerox it, ok?
Anyways guys, the reason I went so extreme on the 'ok' end is because I want you all to do one thing: learn what your rights are. That way you're more pissed when they are taken away.
--Demonspawn
Kant speel, don't care.
Not a Lawyer here, but if I remember correctly, Michigan has a State law that madates a 3 day return pollicy. Any purchace (even the purchace of a two million dollar house) can be returned within 3 days and has to be accepted.
If someone who is lawyer in Michigan can confirm/deny this, I'd appriciate it greatly.
Ok, no. I want to say much more than that one word. I went and had a smoke and rubbed the living hell out of the excema inbetween my two small toes in my right foot and thought about this for a bit. (7 year cycle, 4 down, 3 to go.. damnit)
I believe in an open source world. Before the advent of mainstream computers, there was little you could buy that you couldn't figure out entirely. I am a long time hack. I've rebuilt engines, modified eletric toys, fixed TV sets, even built transistor radios. Before the closed-source world, if you wanted to figure it out, you could. It was possible to get schematics for the TV set you had or buy a $50 book with the part listings and diagrams of your car's engine. To do the same today and figure out how NT works you have to hand over $20k and sign an NDA. Mabye I'm a freak but it just dosn't seem right.
The other huge advantage of a open-source world is the endless user customization. Perhaps I want to modify my cellphone to play a midi file to ring that the manufacturer didn't think to include. Perhaps I want to remove the 150 kph top speed my S-10 has programed into it. Perhaps I can modify my scaner to turn off the bulb after 15 minutes of idle time even if the PC it is hooked to dosn't tell it to. Perhaps I want to do any number of things with something I own that just wasn't included when it was made. Can you understand the satisfaction I could get out of that? Can you understand knowing that buying a $20-50 book on your device would enable you to reconfigure it to your heart's exact desires? Can you understand the power that gives end users, why still guarenteeing interactivity because the software/hardware is bulit upon standards? Can you imagine this world, and understand why I would perfer it? It makes me sad to think that world existed not long before I was born, but has dissapeared since.
So I'm now answering your question in a more general form than it was asked, but I hope that you can see what I'm getting at. People (like me, at least) are sick of shrink wrap licenses and 'don't touch the insides' rules. We want to hack the planet and know what is going on underneath the hood. We want to take something we bought, with our own money, and customize it and use it however we want. We are sick of the corporate imposed standards and inclusions that prevent us from using what is ours!
Heh... I was about to flame you until I realized you have posted a carefully constructed satire.
For anyone who doesn't get it, I'll go paragraph by paragraph starting with 'if we can simply':
0. The UK, Australia, and Canada have shown that baning all firearms does not reduce firearm-related crime. In fact, it increases it.
1. Criminals already make firearms and buy them through black markets.
2.a. Areas within the US that have higher percentages of legal gun owners and Carry Consealed Weapon permits have lower crime and murder rates.
2.b. It is imposible to reason with an attacker/home invader. Scaring them off with deadly force is the most effective way.
2.c. The police are not required to respond to any 911 call. You can not force the police to show up, nor sue them for failing to show up.
3. this madness would not of occured if guns were illegal. I have to laugh at this one. If you read the story and know anything about firearm laws, you already know that AK-47s are illegal in the United States. The attacker also did not legally aquire the weapons used in his attack. Simply, the weapons he used were already illegal.
(I want to expand on #3. If you search the firearm attacks from 1999, you will find that only one attack (from GA) used a legal firearm. Coincidentally, there were no fatalities.)
As far as the rest of the thread, can any one define Vaporware?
Can YOU point to ANY serial rapist that DID NOT fuel their desires with pornography??
-------------
You are confusing cause and effect. The porn did not cause the person to be a rapist. The rapist pursued the porn.
I would go so far to say that the availability of porn sedated the rapist to some degre that the rapist didn't partake in as many victims as if (he) didn't have porn available.
--Demonspawn
Sometimes even mindless rants need to be corrected. Perhaps they can alter their estranged thinkings. Perhaps not.
I'm sorry, but I just don't buy into their 'stuidies.' Most of the kids I grew up with saw porn at one time or another, none of them grew up to be rapists or murderers.
Could you point me to some of these studies? I'd like either a good laugh or some somber reading, whichever they turn out to be.
--Demonspawn
Define 'inapproprite' please.
If you don't get the idea of this post, then you shouldn't be avocating for censorware. If you do, then you know why it shouldn't be advocated.
--Demonspawn
Slashdot Mirror
Skimed through the text of the link and I can't help but wonder when, if ever, legislatures are going to realize they don't have the technical expertiese to understand, predict, nor control issues such as these?
These issues exist in all modern contries, AU just happens to of reached the extreme first. I soon forsee a world 10 years from now when AU is the land of the Amish, as all advanced technology has been baned since the lawmakers didn't understand what it was.
Are we doomed to tighter legislation on computers and computing until 'Generation X' finally passes a few of it's members into office? Can somone teach the congress about these issues? Frankly, how to we stop this in AU and prevent this from happening elsewhere?
--Demonspawn
Unfortuatly, that's not exactly true. When I was consulting to the IT department of a steelworking company, we would order Win98 machines (as 98 was the only OS our supplier would ship) and then whipe and install Win95. The reason behind it was the version of CA-OpenIngres we were using, along with a custom written app, wouldn't run correctly on Win98. Everything was going fine until some third party bitch was asked to audit our office site license. Apparently, according to the auditors, we were violating license agreement by transfering Win98 licenses to Win95 installations.
The resulting payout the company was forced to do for licenses cost me and a few other contractors our jobs. The budget could no longer afford us. Several other projects got scrapped. Big pain in the arse.
So, according to licenses, you are forced to upgrade. Thought I'd give you a heads up of potential problems you could run into if this is a buisness you are installing the old software on.
--Demonspawn
Kant speel, don't kare.
Unfortunatly I, along with every male member of my family, have a genetic defect of one eye being nearsighted and the other farsighted (and an alergy to sunlight, but that's a different subject). I've tried glasses, headgear, even the old optic based video coin-ops. Any 2D surface that tries to trick my eyes into 3D leaves me with a splitting headache in 10 seconds flat. When we get to the technology of projecting a 3D image into a smoke screen cube or something more along those lines I'll be able to cheer. Until then I'm left wondering what it must be like to play quake with these things
--Demonspawn
Kant speel, don't kare.
My appologies for the double post. I should of hit the preview button. Here it is with HTML breaks coded in:
I've thought about this subject quite a bit lately, and the one thought that just can't slip past my mind is this:
How do we define, exactly, fair use for IP?
The real question is where do we draw the line. I will cover music, as music is most revelent to the Napster discussion. Truth be told at this point, I don't have an view on Napster yet, although I think I might by the time this is done.
Everyone here can agree on the two extremes: 1. Copying music onto new CD's and selling them on the street corners is wrong. 2. Listening to music by yourself in your own home using a player the recording company approved is ok. If we stretch downward from point one, most of us can agree that selling the CD's online, or even passing out free physical CD's is not ok either. I would go to say that 99% of us here would agree that actively distrubuting someone else's IP in any form (phsical media or digital), for pay or free, wholy intact is wrong. I guess the big question here is do whole songs constute enough to be a violation? I will pause there and give you a moment to think about it while I make a few more comments on the other end of the spectrum.
Notice that I mentioned 1. alone 2. in your own house, and 3. on an approved player under the 'ok' catagory. Why? if you remove any one of the three, some people will disagree with the 'ok-ness' of the action. An approved player is a large portion of this argument. Theroretically, I could use DeCSS to rip movies to my hard drive or MP3 to rip audio and simply listen to the tracks or watch the movies by myself at home. (Before anyone scoffs, I have an impressive MP3 collection of all the CD's I own that isn't shared with anyone.) The problem with this is the RIAA will bitch about 'potential infringement' that I could incur. I think it's a bunch of bullcrap, but it is the way society is allowing itself to be lead. On to the next point, not listening to a CD at home is, technically, illegal. If an artist wanted to get nit-picky, Lars could bust somone crusing down the freeway with the windows down and "Sandman" blasting for unlicensed public performance. Yes, IANAL, but think about that and any movie-and-food parties you had at school. Again, the teachers could of technically been busted, but charges are almost never pressed. Lastly, you must listen by yourself. The reason behind this is YOU have purcased the CD, not your wife, not your brother, and not your friend. While I'm sure fair use entitles you to loan the CD to them (not for long, however, I'm sure the RIAA will go after that next), we can't say for ceritian that it allows anyone other than one person to use it at once. If it does, where is the line drawn? Can you and your family listen? Can your 10 person get together listen? Can your 100 person wild party listen? Can your 1000 person rave listen? That line is a whole other long covluted post from yours truely.
Summing that up, we have a WORLD of Grey area inbetween the two endpoints. Napster falls solidly within those bounds. So if you choose (as your post would seem to imply) that anything within the grey area is bad, remember this post next time you're at a party and they play a CD you don't own you wicked nasty person you.
Ugh... I was about to start talking about resale of used CD's, and then expand that into the question of "can I resale one track off of this CD?" but I realized whole books can and probally have been writen about this subject. And when you find that book, remember not to Xerox it, ok?
Anyways guys, the reason I went so extreme on the 'ok' end is because I want you all to do one thing: learn what your rights are. That way you're more pissed when they are taken away.
--Demonspawn
Kant speel, don't care.
I've thought about this subject quite a bit lately, and the one thought that just can't slip past my mind is this: How do we define, exactly, fair use for IP? The real question is where do we draw the line. I will cover music, as music is most revelent to the Napster discussion. Truth be told at this point, I don't have an view on Napster yet, although I think I might by the time this is done. Everyone here can agree on the two extremes: 1. Copying music onto new CD's and selling them on the street corners is wrong. 2. Listening to music by yourself in your own home using a player the recording company approved is ok. If we stretch downward from point one, most of us can agree that selling the CD's online, or even passing out free physical CD's is not ok either. I would go to say that 99% of us here would agree that actively distrubuting someone else's IP in any form (phsical media or digital), for pay or free, wholy intact is wrong. I guess the big question here is do whole songs constute enough to be a violation? I will pause there and give you a moment to think about it while I make a few more comments on the other end of the spectrum. Notice that I mentioned 1. alone 2. in your own house, and 3. on an approved player under the 'ok' catagory. Why? if you remove any one of the three, some people will disagree with the 'ok-ness' of the action. An approved player is a large portion of this argument. Theroretically, I could use DeCSS to rip movies to my hard drive or MP3 to rip audio and simply listen to the tracks or watch the movies by myself at home. (Before anyone scoffs, I have an impressive MP3 collection of all the CD's I own that isn't shared with anyone.) The problem with this is the RIAA will bitch about 'potential infringement' that I could incur. I think it's a bunch of bullcrap, but it is the way society is allowing itself to be lead. On to the next point, not listening to a CD at home is, technically, illegal. If an artist wanted to get nit-picky, Lars could bust somone crusing down the freeway with the windows down and "Sandman" blasting for unlicensed public performance. Yes, IANAL, but think about that and any movie-and-food parties you had at school. Again, the teachers could of technically been busted, but charges are almost never pressed. Lastly, you must listen by yourself. The reason behind this is YOU have purcased the CD, not your wife, not your brother, and not your friend. While I'm sure fair use entitles you to loan the CD to them (not for long, however, I'm sure the RIAA will go after that next), we can't say for ceritian that it allows anyone other than one person to use it at once. If it does, where is the line drawn? Can you and your family listen? Can your 10 person get together listen? Can your 100 person wild party listen? Can your 1000 person rave listen? That line is a whole other long covluted post from yours truely. Summing that up, we have a WORLD of Grey area inbetween the two endpoints. Napster falls solidly within those bounds. So if you choose (as your post would seem to imply) that anything within the grey area is bad, remember this post next time you're at a party and they play a CD you don't own you wicked nasty person you. Ugh... I was about to start talking about resale of used CD's, and then expand that into the question of "can I resale one track off of this CD?" but I realized whole books can and probally have been writen about this subject. And when you find that book, remember not to Xerox it, ok? Anyways guys, the reason I went so extreme on the 'ok' end is because I want you all to do one thing: learn what your rights are. That way you're more pissed when they are taken away. --Demonspawn Kant speel, don't care.
A friend sent me an E-mail on exatly that not to long ago. Unfortunatly, I've already deleted it. I did, however, save this link:
/ 1/31/18749/1930
http://www.kuro5hin.org/?op=displaystory;sid=2001
Hopefully this is something similar to what you are looking for.
--Demonspawn
Not a Lawyer here, but if I remember correctly, Michigan has a State law that madates a 3 day return pollicy. Any purchace (even the purchace of a two million dollar house) can be returned within 3 days and has to be accepted.
If someone who is lawyer in Michigan can confirm/deny this, I'd appriciate it greatly.
--Demonspawn
Kant spell, don't care.
Ok, no. I want to say much more than that one word. I went and had a smoke and rubbed the living hell out of the excema inbetween my two small toes in my right foot and thought about this for a bit. (7 year cycle, 4 down, 3 to go.. damnit)
I believe in an open source world. Before the advent of mainstream computers, there was little you could buy that you couldn't figure out entirely. I am a long time hack. I've rebuilt engines, modified eletric toys, fixed TV sets, even built transistor radios. Before the closed-source world, if you wanted to figure it out, you could. It was possible to get schematics for the TV set you had or buy a $50 book with the part listings and diagrams of your car's engine. To do the same today and figure out how NT works you have to hand over $20k and sign an NDA. Mabye I'm a freak but it just dosn't seem right.
The other huge advantage of a open-source world is the endless user customization. Perhaps I want to modify my cellphone to play a midi file to ring that the manufacturer didn't think to include. Perhaps I want to remove the 150 kph top speed my S-10 has programed into it. Perhaps I can modify my scaner to turn off the bulb after 15 minutes of idle time even if the PC it is hooked to dosn't tell it to. Perhaps I want to do any number of things with something I own that just wasn't included when it was made. Can you understand the satisfaction I could get out of that? Can you understand knowing that buying a $20-50 book on your device would enable you to reconfigure it to your heart's exact desires? Can you understand the power that gives end users, why still guarenteeing interactivity because the software/hardware is bulit upon standards? Can you imagine this world, and understand why I would perfer it? It makes me sad to think that world existed not long before I was born, but has dissapeared since.
So I'm now answering your question in a more general form than it was asked, but I hope that you can see what I'm getting at. People (like me, at least) are sick of shrink wrap licenses and 'don't touch the insides' rules. We want to hack the planet and know what is going on underneath the hood. We want to take something we bought, with our own money, and customize it and use it however we want. We are sick of the corporate imposed standards and inclusions that prevent us from using what is ours!
Mabye I'm just insane.
--Demonspawn
Heh... I was about to flame you until I realized you have posted a carefully constructed satire.
For anyone who doesn't get it, I'll go paragraph by paragraph starting with 'if we can simply':
0. The UK, Australia, and Canada have shown that baning all firearms does not reduce firearm-related crime. In fact, it increases it.
1. Criminals already make firearms and buy them through black markets.
2.a. Areas within the US that have higher percentages of legal gun owners and Carry Consealed Weapon permits have lower crime and murder rates.
2.b. It is imposible to reason with an attacker/home invader. Scaring them off with deadly force is the most effective way.
2.c. The police are not required to respond to any 911 call. You can not force the police to show up, nor sue them for failing to show up.
3. this madness would not of occured if guns were illegal. I have to laugh at this one. If you read the story and know anything about firearm laws, you already know that AK-47s are illegal in the United States. The attacker also did not legally aquire the weapons used in his attack. Simply, the weapons he used were already illegal.
(I want to expand on #3. If you search the firearm attacks from 1999, you will find that only one attack (from GA) used a legal firearm. Coincidentally, there were no fatalities.)
As far as the rest of the thread, can any one define Vaporware?
--Demonspawn
Some AC not worth mentioning posted:
...
-------------
Oh Puh-lease
Can YOU point to ANY serial rapist that DID NOT fuel their desires with pornography??
-------------
You are confusing cause and effect. The porn did not cause the person to be a rapist. The rapist pursued the porn.
I would go so far to say that the availability of porn sedated the rapist to some degre that the rapist didn't partake in as many victims as if (he) didn't have porn available.
--Demonspawn
Sometimes even mindless rants need to be corrected. Perhaps they can alter their estranged thinkings. Perhaps not.
I'm sorry, but I just don't buy into their 'stuidies.' Most of the kids I grew up with saw porn at one time or another, none of them grew up to be rapists or murderers. Could you point me to some of these studies? I'd like either a good laugh or some somber reading, whichever they turn out to be. --Demonspawn
Define 'inapproprite' please. If you don't get the idea of this post, then you shouldn't be avocating for censorware. If you do, then you know why it shouldn't be advocated. --Demonspawn