.. including what THEY call copyright protection have EVERYTHING to do with their business models. The fact that Jaboulet didn't say as much either means he's an idiot or paid quite well. You choose.
Apparent personal slurs apart, I am interested not in intentions but rather results.
How are Microsoft's "intentions" not relevant? By and large, all of Microsoft's attempts to lock the user into proprietary formats and protocols has been *intentional* and, I might add, fairly effective (see also Kerberos and CIFS)
There have been numerous reports that contradict your position.
Will the "save as XML" be default or not? You did not address this point.
You also claim that the XML-file format is protected by NDA. I have no idea how you can possibly claim that, or even think its possible. XML is plain text. Plain text. Its composed of plain, non-binary, ASCII or UNICODE text. Anyone with a text editor can open the document, anaylze the structure, and begin working with it. Are they suddenly going to make everyone with a text editor sign an NDA? Really, please explain your simply baffling claim.
Not sure what you are getting at. Whether something is in "plain ASCII/UNICODE text" or not has no bearing on anything regarding NDAs, patents, copyrights, trademarks, or any other type of restrictive IP I am aware of. Just because I am ABLE to reverse-engineer a format (it being ASCII only simplifying the task) does not make it legal for me to do so if I have signed an NDA.
Dismissing my claim as "simply baffling" certainly does not make *your* point any less coherent.
I know you think you are/.'s head iconoclast, but you know as well anyone that MS has NO interest in encouranging crossplatform compatibility in ANY document formats, outside of enough lipservice to fill out the RFP acronym checklist of the day. The *default* save format (i.e. the one that 99% of the user base will use), while possibly being XML based, will no doubt be encumbered by very onerous NDA and licensing restrictions.
Word had the capablity of saving as.txt from day one, and nobody uses it.
Exporting.html from Word is also an option rarely used, and when it IS used, horribly broken, unreadable.html is invariably the result.
Portable, open, unlicenced "save as xml" will no doubt be an option, but one that NO Office user will use, either out of ignorance, or out of frustration that the output is either hopelessly munged/unreadable, or simply isn't representative of the actual document's formatting.
Why don't they sue Microsoft, they sell things online
If you mean "why doesn't PanIP sue MS?", you answered your own question with the statement "I bet Microsoft can easily win".
I don't know why these e-merchants don't challenge the patients
Not sure which patients you are referring too. Perhaps you mean "Patents", in which case you really should have read the article, which clearly states that the chocolate company is challenging the patents.
or who the judge or jury thats letting them win.
See also the meaning of "out of court" in the phrase "out of court settlement".
You must have missed the spot where 1) the intro references the yro article you mention and 2) the key part of this particular/. article is the linked mainstream news article.
That's the great thing about this business model; you never have to go in front of a judge. It's free money, low risk, no need for engineers or technical support, just a small team of lawyers sending extortion demands.
Freedom to restrict freedom is not a freedom.
on
Freenet 0.5 Released
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The GPL is there to prevent OTHERS from restricting my freedoms to access my own code.
If I publish my code under the BSDL, companies can use my code in their own products, then PREVENT ME from giving a copy of their product to other people.
Copyrights are a deliberate restriction on freedom; the GPL is simply a license that defangs that restriction.
fortunately for WWI, the government stepped in. Without patent protection, the airplane industry innovated like NO OTHER industry in history within a span of 10 years.
2) The revolver
Colt's patent completely killed all pistol innovation for the period of his patent. All improvements to his design were squashed. The revolver remained unchanged until the patent expired
If you care to look, history is very clear on this. Patents may cause a single spurt of innovation, but ALL innovation on a given invention ceases from the time the patent is given until the time it expires. This is an intentional side effect of patent law.
\Theft\, n. [OE. thefte, AS. [thorn]i['e]f[eth]e, [thorn][=y]f[eth]e, [thorn]e['o]f[eth]e. See Thief.]
1. (Law) The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious taking and removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same; larceny.
Note: To constitute theft there must be a taking without the owner's consent, and it must be unlawful or felonious; every part of the property stolen must be removed, however slightly, from its former position ; and it must be, at least momentarily, in the complete possession of the thief. See Larceny, and the Note under Robbery.
... so being that those properties are a secondary effect compared to temperature, why is "at sea level" stressed more than "at X degrees C", or is that just my perception?
The proposed settlement would REQUIRE them to monitor. If they decide that *as a part* of their business model, they would like to monitor viewers habits, they can do so. They can make it voluntary. They can make it opt in. Then can make it opt out. The point is, the government should not be the one telling them what their business model should be.
.. because you are obviously very young and VERY naive.
As others posted, the Baby Bells were GRANTED monopolies. The huge opportunity is already there.. allow others to give you broadband over land lines. DSL/Cable is expensive because each carrier has a defacto GOVERNMENT enforced monopoly.
If you copy Hemingway and sell it, you are depriving Hemingway of revenue if and only if the people who bought your copy would have bought the original instead, had yours been unavailable.
People have already pointed you to the FAQ, but I figured I would paste this link of one of the worst thread bitchslappings.
Even better, this thread is now locked so you can no longer post to it.
There were MANY insightful comments in that thread, but the editors chose to -1 all of it anyway, in effect "revising" history; their excuse being that the thread was "offtopic". Interesting isn't it? Some of the *best* discussions on/. are offtopic, and many completely offtopic posts get rated 5's regularly. Why? Because we, as readers, find some offtopic posts interesting and informative. Whether an entire thread is offtopic or not is up to us./.'s moderating goals should be to simply clear obvious abuses and hacking attempts, not to derail an entire thread out of spite.
The reason *that* particular thread was bitchslapped is abundantly clear. Go read it for yourself, and decide.
And if *THIS* post is deemed offtopic by the editors, you can bet on me losing whatever respect I had left for/.
Sure, bitchslapping isn't OUTRIGHT censorship, but enough people assume (like the parent poster) that the editors don't mod on such a virulent, malicious scale that in effect, a -1 is almost as bad as real censorship, given the number of us that *DEPEND* on the readership's judgement on what is a good post and what isn't. If what/. does isn't at least double-think (and not outright censorship), it is, at best, very misleading and disengenous.
Try visiting this dungeon and campaign there for a bit. I guarantee even the most uber pure KarmaWhore class will get owned there. I post there when I get tired of my 50 karma cap.
I would favor no more legislation at all. My question is, why do they feel they MUST legislate? We have copyright laws. There are MANY problems with them, but none of them have anything to do with piracy. The only ones whining about piracy are shills like Rosen and Valenti.
Why are you letting THEM set the agenda? We should be passing laws that protect CITIZENS.
Slashdot Mirror
as a professional bank robber, i refuse to let laws dictate how _I_ feed my family.
.. including what THEY call copyright protection have EVERYTHING to do with their business models. The fact that Jaboulet didn't say as much either means he's an idiot or paid quite well. You choose.
infighting, bashing, selfish, attention-grabbing individuals
You've never worked on a large, *closed source*, commercial, proprietary software project before have you?
"It's not about morality and no one ever claimed it was."
OH silly me. So when Bush says "evil", he is using the ALTERNATE definition of "not currently aligned with our short term geopolitical interests."
"Get over it"
Thank you for your comforting words, my ire is already fading!
Apparent personal slurs apart, I am interested not in intentions but rather results.
How are Microsoft's "intentions" not relevant? By and large, all of Microsoft's attempts to lock the user into proprietary formats and protocols has been *intentional* and, I might add, fairly effective (see also Kerberos and CIFS)
There have been numerous reports that contradict your position.
Will the "save as XML" be default or not? You did not address this point.
You also claim that the XML-file format is protected by NDA. I have no idea how you can possibly claim that, or even think its possible. XML is plain text. Plain text. Its composed of plain, non-binary, ASCII or UNICODE text. Anyone with a text editor can open the document, anaylze the structure, and begin working with it. Are they suddenly going to make everyone with a text editor sign an NDA? Really, please explain your simply baffling claim.
Not sure what you are getting at. Whether something is in "plain ASCII/UNICODE text" or not has no bearing on anything regarding NDAs, patents, copyrights, trademarks, or any other type of restrictive IP I am aware of. Just because I am ABLE to reverse-engineer a format (it being ASCII only simplifying the task) does not make it legal for me to do so if I have signed an NDA.
Dismissing my claim as "simply baffling" certainly does not make *your* point any less coherent.
I know you think you are /.'s head iconoclast, but you know as well anyone that MS has NO interest in encouranging crossplatform compatibility in ANY document formats, outside of enough lipservice to fill out the RFP acronym checklist of the day. The *default* save format (i.e. the one that 99% of the user base will use), while possibly being XML based, will no doubt be encumbered by very onerous NDA and licensing restrictions.
.txt from day one, and nobody uses it.
.html from Word is also an option rarely used, and when it IS used, horribly broken, unreadable .html is invariably the result.
Word had the capablity of saving as
Exporting
Portable, open, unlicenced "save as xml" will no doubt be an option, but one that NO Office user will use, either out of ignorance, or out of frustration that the output is either hopelessly munged/unreadable, or simply isn't representative of the actual document's formatting.
Why don't they sue Microsoft, they sell things online
If you mean "why doesn't PanIP sue MS?", you answered your own question with the statement "I bet Microsoft can easily win".
I don't know why these e-merchants don't challenge the patients
Not sure which patients you are referring too. Perhaps you mean "Patents", in which case you really should have read the article, which clearly states that the chocolate company is challenging the patents.
or who the judge or jury thats letting them win.
See also the meaning of "out of court" in the phrase "out of court settlement".
You must have missed the spot where 1) the intro references the yro article you mention and 2) the key part of this particular /. article is the linked mainstream news article.
That's the great thing about this business model; you never have to go in front of a judge. It's free money, low risk, no need for engineers or technical support, just a small team of lawyers sending extortion demands.
The cpu slot is VERY finicky.
The GPL is there to prevent OTHERS from restricting my freedoms to access my own code.
If I publish my code under the BSDL, companies can use my code in their own products, then PREVENT ME from giving a copy of their product to other people.
Copyrights are a deliberate restriction on freedom; the GPL is simply a license that defangs that restriction.
1) The airplane.
fortunately for WWI, the government stepped in. Without patent protection, the airplane industry innovated like NO OTHER industry in history within a span of 10 years.
2) The revolver
Colt's patent completely killed all pistol innovation for the period of his patent. All improvements to his design were squashed. The revolver remained unchanged until the patent expired
If you care to look, history is very clear on this. Patents may cause a single spurt of innovation, but ALL innovation on a given invention ceases from the time the patent is given until the time it expires. This is an intentional side effect of patent law.
Slashdot's:
"PCs Losing Out as a Gaming Platform?"
Boston Globe's:
"Despite console market share, all is not lost for PC gaming"
Neat!
I want my three dollars!
Long but funny. Make sure to read to the end.
\Theft\, n. [OE. thefte, AS. [thorn]i['e]f[eth]e, [thorn][=y]f[eth]e, [thorn]e['o]f[eth]e. See Thief.]
1. (Law) The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious taking and removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same; larceny.
Note: To constitute theft there must be a taking without the owner's consent, and it must be unlawful or felonious; every part of the property stolen must be removed, however slightly, from its former position ; and it must be, at least momentarily, in the complete possession of the thief. See Larceny, and the Note under Robbery.
-Dictionary.com
... so being that those properties are a secondary effect compared to temperature, why is "at sea level" stressed more than "at X degrees C", or is that just my perception?
.. but why do they always say "at sea level" when qualifying the speed of sound?
Cryptography is not designed for this sort of thing.
It is designed to let two trusted parties communicate w/o a third either snarfing data or pretending to be one of the trusted parties.
The problem is, both ends are not trusted in ANY DRM scheme, which is what makes DRM a pipe dream.
while (true) do { wget --quiet -p 'http://www.riaa.org/' --referer='http://slashdot.org/' > /dev/null ; sleep 30; } done;
.. and ALLOW.
The proposed settlement would REQUIRE them to monitor. If they decide that *as a part* of their business model, they would like to monitor viewers habits, they can do so. They can make it voluntary. They can make it opt in. Then can make it opt out. The point is, the government should not be the one telling them what their business model should be.
.. because you are obviously very young and VERY naive.
As others posted, the Baby Bells were GRANTED monopolies. The huge opportunity is already there.. allow others to give you broadband over land lines. DSL/Cable is expensive because each carrier has a defacto GOVERNMENT enforced monopoly.
If you copy Hemingway and sell it, you are depriving Hemingway of revenue if and only if the people who bought your copy would have bought the original instead, had yours been unavailable.
People have already pointed you to the FAQ, but I figured I would paste this link of one of the worst thread bitchslappings.
/. are offtopic, and many completely offtopic posts get rated 5's regularly. Why? Because we, as readers, find some offtopic posts interesting and informative. Whether an entire thread is offtopic or not is up to us. /.'s moderating goals should be to simply clear obvious abuses and hacking attempts, not to derail an entire thread out of spite.
/.
/. does isn't at least double-think (and not outright censorship), it is, at best, very misleading and disengenous.
Even better, this thread is now locked so you can no longer post to it.
There were MANY insightful comments in that thread, but the editors chose to -1 all of it anyway, in effect "revising" history; their excuse being that the thread was "offtopic". Interesting isn't it? Some of the *best* discussions on
The reason *that* particular thread was bitchslapped is abundantly clear. Go read it for yourself, and decide.
And if *THIS* post is deemed offtopic by the editors, you can bet on me losing whatever respect I had left for
Sure, bitchslapping isn't OUTRIGHT censorship, but enough people assume (like the parent poster) that the editors don't mod on such a virulent, malicious scale that in effect, a -1 is almost as bad as real censorship, given the number of us that *DEPEND* on the readership's judgement on what is a good post and what isn't. If what
Try visiting this dungeon and campaign there for a bit. I guarantee even the most uber pure KarmaWhore class will get owned there. I post there when I get tired of my 50 karma cap.
I would favor no more legislation at all. My question is, why do they feel they MUST legislate? We have copyright laws. There are MANY problems with them, but none of them have anything to do with piracy. The only ones whining about piracy are shills like Rosen and Valenti.
Why are you letting THEM set the agenda? We should be passing laws that protect CITIZENS.