A trend of paying off farmers to limit their productions, while trying to improve their crop yeild with technoligy?
contradiction in goals and practice?
Perhaps not. If a farmer can use his rescources to the greatest possible result, he might be able to become self reliant again. Today most farmers are supplimented by govt. assistance programs. If the GPS system and other technological advancements help without raising the cost unreasonably. And the land that was needed was reduced in size and produced the same or more produce, this could free the farmers from needing assistance.
Some lawyer is looking at this page and trying to figure out what part of the DMCA has been violated and who they should call to ask for a job taking Mihajlo to court for them.
I have seen standards (especially open/free ones) flourish and grow beyond any expectations. These standards offer clear benifits and improvements to commonly used items.
I have also seen the makers of isolated products fall to bankruptcy due to incompatability and cost.
This is a pattern that has been in place as long as I can remember. If I can use a product easily and it benifits my life without breaking my wallet it will succeed and flourish.
If I cannot play a movie I purchased on my new DVD player because it has no copyprotection features on the DVD then I will be pissed off.
If I cannot play the movie because I have an old DVD player I will be pissed off.
It's the standard of DVD (such as it is) that is making it possible to survive. The extra footage and quality make it worth a bit more as far as investment, but to keep it going you need people that are not being irritated every other year having to re-purchase movies or replace an "old" DVD player.
That would kill any product line no matter what special bells and whistles it offers.
Standards are what make innovation work as a business model.
I could make a million improvements on an item but if they are not standardized in some way, to work with as many people as possible, without nulifying the benifits, they will fail to catch on and make money.
Even hollywood realizes this need for standards set up for success. "Hollywood executives fret that without strong copy protection in widespread use, digital versions of movies will be pirated as readily as MP3 audio files once were with Napster."
They do not want hundreds of incompatable copy protection methods in place, they want a unified standard of protection that will be used by all.
"widespread use" requires widspread acceptance.
This applies to standards for both sides of the Copy Protection VS. Consumer Rights debate.
If the people in R&D get it they would try and explain to the marketing and management.
One of them would eventually listen, especially if that person was shown a simple rip in progress between a portable cd player and a microphone input of a computer.
It's the people in R&D that come up with the actual protection methods, if they said it's useless and showed them the above example they would ask what could be done then.
in conclusion, it's the R&D that has the best chance to change this practice of copyprotecting CDs cause they can best explain it's futility to the management and marketing morons.
A computer user is a person that wants to learn or play in a computer generated environment.
A computer Programmer is someone who wants to work in a computer generated environment for a better experience when they work or play in a computer generated environment later.
These are different stages of a person getting into computers as well. They start really learning when they have an interest in what can be accomplished with a computer.
A child learns to crawl before they learn to walk,
so it follows that a child needs to learn how to interact with the real world before they can benifit from a vertual one.
It's because the actual "bad guy" is using spoofing hardware and software that makes his/her call look like it's comming from somewhere else unless you actually trace it back to the source. The more spoofing programs/hardware they comendere the more hops and therefore traces the good guys need to run to get back to the real number.
It's still in practice but now it's seconds not minutes that it takes to trace a call that's trying not to be traced.
The Vermont law is a tribute to the good that the state administration can do if they actually listen to the public opinion and set aside the "Industry" influence.
People want to have the choice, and if you don't get an answer then it's unfair to conclude that they want what the industry wants, which is to share their information. It's like if I call and leave a message on your answering machine asking you if I can borrow your car, then recieving no answer, conclude that I can borrow it because I want that answer and you didn't say no.
Honestly, given the "choice" to let them distribute the info or not, I'd choose not.
The problem is that they make it harder to choose that. It's not like I have to send in a letter or call them wither way, I only have to work harder to make the choice they don't want me to make.
If they had a small box at the bottom of the form you have to sign that says "check one: Share info with other businesses _ , Do not share info with other businesses _ " then I truely thing most people would choose not to share. Having really made a choice in this senareo.
Two simple checkboxes that one must be checked, at the bottom of a form that you sign is much more of a choice than having to fill out a seperate letter countermanding a descreet sub-paragraph in miniscule text on the back of a form that you had to sign in order to get their service.
In concluding, most people are forgeetting that the opt-in law will have no giant fundamental change in their computer programs, they just have to set all of the Vermont accounts to "opted-out" and then if they opt-in change it back. no big hassle. They already have that checkbox in the program.
And with the money they save from NOT sending the flyers and other spam/junk mail to people that would have opted out automatically they would be more than breaking even and not as they put it in the article: "...hike business costs and hurt customers." Oh they charge sooo much more because they can't sell my personal information to other companies to send me spam. oh I'm so hurt, I get less spam. Oh Please.
k done ranting.
Vote for this if you get a chance!
Opt-in as standard is GOOD!
They hope to sell more of these altered CD's that have copy protection, cause less people will use piracy?
Wait a sec, this sounds too stupid.
Try to follow a little train of thought that'd probably help
some executives somewhere in the recording industry:
Why does someone buy a CD?
To listen to the music.
What does the industry do to get more people to buy the CD?
Not let people listen to the music, by:
a. limiting the playability
b. limiting the portability
c. limiting the quality
Why do people download MP3s?
to listen to the music free.
Why do people upload MP3s?
to let people listen to the music free.
What does the industry do about it?
force us to download the music, by:
a. Not letting us listen to the CD we just paid for in any of our PCs
b. Not letting us listen to the CD we just paid for in some of our DVDs
c. Not letting us listen to the CD we just paid for in some of our cars
d. Not letting us listen to the CD we just paid for in any of our MP3 players
'cause we can't get them there
If I cannot listen to the music from a CD that I just paid for, and I have to go download it off the internet because I cannot easily rip it to an MP3 to play in my MP3 player I am a very small step from not paying for the CD in the first place and just going and downloading the songs for free.
I can make a regular cd from the MP3s that will play on anything, and the media costs a whole lot less than $9-$18 and I get to pick the tracks!
Freakin brilliant RIAA!
Thanks for making my decision so easy!
Not letting us listen to the music that is the sole reason we paid for the CD, is the most retarded thing I have heard of in a long time.
People make choices with some consideration to the ease of using the result.
CD w/ security = Hassle = less are going to choose
Free MP3 = Easy = more are going to choose
They hope to sell more of these altered CD's that have copy protection, cause less people will use piracy?
Wait a sec, this sounds too stupid.
Try to follow a little train of thought that'd probably help
some executives somewhere in the recording industry:
Why does someone buy a CD?
To listen to the music.
What does the industry do to get more people to buy the CD?
Not let people listen to the music, by:
a. limiting the playability
b. limiting the portability
c. limiting the quality
Why do people download MP3s?
to listen to the music free.
Why do people upload MP3s?
to let people listen to the music free.
What does the industry do about it?
force us to download the music, by:
a. Not letting us listen to the CD we just paid for in any of our PCs
b. Not letting us listen to the CD we just paid for in some of our DVDs
c. Not letting us listen to the CD we just paid for in some of our cars
d. Not letting us listen to the CD we just paid for in any of our MP3 players
'cause we can't get them there
If I cannot listen to the music from a CD that I just paid for, and I have to go download it off the internet because I cannot easily rip it to an MP3 to play in my MP3 player I am a very small step from not paying for the CD in the first place and just going and downloading the songs for free.
I can make a regular cd from the MP3s that will play on anything, and the media costs a whole lot less than $9-$18 and I get to pick the tracks!
Freakin brilliant RIAA!
Thanks for making my decision so easy!
Not letting us listen to the music that is the sole reason we paid for the CD, is the most retarded thing I have heard of in a long time.
People make choices with some consideration to the ease of using the result.
CD w/ security = Hassle = less are going to choose
Free MP3 = Easy = more are going to choose
And to help the economy... we should put everybody else out of business, right?
By showing that a monopoly like microsoft can get away with something like this because of their propoganda telling us that it would hurt the economy if they were broken up, The govt. is telling every other company that they might as well not bother trying to compete.
Competition is what drives prices lower and pays employes more to make better products and that is what helps the economy.
NOT letting a money hungry monopoly get away with stifiling other innovation and competition to the point that their "competitors" are going out of business.
"Land of opportunity"
What a joke.
It's the land of lobbying and paying off officials to get above the law, and ruin other peoples dreams!
Where the hell have you been?
I might accept it if you hadn't upgraded from win3.11 yet or if you had no tv or net access, but you posted a comment that I have not seen any supporting evidence for. Name one time in their history that Microsoft did something (On purpose) that was bad for them but good for the people.
what you have learned to accept as clean still kills animals heats the earth and smells horrible.
The other main point about this fuel is that it's renewable. we're not going to come to a screaching halt because we can't make any more soy beans. Even a small improvement is welcome.
Slashdot Mirror
A trend of paying off farmers to limit their productions, while trying to improve their crop yeild with technoligy?
contradiction in goals and practice?
Perhaps not.
If a farmer can use his rescources to the greatest possible result, he might be able to become self reliant again. Today most farmers are supplimented by govt. assistance programs. If the GPS system and other technological advancements help without raising the cost unreasonably. And the land that was needed was reduced in size and produced the same or more produce, this could free the farmers from needing assistance.
Some lawyer is looking at this page and trying to figure out what part of the DMCA has been violated and who they should call to ask for a job taking Mihajlo to court for them.
I don't understand the ideas that I'm hearing.
I have seen standards (especially open/free ones) flourish and grow beyond any expectations.
These standards offer clear benifits and improvements to commonly used items.
I have also seen the makers of isolated products fall to bankruptcy due to incompatability and cost.
This is a pattern that has been in place as long as I can remember. If I can use a product easily and it benifits my life without breaking my wallet it will succeed and flourish.
If I cannot play a movie I purchased on my new DVD player because it has no copyprotection features on the DVD then I will be pissed off.
If I cannot play the movie because I have an old DVD player I will be pissed off.
It's the standard of DVD (such as it is) that is making it possible to survive. The extra footage and quality make it worth a bit more as far as investment, but to keep it going you need people that are not being irritated every other year having to re-purchase movies or replace an "old" DVD player.
That would kill any product line no matter what special bells and whistles it offers.
Standards are what make innovation work as a business model.
I could make a million improvements on an item but if they are not standardized in some way, to work with as many people as possible, without nulifying the benifits, they will fail to catch on and make money.
Even hollywood realizes this need for standards set up for success.
"Hollywood executives fret that without strong copy protection in widespread use, digital versions of movies will be pirated as readily as MP3 audio files once were with Napster."
They do not want hundreds of incompatable copy protection methods in place, they want a unified standard of protection that will be used by all.
"widespread use" requires widspread acceptance.
This applies to standards for both sides of the Copy Protection VS. Consumer Rights debate.
Change is good but random change is chaos.
If the people in R&D get it they would try and explain to the marketing and management.
One of them would eventually listen, especially if that person was shown a simple rip in progress between a portable cd player and a microphone input of a computer.
It's the people in R&D that come up with the actual protection methods, if they said it's useless and showed them the above example they would ask what could be done then.
in conclusion, it's the R&D that has the best chance to change this practice of copyprotecting CDs cause they can best explain it's futility to the management and marketing morons.
If I can hear it, I can copy it.
Total Recorder, a program that records data sent to the sound card is wonderfull.
If I can hear it, then I can rip it, then I can P2P it to everybody that wants a cheaper/easier way of getting songs.
Untill the Industry gives us that cheaper easier way, they lose money, not only on lost sales, but on R&D blunders with no effect on piracy.
Remember, it only takes one person in the world to rip the cd, but millions copy it from there.
A child wants to play and run and make noise.
A computer user is a person that wants to learn or play in a computer generated environment.
A computer Programmer is someone who wants to work in a computer generated environment for a better experience when they work or play in a computer generated environment later.
These are different stages of a person getting into computers as well. They start really learning when they have an interest in what can be accomplished with a computer.
A child learns to crawl before they learn to walk,
so it follows that a child needs to learn how to interact with the real world before they can benifit from a vertual one.
It's because the actual "bad guy" is using spoofing hardware and software that makes his/her call look like it's comming from somewhere else unless you actually trace it back to the source. The more spoofing programs/hardware they comendere the more hops and therefore traces the good guys need to run to get back to the real number.
It's still in practice but now it's seconds not minutes that it takes to trace a call that's trying not to be traced.
The Vermont law is a tribute to the good that the state administration can do if they actually listen to the public opinion and set aside the "Industry" influence.
People want to have the choice, and if you don't get an answer then it's unfair to conclude that they want what the industry wants, which is to share their information. It's like if I call and leave a message on your answering machine asking you if I can borrow your car, then recieving no answer, conclude that I can borrow it because I want that answer and you didn't say no.
Honestly, given the "choice" to let them distribute the info or not, I'd choose not.
The problem is that they make it harder to choose that. It's not like I have to send in a letter or call them wither way, I only have to work harder to make the choice they don't want me to make.
If they had a small box at the bottom of the form you have to sign that says "check one: Share info with other businesses _ , Do not share info with other businesses _ " then I truely thing most people would choose not to share. Having really made a choice in this senareo.
Two simple checkboxes that one must be checked, at the bottom of a form that you sign is much more of a choice than having to fill out a seperate letter countermanding a descreet sub-paragraph in miniscule text on the back of a form that you had to sign in order to get their service.
In concluding, most people are forgeetting that the opt-in law will have no giant fundamental change in their computer programs, they just have to set all of the Vermont accounts to "opted-out" and then if they opt-in change it back. no big hassle. They already have that checkbox in the program.
And with the money they save from NOT sending the flyers and other spam/junk mail to people that would have opted out automatically they would be more than breaking even and not as they put it in the article: "...hike business costs and hurt customers." Oh they charge sooo much more because they can't sell my personal information to other companies to send me spam. oh I'm so hurt, I get less spam. Oh Please.
k done ranting.
Vote for this if you get a chance!
Opt-in as standard is GOOD!
They hope to sell more of these altered CD's that have copy protection, cause less people will use piracy?
Wait a sec, this sounds too stupid.
Try to follow a little train of thought that'd probably help
some executives somewhere in the recording industry:
Why does someone buy a CD?
To listen to the music.
What does the industry do to get more people to buy the CD?
Not let people listen to the music, by:
a. limiting the playability
b. limiting the portability
c. limiting the quality
Why do people download MP3s?
to listen to the music free.
Why do people upload MP3s?
to let people listen to the music free.
What does the industry do about it?
force us to download the music, by:
a. Not letting us listen to the CD we just paid for in any of our PCs
b. Not letting us listen to the CD we just paid for in some of our DVDs
c. Not letting us listen to the CD we just paid for in some of our cars
d. Not letting us listen to the CD we just paid for in any of our MP3 players
'cause we can't get them there
If I cannot listen to the music from a CD that I just paid for, and I have to go download it off the internet because I cannot easily rip it to an MP3 to play in my MP3 player I am a very small step from not paying for the CD in the first place and just going and downloading the songs for free.
I can make a regular cd from the MP3s that will play on anything, and the media costs a whole lot less than $9-$18 and I get to pick the tracks!
Freakin brilliant RIAA!
Thanks for making my decision so easy!
Not letting us listen to the music that is the sole reason we paid for the CD, is the most retarded thing I have heard of in a long time.
People make choices with some consideration to the ease of using the result.
CD w/ security = Hassle = less are going to choose
Free MP3 = Easy = more are going to choose
They hope to sell more of these altered CD's that have copy protection, cause less people will use piracy?
Wait a sec, this sounds too stupid.
Try to follow a little train of thought that'd probably help
some executives somewhere in the recording industry:
Why does someone buy a CD?
To listen to the music.
What does the industry do to get more people to buy the CD?
Not let people listen to the music, by:
a. limiting the playability
b. limiting the portability
c. limiting the quality
Why do people download MP3s?
to listen to the music free.
Why do people upload MP3s?
to let people listen to the music free.
What does the industry do about it?
force us to download the music, by:
a. Not letting us listen to the CD we just paid for in any of our PCs
b. Not letting us listen to the CD we just paid for in some of our DVDs
c. Not letting us listen to the CD we just paid for in some of our cars
d. Not letting us listen to the CD we just paid for in any of our MP3 players
'cause we can't get them there
If I cannot listen to the music from a CD that I just paid for, and I have to go download it off the internet because I cannot easily rip it to an MP3 to play in my MP3 player I am a very small step from not paying for the CD in the first place and just going and downloading the songs for free.
I can make a regular cd from the MP3s that will play on anything, and the media costs a whole lot less than $9-$18 and I get to pick the tracks!
Freakin brilliant RIAA!
Thanks for making my decision so easy!
Not letting us listen to the music that is the sole reason we paid for the CD, is the most retarded thing I have heard of in a long time.
People make choices with some consideration to the ease of using the result.
CD w/ security = Hassle = less are going to choose
Free MP3 = Easy = more are going to choose
I just tried it and I still get the no data error.
Might want took at the serverlogs.
And to help the economy ... we should put everybody else out of business, right?
By showing that a monopoly like microsoft can get away with something like this because of their propoganda telling us that it would hurt the economy if they were broken up, The govt. is telling every other company that they might as well not bother trying to compete.
Competition is what drives prices lower and pays employes more to make better products and that is what helps the economy.
NOT letting a money hungry monopoly get away with stifiling other innovation and competition to the point that their "competitors" are going out of business.
"Land of opportunity"
What a joke.
It's the land of lobbying and paying off officials to get above the law, and ruin other peoples dreams!
Help the economy my ass, this is govt. payoff BS!
Kickass!!!
but why the space between "w" and "i" in the link?
Weeding out the reboot monkies?
Where the hell have you been?
I might accept it if you hadn't upgraded from win3.11 yet or if you had no tv or net access, but you posted a comment that I have not seen any supporting evidence for. Name one time in their history that Microsoft did something (On purpose) that was bad for them but good for the people.
http://www.iomega.com/rinaldi/request_rebate.html
what you have learned to accept as clean still kills animals heats the earth and smells horrible. The other main point about this fuel is that it's renewable. we're not going to come to a screaching halt because we can't make any more soy beans. Even a small improvement is welcome.