One manager of million-selling acts, speaking on condition of anonymity, said: "We've written them letters and put them on notice up front, as did most managers and lawyers, saying, 'Don't put our artists' music up.' But they'll do it anyway. They're so arrogant. They're taking the position of: 'We don't care. Let's just do it without asking.' They're ignoring their contracts. It's ridiculous. Obviously it will be litigated."
In other words, the record labels are doing exactly what they sued Napster for doing.
Obviously, if the software author is German then the guy doesn't have much to worry about yet. But if anyone in the US tries re-distributing this key generator, won't this be a violation of the DCMA?
Better yet, I can imagine MS giving the states the source code to, say, Microsoft BOB or Windows 3.1, and waiting to see how long it takes them to figure out it's the wrong thing.
The target environment for [Microsoft's] Farsite is an organization in 2006 with 100,000 computers, 10 billion files and 10 petabytes (10,000TB) of data.
Surely there will be major scalability problems with something like this, a la Gnutella?
The potential pitfalls of 100,000 computers trying to access each other across the same network gives me headaches just thinking about it.
Agreed, I've been using NetFlix for one month (a Christmas gift; I have three months to go) and this is my biggest problem. Cowboy Bebop v.1 has been in high demand ever since I signed up, and it doesn't seem to be getting available anytime soon. "Long Wait" has been on my queue since I added it.
I think NetFlix needs to add a feature where their database is automatically checked on a weekly/monthly basis, and all high-demand-low-availability discs have extra copies purchased. Combine this with a "purchase used" feature, like the major video chains already do to get rid of movies that are no longer in high demand, and they'd have a killer service.
Economically, the service isn't much better than a pay-per-rental video store, once you factor in the travel time for your movies in the mail. But the convenience of not having to worry about returning them on time (something my family is awful about) is a big plus.
Once again, Slashdotters want to have it both ways
on
Read the Fine Print
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
We've been complaining on this site for months, if not years, about Microsoft's security. They have a bug? We want a patch right away. We complain about downloading patches? Microsoft makes the system able to download and install them itself. All the user has to do is set up auto-install of new updates.
But that's not good enough, because too many users/sysadmins are too stupid to turn this on or check it regularly. So we complain that Microsoft isn't doing enough -- that they need to make the OS download security upgrades automatically, whether or not the stupid user asks for it or not. This, we argued, is the only way Microsoft can stay ahead of security holes and make sure we take them up on the patches.
So Microsoft does this. But because doing so requires the user to agree to let Microsoft access and update their system, they have to add it to the EULA.
And then Slashdot complains that MS is taking too much control.
- Make sure there's more than one of us in the department so that we can communicate with like minds. Encourage us to do so. Pair us up on every project so we can learn from each other.
- Don't leave us out of the initial project development. We can provide valuable input when the software is being designed in the first place, by offering suggestions about what is and isn't possible or feasible.
- Respect our schedules. If we need to work odd hours, take erratic breaks, or do half the job from home -- as long as we get the job done on time and turn in our hours -- let us do it.
- Write things down for us. ESPECIALLY when we're not invited to the meetings. When someone spends their entire career in ASCII, it helps to have assignments in that format as well.
- If we don't want to do stupid changes, entice us to do them anyways. If we don't want to do impossible changes, help us work out an alternative.
- Hook us up with the client's geeks so that we can swap technical details without going through more time-consuming channels. Ask for CCs of all the emails so you can say you're still involved. Don't hook us up with the client's contact. They're not as intelligent as you are.
- Nod and smile when we play with our action figures or Nerf guns at our desks. They keep us sane.
- Motivate us with free food. When necessary, bribe us with it. Let us pick the restaurant. Relax, we're cheap.
I wonder just how far we've come in automotive technology since the 1950s?
I mean, the cars don't actually go any faster. The speed limits aren't much higher, and if anything, the increased traffic makes us drive slower. Environmental improvements from catalytic converters and the like are nullified by the increased number of cars producing pollution. We add rear-window wipers and CD players, and instead of buying (or building) a more efficient vehicle we demand (and get) SUVs from every last manufacturer on the planet.
So, are cars actually any better, when any technological improvements are effectively nullified by the people driving them?
Well, yes, they are. Cars are more popular every decade because they're easier to use, cheaper to own, and more comfortable for everyone inside. They may not be "better" from a numerical perspective, but anyone driving a 2002 model right after driving a 1962 model will immediately notice the difference.
Computers are the same way. The faster they get, the more we expect them to do. The more people that use them, the fewer things they are used for. Developers get sloppier about optimization and APIs get changed with every iteration of the OS. It takes longer to start up this year's computer as it did 1979's, and people still do the same basic things with them.
But look at how much they've changed: graphical UIs make it easier for anyone to use a computer, instead of having to know what to type in at a text prompt. WYSIWYG doesn't happen 100% of the time, but 98% is a fair sight better than 0%. I may not get anything more interesting using a cable modem than I could using a 14.4 and a BBS, but at least all the commands are on screen instead of hidden behind a hundred scrolling screens of/help documentation.
So people are using all this computing power for nothing more than playing video poker and typing papers. So what? 90% of the population never needed it to do anything more; at least in 2002, they can do it for a lot less money and with a lot less reading. Companies and users may throw away countless man-hours developing skins and pretty interfaces, but at least they're successful in making computers familiar, comfortable, and desirable to the common man.
And besides, look at all the things we can do with a PC today that we couldn't ten years ago: access millions of pages of esoteric information online. Take photos digitally and organize them on CD-R discs, taking up 1/100th of the space for about the same cost. Listen to a thousand songs from a single digital jukebox, no vinyl or tape required. IM your mom across the continent without spending a penny on long-distance. Order anything from the Sears catalog without having to own the catalog. Find a new job. Locate a special interest group. Print a map. Comparison shop.
Or, just write and print out your resume. But at least nowadays, as with Henry Ford's first cars, you're not stuck with "any color you want, as long as it's black."
...you can get on a cellular network almost anywhere, while 802.11 is still occasional at best. The idea isn't to deploy the best product, but the most useful one.
On the other hand, what happens if the CD-ROM code is buggy -- as is often the case in at least a few files? Then a Web site can update the files, add more examples, so on and so forth.
The company this person is speaking for isn't likely to go under anytime soon; it's pretty darned productive, and already has an active Web site. I just want it to be used more often.
And if you can't get internet access, I'm sorry, but you really shouldn't be a programmer. It's almost like saying you want to learn to play football, but can't be bothered to find a field.
...In other words, no keyboard, no mouse, no screen, no input or output of any kind. It's a PC you're meant to take home and plug into a docking station which has all your input and output devices ready for you.
Why this is any better than an ultraslim laptop, which has pretty much all the same features plus the ability to use it without a docking station when needed, is not immediately clear to me.
I have nearly three hundred ebooks sitting on my 128MB Memory Stick right now, with room for another couple hundred, and I love reading from my Clié. My question is this: why would anyone buy a dedicated ebook reader, unless it were simply too cheap to turn down?
Simply because the screen is too friggin' small. Even a pocket-paperback has 4 or 6 times the "screen area" of a Palm handheld, making it easier to read at a distance and reducing the number of times you need to "scroll" to a new page. I like the convenience of reading books on my Palm, yes, but not the way I can only get two sentences on screen at a time using a comfortable font.
To fast-forward through commercials, you need to buffer the live broadcast first -- and I doubt there are any sports fans serious enough to skip the most entertaining commercial blocks of the entire year, that would be willing to put off watching the kickoff for even ten minutes.
The SecurityFocus charts seem to say that in the last several years, WinNT/2K has had 2/3 to 3/4 the vulnerabilities of Linux -- all Linuxes combined, that is.
When you break it down, however, Windows has been about equal to Red Hat and well above all the othe Linuxes and Unixes in the chart.
As a willing participant in the capitalist scheme, I don't care how secure everyone else's servers are -- just the one securing my stuff. The only thing this chart tells me is that if I want a secure server OS out of the box, I should start with Mandrake or Debian instead of Red Hat or Windows.
But the article says that the parts wear down before then. Which begs the question: what's the point of generating free energy when I keep having to buy expensive matter to get it?
Wouldn't it be great if every Mac/WinTel computer came with a stripped-down, Timbuktu-like program as part of the operating system? That way, owners and police could locate and retrieve it any time it was stolen anywhere in the world...
Kidding, of course. But you know that Microsoft is working on something like this already, if they haven't finished it by now. On the other hand, it *would* be nice to have a THIRD-PARTY tool that I could purchase separately (for less than Timbuktu) that would let me do things like this, locate it online anywhere should it be stolen simply by using a login/password combination I secretly set myself. It wouldn't do any system-takeover kind of stuff, just tell me what phone number or static IP it's being used at. Yes, a hard-drive format would solve the thieves' problem for me, but as this story indicates, not everyone is that careful when dealing with stolen property.
I just don't want Microsoft to install it for me by default. But that's a given.
NOT A HOAX! Not a scam! Using this incredible technology you can be making FREE ENERGY in your own home in less than a week!
"I didn't believe it, but it's true! In just one day I was making FREE ENERGY and powering all my heating and electricity systems! The power company didn't believe it when I called them and asked to be disconnected!" -- J.Whippins, NJ
The incredible Jasker electrical device is capable of replenishing ITS OWN ENERGY using nothing more than an ordinary car battery! For the low cost of parts you can buy at your local electrical store, you can charge your lights, electronics, appliances, even your home heating, for next to nothing! YOU'LL NEVER NEED TO PAY FOR POWER AGAIN!!
Just send email to jasker@really-secret-hideout.co.uk for information on how to get your first FREE ENERGY production kit delivered to your home! Hurry up and be the first!
- My computer monitor gives me eyestrain.
- Microwaved convenience food makes me nauseous.
- Fluorescent lighting produces a humming sound in my ears.
- Cable television makes my brain hurt.
But you're forgetting something: Comic publishers make money from selling the current issues, and these are not promoted on the web. They are promoted by the store owners. By neighborhood stores.
Yes, and these current issues would continue to be available in print only for a given length of time, say six or twelve months.
If the publishers go ahead with this, many store owners will make less money from back issues, which will some of them out of business, wich decreases the amount of publicity, which decreases revenue, ad nauseum.
Store owners don't make much money on back issues as it is, except for a small percentage of highly collectible ones. Besides, they almost always make it possible for (reputable) customers to flip through the issue before buying it, so people who don't like the art or story don't buy the back issue anyhow.
However, fans and collectors who know the value of the physical back issue as opposed to a digital copy of it will want to buy and collect those print issues, and it's those people to whom the comic stores today sell most of their back issues. If this approach would do anything, it would improve back issue sales by making it easier for fans to browse back issues they might not normally look at or be able to find.
Slashdot Mirror
In other words, the record labels are doing exactly what they sued Napster for doing.
Obviously, if the software author is German then the guy doesn't have much to worry about yet. But if anyone in the US tries re-distributing this key generator, won't this be a violation of the DCMA?
Better yet, I can imagine MS giving the states the source code to, say, Microsoft BOB or Windows 3.1, and waiting to see how long it takes them to figure out it's the wrong thing.
The target environment for [Microsoft's] Farsite is an organization in 2006 with 100,000 computers, 10 billion files and 10 petabytes (10,000TB) of data.
Surely there will be major scalability problems with something like this, a la Gnutella?
The potential pitfalls of 100,000 computers trying to access each other across the same network gives me headaches just thinking about it.
Agreed, I've been using NetFlix for one month (a Christmas gift; I have three months to go) and this is my biggest problem. Cowboy Bebop v.1 has been in high demand ever since I signed up, and it doesn't seem to be getting available anytime soon. "Long Wait" has been on my queue since I added it.
I think NetFlix needs to add a feature where their database is automatically checked on a weekly/monthly basis, and all high-demand-low-availability discs have extra copies purchased. Combine this with a "purchase used" feature, like the major video chains already do to get rid of movies that are no longer in high demand, and they'd have a killer service.
Economically, the service isn't much better than a pay-per-rental video store, once you factor in the travel time for your movies in the mail. But the convenience of not having to worry about returning them on time (something my family is awful about) is a big plus.
We've been complaining on this site for months, if not years, about Microsoft's security. They have a bug? We want a patch right away. We complain about downloading patches? Microsoft makes the system able to download and install them itself. All the user has to do is set up auto-install of new updates.
But that's not good enough, because too many users/sysadmins are too stupid to turn this on or check it regularly. So we complain that Microsoft isn't doing enough -- that they need to make the OS download security upgrades automatically, whether or not the stupid user asks for it or not. This, we argued, is the only way Microsoft can stay ahead of security holes and make sure we take them up on the patches.
So Microsoft does this. But because doing so requires the user to agree to let Microsoft access and update their system, they have to add it to the EULA.
And then Slashdot complains that MS is taking too much control.
The mind boggles.
- Make sure there's more than one of us in the department so that we can communicate with like minds. Encourage us to do so. Pair us up on every project so we can learn from each other.
- Don't leave us out of the initial project development. We can provide valuable input when the software is being designed in the first place, by offering suggestions about what is and isn't possible or feasible.
- Respect our schedules. If we need to work odd hours, take erratic breaks, or do half the job from home -- as long as we get the job done on time and turn in our hours -- let us do it.
- Write things down for us. ESPECIALLY when we're not invited to the meetings. When someone spends their entire career in ASCII, it helps to have assignments in that format as well.
- If we don't want to do stupid changes, entice us to do them anyways. If we don't want to do impossible changes, help us work out an alternative.
- Hook us up with the client's geeks so that we can swap technical details without going through more time-consuming channels. Ask for CCs of all the emails so you can say you're still involved. Don't hook us up with the client's contact. They're not as intelligent as you are.
- Nod and smile when we play with our action figures or Nerf guns at our desks. They keep us sane.
- Motivate us with free food. When necessary, bribe us with it. Let us pick the restaurant. Relax, we're cheap.
I wonder just how far we've come in automotive technology since the 1950s?
/help documentation.
I mean, the cars don't actually go any faster. The speed limits aren't much higher, and if anything, the increased traffic makes us drive slower. Environmental improvements from catalytic converters and the like are nullified by the increased number of cars producing pollution. We add rear-window wipers and CD players, and instead of buying (or building) a more efficient vehicle we demand (and get) SUVs from every last manufacturer on the planet.
So, are cars actually any better, when any technological improvements are effectively nullified by the people driving them?
Well, yes, they are. Cars are more popular every decade because they're easier to use, cheaper to own, and more comfortable for everyone inside. They may not be "better" from a numerical perspective, but anyone driving a 2002 model right after driving a 1962 model will immediately notice the difference.
Computers are the same way. The faster they get, the more we expect them to do. The more people that use them, the fewer things they are used for. Developers get sloppier about optimization and APIs get changed with every iteration of the OS. It takes longer to start up this year's computer as it did 1979's, and people still do the same basic things with them.
But look at how much they've changed: graphical UIs make it easier for anyone to use a computer, instead of having to know what to type in at a text prompt. WYSIWYG doesn't happen 100% of the time, but 98% is a fair sight better than 0%. I may not get anything more interesting using a cable modem than I could using a 14.4 and a BBS, but at least all the commands are on screen instead of hidden behind a hundred scrolling screens of
So people are using all this computing power for nothing more than playing video poker and typing papers. So what? 90% of the population never needed it to do anything more; at least in 2002, they can do it for a lot less money and with a lot less reading. Companies and users may throw away countless man-hours developing skins and pretty interfaces, but at least they're successful in making computers familiar, comfortable, and desirable to the common man.
And besides, look at all the things we can do with a PC today that we couldn't ten years ago: access millions of pages of esoteric information online. Take photos digitally and organize them on CD-R discs, taking up 1/100th of the space for about the same cost. Listen to a thousand songs from a single digital jukebox, no vinyl or tape required. IM your mom across the continent without spending a penny on long-distance. Order anything from the Sears catalog without having to own the catalog. Find a new job. Locate a special interest group. Print a map. Comparison shop.
Or, just write and print out your resume. But at least nowadays, as with Henry Ford's first cars, you're not stuck with "any color you want, as long as it's black."
...I've been doing this with LEGO Mindstorms for a couple of years now.
Studios race to choke DVD copying
...you can get on a cellular network almost anywhere, while 802.11 is still occasional at best. The idea isn't to deploy the best product, but the most useful one.
On the other hand, what happens if the CD-ROM code is buggy -- as is often the case in at least a few files? Then a Web site can update the files, add more examples, so on and so forth.
The company this person is speaking for isn't likely to go under anytime soon; it's pretty darned productive, and already has an active Web site. I just want it to be used more often.
And if you can't get internet access, I'm sorry, but you really shouldn't be a programmer. It's almost like saying you want to learn to play football, but can't be bothered to find a field.
- No color pages unless they are absolutely, unquestionably necessary
- No CD-ROMs full of code when a Web site would do the job better
If I must spend oodles of money on a computer-programming book, I'd prefer it be the smallest quantity of oodles possible.
Aren't these sold to the same sort of people who used to ridicule Apple for building iMacs with translucent cases?
...In other words, no keyboard, no mouse, no screen, no input or output of any kind. It's a PC you're meant to take home and plug into a docking station which has all your input and output devices ready for you.
Why this is any better than an ultraslim laptop, which has pretty much all the same features plus the ability to use it without a docking station when needed, is not immediately clear to me.
I have nearly three hundred ebooks sitting on my 128MB Memory Stick right now, with room for another couple hundred, and I love reading from my Clié. My question is this: why would anyone buy a dedicated ebook reader, unless it were simply too cheap to turn down?
Simply because the screen is too friggin' small. Even a pocket-paperback has 4 or 6 times the "screen area" of a Palm handheld, making it easier to read at a distance and reducing the number of times you need to "scroll" to a new page. I like the convenience of reading books on my Palm, yes, but not the way I can only get two sentences on screen at a time using a comfortable font.
To fast-forward through commercials, you need to buffer the live broadcast first -- and I doubt there are any sports fans serious enough to skip the most entertaining commercial blocks of the entire year, that would be willing to put off watching the kickoff for even ten minutes.
The SecurityFocus charts seem to say that in the last several years, WinNT/2K has had 2/3 to 3/4 the vulnerabilities of Linux -- all Linuxes combined, that is.
When you break it down, however, Windows has been about equal to Red Hat and well above all the othe Linuxes and Unixes in the chart.
As a willing participant in the capitalist scheme, I don't care how secure everyone else's servers are -- just the one securing my stuff. The only thing this chart tells me is that if I want a secure server OS out of the box, I should start with Mandrake or Debian instead of Red Hat or Windows.
Does Windows have fewer security holes than Linux? Apparently so.
Are they smaller holes -- that is, exposing less control of the system and less potential for damage? Probably not.
The question becomes, then: would you rather be shot by a dozen BB pellets or a single shotgun blast?
So they've hired angels?
No, they just bought all their old 386s on eBay. The heavenly host uses handheld computers exclusively nowadays.
But the article says that the parts wear down before then. Which begs the question: what's the point of generating free energy when I keep having to buy expensive matter to get it?
Wouldn't it be great if every Mac/WinTel computer came with a stripped-down, Timbuktu-like program as part of the operating system? That way, owners and police could locate and retrieve it any time it was stolen anywhere in the world...
Kidding, of course. But you know that Microsoft is working on something like this already, if they haven't finished it by now. On the other hand, it *would* be nice to have a THIRD-PARTY tool that I could purchase separately (for less than Timbuktu) that would let me do things like this, locate it online anywhere should it be stolen simply by using a login/password combination I secretly set myself. It wouldn't do any system-takeover kind of stuff, just tell me what phone number or static IP it's being used at. Yes, a hard-drive format would solve the thieves' problem for me, but as this story indicates, not everyone is that careful when dealing with stolen property.
I just don't want Microsoft to install it for me by default. But that's a given.
NOT A HOAX! Not a scam! Using this incredible technology you can be making FREE ENERGY in your own home in less than a week!
"I didn't believe it, but it's true! In just one day I was making FREE ENERGY and powering all my heating and electricity systems! The power company didn't believe it when I called them and asked to be disconnected!" -- J.Whippins, NJ
The incredible Jasker electrical device is capable of replenishing ITS OWN ENERGY using nothing more than an ordinary car battery! For the low cost of parts you can buy at your local electrical store, you can charge your lights, electronics, appliances, even your home heating, for next to nothing! YOU'LL NEVER NEED TO PAY FOR POWER AGAIN!!
Just send email to jasker@really-secret-hideout.co.uk for information on how to get your first FREE ENERGY production kit delivered to your home! Hurry up and be the first!
- My computer monitor gives me eyestrain.
- Microwaved convenience food makes me nauseous.
- Fluorescent lighting produces a humming sound in my ears.
- Cable television makes my brain hurt.
But you're forgetting something: Comic publishers make money from selling the current issues, and these are not promoted on the web. They are promoted by the store owners. By neighborhood stores.
Yes, and these current issues would continue to be available in print only for a given length of time, say six or twelve months.
If the publishers go ahead with this, many store owners will make less money from back issues, which will some of them out of business, wich decreases the amount of publicity, which decreases revenue, ad nauseum.
Store owners don't make much money on back issues as it is, except for a small percentage of highly collectible ones. Besides, they almost always make it possible for (reputable) customers to flip through the issue before buying it, so people who don't like the art or story don't buy the back issue anyhow.
However, fans and collectors who know the value of the physical back issue as opposed to a digital copy of it will want to buy and collect those print issues, and it's those people to whom the comic stores today sell most of their back issues. If this approach would do anything, it would improve back issue sales by making it easier for fans to browse back issues they might not normally look at or be able to find.