DVD burner sales would never "take off"; meaning be accepted by a large portion of the country. If average Joe can't even figure out what kind of media to buy,
I imagine that sooner or later one format will win out, and then Joe average won't have to worry about his format choice. Me, I am not going to wait.
national program to integrate high speed into our igloo clusters.
I am sure that was made practical by the fact that Canada is the first country in the world to have ambient temperature superconductivity materials in all of their communications and power distribution systems.
The machines were invented in the US, true. However the Canadians have since overtaken US Zamboni technology, and are manufacturing their own!! We now face a DANGEROUS Zamboni gap!
The short answer is because bandwidth costs money. A T1 line costs $1000 per month, a T3 several thousand. When I sign up for a T1 line, how come I don't get T3 level bandwidth? Because the infrastructure for the latter is more costly.
I think this situation SHOULD fall under the same rule.
Why? It is a very different situation. In the case of the 2nd phone, you are adding your own equipment to the line. You are NOT making additional or longer phone calls for free. Phone freaking is still illegal. Uncapping your cable moden is much closer in principle to phone freaking.
I guess for some it's easier to litigate than it is to spend time/money on developing better products.
Hmmm... I didn't see any place in the article that stated Sun was dropping it's R&D program to pursue the lawsuit. Nor did they mention anything about Bill Joy becoming a lawyer, or similar steps.
But it's that taking away part that I fail to see when it comes to movies or software. If I, purely for the sake of discussion, download a movie from the internet, how is that stealing if, at the end, the owner still has the original?
Very simple. By doing so you are depriving the owner of income. That income is often required for the inventor to recover the investment he made in the production of the original of what you have copied. A movie these days can cost up to $100 million to produce. A new drug can cost $1 billion to bring to market. Who is going to invest that if they cannot recover their costs? By obtaining that illegal copy you are not only stealing that income from the author of the original, but you are also depriving us of future works by reducing the economic incentive to produce new inventions.
It is time that we start waking up and realizing that we as a civilization would not be where we are now had we not copied other people's invention.
And what if nobody had produced that invention in the first place? Would you have anything to copy?
The purpose of intellectual property law is to give added incentive to inventors and authors to produce new works. In the case of patent law there is the additional covenant which requires the inventor to fully disclose his invention in exchange for the patent grant.
In the grand scheme of technological progress a 20 year bar on copying an invention is insignifiact. The invention isn't going away; it will be available for copying.
In the late 1600's England realized the benefits of the social contrat of the Patent and Copyright, and made it law. The results were fabulous - man had not materially changed the way he lived since the development of agriculture. At that time the number of books that were available numbered in the thousands. Now the number is in the 100's of millions. The availability of this knowledge is due both to the copyright (encouragement of authors) and to the inventors who devised the hot metal Linotype machine, the web fed printing press and the Fourdriner paper making machine (all patented), advancing the old technology of papermaking that was essentially unchanged in the 5000 year period between the invention of paper by the Chinese and the invention of the patent in England.
Patents are by their very nature monopolistic. They go against everything that is considered "holy" in a capitalist economy.
And exactly how is that? Monopolies are a very natural outcome of a capitalistic society. This country has had a long tradition of monopolies including Standard Oil, Microsoft, etc.
The fact is that patents have a net effect of DECREASING monopolies because they put a specific time on the exclusive right of the inventor. The alternative to not having a patent system is to go back to the pre patent ways of doing things, that is protecting the technology with trade secret and licensing agreements. Trade secrets have NO period of duration. This is why some companies choose not to patent some inventions; for example the formula for Coca-Cola was never patented.
EULA's in and by themselves can't and shouldn't be able restrict my behavior after the act of purchase.
You are REALLY showing your ignorance here. EULAs are a CONTRACT between you and the software vendor. If we as a society decide that we are going to abandon contract law, pretty much all commerce becomes impossible.
Imagine somebody had patented paper hundreds of years ago and charged horrendous license fees to produce paper. It is highly arguable that such a copyright could never have been in the public interest.
FYI, A patent and a copyright are very different things, the first process of paper making was developed thousands, not hundreds of years ago, and the fact is that processes for making paper have been patented many times over the past 400 years with no apperent ill-effects.
I hope that this sobers up people who claim the idea of intellectual property is 'wrong', and the efforts of the RIAA and MPAA to attack piracy are based on mistaken assumptions that 'file trading' doesn't hurt sales.
The fact is that we have living examples in countries like China where piracy is unchecked. The results are clear; 90+% of the sales of a title turn out to be rips, and the artists get niothing for their work. Sure, some highly popular titles are going to still recover their costs. But how the hell is a film that targets less than a wide swath of the public going to cover it's production costs? How would something Branaugh's Hamlet EVER be made in a place like China?
Not only does the piracy cut down on what is available to the Chinese viewer, but the pirated copies that drive out the legitmate copies are low quality, too.
So, you simply find a way to satisfy the customers in a manner that will make you more than it costs you if they leave.
One of the characteristics of the losing customer is that they refuse to pay for the services they are demanding.
Re:"Email cannot serve as ... file transfer"
on
E-Mail Size Limits?
·
· Score: 2
I don't know of any sysadmin who's setup can be brought down by a large email attachment
Read the rest of the comments to this article. You will see plenty of cases of sysadmins discussing problems with servers going down due to large file attachments.
but are you really advocating setting up a username and password for everyone who ever needs to send you a file? Or that they need to install additional client software to do it?
I think most people already have a web browser installed. No additional client software is needed. They don't need individual passwords for an upload only web page, either.
disk is cheap, bandwidth is a utility
And email does not work as a reliable file transfer mechanism for large files.
If you are an ISP, the users are your customers, and they are right (as customers always should be).
Yah. You won't be in business long. Any business person knows that there are customers that you cannot afford to have. They are so demanding that servicing them will be a financial loser for you. Better for you that they should be your competitor's customers.
I work in construction. Email is essential to transfer in a way the users already know how to use files,
That's nice. Unfortunately the email protocol IS NOT DESIGNED AS A FILE TRANSFER PROTOCOL. As an email admin I have seen users try to send multiple CD-ROM images as file attachements on one email message. This will cause most email servers to fail, denying all users access to their mail. It is my job as a sysadmin to make sure that some former employee can't bring down business critical services by sending an arbitrarily large email.
File attachment size limits are REQUIRED on email servers to insure some user who needs a bit of training doesn't bring down the entire system.
There is a basic engineering principle here - YOU CAN'T GET 10 lbs of crap into a 5 lb bag. Email cannot serve as a general purpose file transfer mechanism.
has lost the widespread adoption battle because it's got some security issues, and frankly it's a technology that just gets in the way
BALONEY. ftp over ssh is perfectly secure. As is HTTP over SSL. The fact is that if a sysadmin sets a file size limit in order to prevent loss of service, he is doing his job.
Slashdot Mirror
DVD burner sales would never "take off"; meaning be accepted by a large portion of the country. If average Joe can't even figure out what kind of media to buy,
I imagine that sooner or later one format will win out, and then Joe average won't have to worry about his format choice. Me, I am not going to wait.
First, we take back Alaska.
And Alaska was part of Canada exactly when?
how does average Joe decide which format to use?
Joe average can't even set the clock on his VCR. All I care about is if I can figure it out. Since I already have, I've ordered one of these.
Oh yes, everybody knows American beer is far superior...
Check out beeradvocate.com for some high quality US brew.
national program to integrate high speed into our igloo clusters.
I am sure that was made practical by the fact that Canada is the first country in the world to have ambient temperature superconductivity materials in all of their communications and power distribution systems.
Yeah, yeah. This is only funny to those who don't live in Canada, of course.
.... 99.5% of the world's population?
That would be.... let's see
they are indeed mutually exclusive.
k ey note1.jsp
Wrong. Take a look at this article.
http://sunnetwork.sun.com/sf2002/info/features/
The fact is that Sun banked their huge profits during the dotcom boom, and has been able to keep their R&D going just fine.
What gives them the right to decide what kind of traffic reaches my computer?
Uhhh... the fact they own the network?
The machines were invented in the US, true. However the Canadians have since overtaken US Zamboni technology, and are manufacturing their own!! We now face a DANGEROUS Zamboni gap!
o wl er.htm
http://www.cipmetalworking.com/FAB/fab_mar_02/f
YAY, We are all proud of the Maple Leaf state!!
The government of canada has some very powerfull supercomputers used for weather.
.
I don't think it takes a supercomputer to predict the weather in Canada
First the alarming lead in Zamboni technology, now this!!
Nowhere in this agreement does it say " you may not modify your hardware to squeeze more bandwidth out of us.
I don't think Cablevision caps their cable modems. The sppeds I get are consistent with the maximum bandwith numbers on my cable modem's spec sheet.
Long live Optimum Online!
Why do broadband companies cap bandwidth at all?
The short answer is because bandwidth costs money. A T1 line costs $1000 per month, a T3 several thousand. When I sign up for a T1 line, how come I don't get T3 level bandwidth? Because the infrastructure for the latter is more costly.
I think this situation SHOULD fall under the same rule.
Why? It is a very different situation. In the case of the 2nd phone, you are adding your own equipment to the line. You are NOT making additional or longer phone calls for free. Phone freaking is still illegal. Uncapping your cable moden is much closer in principle to phone freaking.
stealing bandwidth is much less than stealing from a store
And how is that?
I guess for some it's easier to litigate than it is to spend time/money on developing better products.
Hmmm... I didn't see any place in the article that stated Sun was dropping it's R&D program to pursue the lawsuit. Nor did they mention anything about Bill Joy becoming a lawyer, or similar steps.
These are not mutually exclusive.
But it's that taking away part that I fail to see when it comes to movies or software. If I, purely for the sake of discussion, download a movie from the internet, how is that stealing if, at the end, the owner still has the original?
Very simple. By doing so you are depriving the owner of income. That income is often required for the inventor to recover the investment he made in the production of the original of what you have copied. A movie these days can cost up to $100 million to produce. A new drug can cost $1 billion to bring to market. Who is going to invest that if they cannot recover their costs? By obtaining that illegal copy you are not only stealing that income from the author of the original, but you are also depriving us of future works by reducing the economic incentive to produce new inventions.
It is time that we start waking up and realizing that we as a civilization would not be where we are now had we not copied other people's invention.
And what if nobody had produced that invention in the first place? Would you have anything to copy?
The purpose of intellectual property law is to give added incentive to inventors and authors to produce new works. In the case of patent law there is the additional covenant which requires the inventor to fully disclose his invention in exchange for the patent grant.
In the grand scheme of technological progress a 20 year bar on copying an invention is insignifiact. The invention isn't going away; it will be available for copying.
In the late 1600's England realized the benefits of the social contrat of the Patent and Copyright, and made it law. The results were fabulous - man had not materially changed the way he lived since the development of agriculture. At that time the number of books that were available numbered in the thousands. Now the number is in the 100's of millions. The availability of this knowledge is due both to the copyright (encouragement of authors) and to the inventors who devised the hot metal Linotype machine, the web fed printing press and the Fourdriner paper making machine (all patented), advancing the old technology of papermaking that was essentially unchanged in the 5000 year period between the invention of paper by the Chinese and the invention of the patent in England.
Patents are by their very nature monopolistic. They go against everything that is considered "holy" in a capitalist economy.
And exactly how is that? Monopolies are a very natural outcome of a capitalistic society. This country has had a long tradition of monopolies including Standard Oil, Microsoft, etc.
The fact is that patents have a net effect of DECREASING monopolies because they put a specific time on the exclusive right of the inventor. The alternative to not having a patent system is to go back to the pre patent ways of doing things, that is protecting the technology with trade secret and licensing agreements. Trade secrets have NO period of duration. This is why some companies choose not to patent some inventions; for example the formula for Coca-Cola was never patented.
EULA's in and by themselves can't and shouldn't be able restrict my behavior after the act of purchase.
You are REALLY showing your ignorance here. EULAs are a CONTRACT between you and the software vendor. If we as a society decide that we are going to abandon contract law, pretty much all commerce becomes impossible.
Imagine somebody had patented paper hundreds of years ago and charged horrendous license fees to produce paper. It is highly arguable that such a copyright could never have been in the public interest.
FYI, A patent and a copyright are very different things, the first process of paper making was developed thousands, not hundreds of years ago, and the fact is that processes for making paper have been patented many times over the past 400 years with no apperent ill-effects.
They'll sell it in the U.S.
So all Chinese art, literature and film is going to end up being made to appeal to a U.S. audience because that is the only way they can make money?
The implications and negative effects of that on Chinese society are very easy to imagine.
I hope that this sobers up people who claim the idea of intellectual property is 'wrong', and the efforts of the RIAA and MPAA to attack piracy are based on mistaken assumptions that 'file trading' doesn't hurt sales.
The fact is that we have living examples in countries like China where piracy is unchecked. The results are clear; 90+% of the sales of a title turn out to be rips, and the artists get niothing for their work. Sure, some highly popular titles are going to still recover their costs. But how the hell is a film that targets less than a wide swath of the public going to cover it's production costs? How would something Branaugh's Hamlet EVER be made in a place like China?
Not only does the piracy cut down on what is available to the Chinese viewer, but the pirated copies that drive out the legitmate copies are low quality, too.
So, you simply find a way to satisfy the customers in a manner that will make you more than it costs you if they leave.
One of the characteristics of the losing customer is that they refuse to pay for the services they are demanding.
I don't know of any sysadmin who's setup can be brought down by a large email attachment
Read the rest of the comments to this article. You will see plenty of cases of sysadmins discussing problems with servers going down due to large file attachments.
but are you really advocating setting up a username and password for everyone who ever needs to send you a file? Or that they need to install additional client software to do it?
I think most people already have a web browser installed. No additional client software is needed. They don't need individual passwords for an upload only web page, either.
disk is cheap, bandwidth is a utility
And email does not work as a reliable file transfer mechanism for large files.
If you are an ISP, the users are your customers, and they are right (as customers always should be).
Yah. You won't be in business long. Any business person knows that there are customers that you cannot afford to have. They are so demanding that servicing them will be a financial loser for you. Better for you that they should be your competitor's customers.
You not only have to educate your users in the fine art of using FTP
I am a sysadmin for an agency. I have never seen a client who could not download a file from a web page.
I work in construction. Email is essential to transfer in a way the users already know how to use files,
That's nice. Unfortunately the email protocol IS NOT DESIGNED AS A FILE TRANSFER PROTOCOL. As an email admin I have seen users try to send multiple CD-ROM images as file attachements on one email message. This will cause most email servers to fail, denying all users access to their mail. It is my job as a sysadmin to make sure that some former employee can't bring down business critical services by sending an arbitrarily large email.
File attachment size limits are REQUIRED on email servers to insure some user who needs a bit of training doesn't bring down the entire system.
There is a basic engineering principle here - YOU CAN'T GET 10 lbs of crap into a 5 lb bag. Email cannot serve as a general purpose file transfer mechanism.
has lost the widespread adoption battle because it's got some security issues, and frankly it's a technology that just gets in the way
BALONEY. ftp over ssh is perfectly secure. As is HTTP over SSL. The fact is that if a sysadmin sets a file size limit in order to prevent loss of service, he is doing his job.