The whole "Enemies of Linux" thing comes across as deeply paranoid. It makes it sound as though these organisations are evil forces that want to destroy the heroic land of Linux.
A better slant would be that software companies who have compete in the same market space as those companies that use linux are using their usual dirty tricks and misinformation to undermine the competition while the competition simultaneously uses similar tricks and lies to undermine them. But it's hardly news is it?
A lot of it undeserved. While they have a perfectly adequate prosduct (in the form of a search engine) and some pretty lousy products (GMail and Google groups) the fact remains that their only purpose is to make money.
And do that they will. By hook or by crook. Only when they get found out will they change their policy and backtrack. If they can get away withtheir shady tactics they will. They were hoping to add adds to peoples email with GMail, of all things. Did they think we wouldn't care about our privacy? And what about the cookies? Why do they need a cookie that doesn't expire for several decades? Do they think we might never use google, and then in 2018 we suddenly want to find a sitre about marsupials using exactly the same machine, and get upset that links are not opened in a new window?
Ebay fraud is out of hand, and ebay itself is doing nothiong to stop it. They offer no insurance to anyone against fraud and are not willing to cut their profits to force people to use - for example - an escrow system. And why would they? Anything they do will cut into their profits.
But auctions ahve existed a lot longer than the internet. Why doesn't Christies have the same problems with fraud? Because real world auction houses are regulated. There are laws that protect buyers and sellers.
Since an online auction is done entirely by internet and post, the laws don't apply. Ohio has made a bold step in writing new laws for the new age. We should applaud them for thinking ahead.
Reduction in travel costs ~ $40pw
Reduction in food costs ~ $10 pw
That's an effective rise of a couple of thousand straight off. You may also get a substantial increase in personal time saved from not travelling (approx 10 hours a week in my case) which even at minimum wage is worth thousands, and the actual value of extra free time worth a lot more than that to me.
The BBC needs to justify its existence to the general public, and the amount they spend on a series to the governers. Ratings do come into this a bit. Even though the BBC is regularly told it shouldn't be chasing ratings, it is a convenient easily measurable figure for the success of a series.
It is important that it entertains a lot of people. Ideally it should be watched by demographics that are less interested in other shows. The BBC has a responsibility to provide somethign for everyone.
No. You're not alone. Personally, I like it. I think it's an entertaining lighthearted Sci-fi. Some people like it, some people think it's stupid. Same goes for everything.
If you don't like it then you have your own tastes and opinions. This is a good thing, but a lot of nerds don't appreciate that people can have a perfectly valid opinions that are different from their own.
That could be complicated. They'd have to get the purchaser's information. We'll have to see whether this is easy or not in Russia. Then they'd have to be sure this was legally valid as evidence in the downloaders jurisdiction. Then they'll have to prove damages.
The RIAA haa a good legal team though. They might find a quicker way to do this.
I.e. all hands on deck for a topic that is not likely to attract votes from ordinary EU citizens.
It all depends. On the surface, this is about patents, but (assuming we're not being misled) this is about democracy, and the EU Parliament being made irrelevent.
I don't know what the studio was thinking. They did have a rabid fanbase, but they didn't seem to want them. Enterprise season 1 wasn't even "Star Trek". It was just "Enterprise".
Who were they expecting to watch it? The hardcore sci-fi fans who think trek is beneath them can't be that great a demographic. And surely the mainstream market is going to be put off by sci-fi anyway if they don't like trek.
Anyway, this isn't going to be the end of Trek. They'll give us a decent series when someone has a concept that will work (I can pitch a few ideas if they want and so can just about any other fan). They just need to stop treating it as a cash cow and find out what the fans like. And learn that Jeri Ryan and Jolene Blalock look as good or better in a uniform than in impractical tight fitting clothes.
Surely the holes are in applications rather than the kernel itself. Since this isn't going to be running nearly as many services as XP ships out of the box, it ill be a lot less insecure. Nobody is going to be using IE or outlook on this.
Sometimes I think that any article about the BBC should come with this entire discussion pre-added.
It is curious though. Logically, you'd expect the BBC to be biased towards the government and all commercial stations to be free of bias, but observational evidence suggests the opposite is the case.
The rules regarding terrestrial TV advertising are realy quite strict. Number of minutes per clock hour, number of breaks in programmes of a certain length, and total advertising allowed throughout the day are all tightly controlled.
And the regulators do employ people to check they comply.
The cost to do that will be at least as much as Eolas can expect to get for it. Eolas can set the price to whatever they want. They could ask for a $1000 billion if they wanted to. MS wouldn't pay, but they're entitled to ask for it.
Hmmm... I'm not sure if the first one counts as a job. Isn't the idea of a job that you work in exchange for financial compensation?
The second one is an interesting one. It certainly makes a lot more sense to quit for being asked to lie than it does to quit for objecting to the ethics of the company that produces your tools. It makes even more sense to quit if you know they're doing something illegal.
I'd suggest go for most money for least work. Exactly how the time/money is balanced is a matter of personal choice. It's a lot more complex than max(money/time). Working 80 hours a week for slightly over twice the amount of a 40 hour week isn't worth it.
Ideally, I'd like a subsistence wage for no work at all plus the option to do overtime for a small amount.
Surely by extrapolating the argument further, you could argue against prison for convicted criminals. After all, this piece of totalitarianism is justified largely by the fact that if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear.
Fair enough. I do see that you have a point that if the court does find Grokster to be illegal, they need to make sure that the decision is not overreaching.
I'm just concerned that peopel seem to start drifting towards the argument that if P2P is legal, anything that uses the technology should also be legal.
I think they've been trying to maintain their monopoly. But they're doing so by attacking specific implementations of a technology rather than the technology itself.
Slashdot Mirror
The whole "Enemies of Linux" thing comes across as deeply paranoid. It makes it sound as though these organisations are evil forces that want to destroy the heroic land of Linux.
A better slant would be that software companies who have compete in the same market space as those companies that use linux are using their usual dirty tricks and misinformation to undermine the competition while the competition simultaneously uses similar tricks and lies to undermine them. But it's hardly news is it?
A lot of it undeserved. While they have a perfectly adequate prosduct (in the form of a search engine) and some pretty lousy products (GMail and Google groups) the fact remains that their only purpose is to make money.
And do that they will. By hook or by crook. Only when they get found out will they change their policy and backtrack. If they can get away withtheir shady tactics they will. They were hoping to add adds to peoples email with GMail, of all things. Did they think we wouldn't care about our privacy? And what about the cookies? Why do they need a cookie that doesn't expire for several decades? Do they think we might never use google, and then in 2018 we suddenly want to find a sitre about marsupials using exactly the same machine, and get upset that links are not opened in a new window?
Ebay fraud is out of hand, and ebay itself is doing nothiong to stop it. They offer no insurance to anyone against fraud and are not willing to cut their profits to force people to use - for example - an escrow system. And why would they? Anything they do will cut into their profits.
But auctions ahve existed a lot longer than the internet. Why doesn't Christies have the same problems with fraud? Because real world auction houses are regulated. There are laws that protect buyers and sellers.
Since an online auction is done entirely by internet and post, the laws don't apply. Ohio has made a bold step in writing new laws for the new age. We should applaud them for thinking ahead.
In my case:
Reduction in travel costs ~ $40pw
Reduction in food costs ~ $10 pw
That's an effective rise of a couple of thousand straight off. You may also get a substantial increase in personal time saved from not travelling (approx 10 hours a week in my case) which even at minimum wage is worth thousands, and the actual value of extra free time worth a lot more than that to me.
The BBC needs to justify its existence to the general public, and the amount they spend on a series to the governers. Ratings do come into this a bit. Even though the BBC is regularly told it shouldn't be chasing ratings, it is a convenient easily measurable figure for the success of a series.
It is important that it entertains a lot of people. Ideally it should be watched by demographics that are less interested in other shows. The BBC has a responsibility to provide somethign for everyone.
No. You're not alone. Personally, I like it. I think it's an entertaining lighthearted Sci-fi. Some people like it, some people think it's stupid. Same goes for everything.
If you don't like it then you have your own tastes and opinions. This is a good thing, but a lot of nerds don't appreciate that people can have a perfectly valid opinions that are different from their own.
Wouldn't life be dull if we were all the same.
That could be complicated. They'd have to get the purchaser's information. We'll have to see whether this is easy or not in Russia. Then they'd have to be sure this was legally valid as evidence in the downloaders jurisdiction. Then they'll have to prove damages.
The RIAA haa a good legal team though. They might find a quicker way to do this.
I.e. all hands on deck for a topic that is not likely to attract votes from ordinary EU citizens.
It all depends. On the surface, this is about patents, but (assuming we're not being misled) this is about democracy, and the EU Parliament being made irrelevent.
I don't know what the studio was thinking. They did have a rabid fanbase, but they didn't seem to want them. Enterprise season 1 wasn't even "Star Trek". It was just "Enterprise".
Who were they expecting to watch it? The hardcore sci-fi fans who think trek is beneath them can't be that great a demographic. And surely the mainstream market is going to be put off by sci-fi anyway if they don't like trek.
Anyway, this isn't going to be the end of Trek. They'll give us a decent series when someone has a concept that will work (I can pitch a few ideas if they want and so can just about any other fan). They just need to stop treating it as a cash cow and find out what the fans like. And learn that Jeri Ryan and Jolene Blalock look as good or better in a uniform than in impractical tight fitting clothes.
It's only going to be connected to trusted sites though. It should be safe.
And you don't need any useful services.
Surely the holes are in applications rather than the kernel itself. Since this isn't going to be running nearly as many services as XP ships out of the box, it ill be a lot less insecure. Nobody is going to be using IE or outlook on this.
From exisitng conspiracy to commit fraud crimes?
Why do we need a new law when an existing one will do?
It would make a lot more sense to charge a fee on a broadband internet connection. Especially since this could be collected via an ISP.
It's certainly a possibility. Kits have been sold in the past in order to circumvent a law that bans "sale or importing".
Pah! None of those images had a pic of the brunette dressed as Wonder Woman!
;)
Total disappointment!
Sometimes I think that any article about the BBC should come with this entire discussion pre-added.
It is curious though. Logically, you'd expect the BBC to be biased towards the government and all commercial stations to be free of bias, but observational evidence suggests the opposite is the case.
The rules regarding terrestrial TV advertising are realy quite strict. Number of minutes per clock hour, number of breaks in programmes of a certain length, and total advertising allowed throughout the day are all tightly controlled.
And the regulators do employ people to check they comply.
The cost to do that will be at least as much as Eolas can expect to get for it. Eolas can set the price to whatever they want. They could ask for a $1000 billion if they wanted to. MS wouldn't pay, but they're entitled to ask for it.
Hmmm... I'm not sure if the first one counts as a job. Isn't the idea of a job that you work in exchange for financial compensation?
The second one is an interesting one. It certainly makes a lot more sense to quit for being asked to lie than it does to quit for objecting to the ethics of the company that produces your tools. It makes even more sense to quit if you know they're doing something illegal.
I'd suggest go for most money for least work. Exactly how the time/money is balanced is a matter of personal choice. It's a lot more complex than max(money/time). Working 80 hours a week for slightly over twice the amount of a 40 hour week isn't worth it.
Ideally, I'd like a subsistence wage for no work at all plus the option to do overtime for a small amount.
And how is it the same argument?
Surely by extrapolating the argument further, you could argue against prison for convicted criminals. After all, this piece of totalitarianism is justified largely by the fact that if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear.
Fair enough. I do see that you have a point that if the court does find Grokster to be illegal, they need to make sure that the decision is not overreaching.
I'm just concerned that peopel seem to start drifting towards the argument that if P2P is legal, anything that uses the technology should also be legal.
I think they've been trying to maintain their monopoly. But they're doing so by attacking specific implementations of a technology rather than the technology itself.
P2P has been established as a useful technology. Nobody is denying this. Nobody wants it to be banned (at least they're not officially).
Grokster is an application of P2P technology that appears to exist to allow people to swap copyrighted files without permission.
They are not the same thing. MGM just wants Grokster and StreamCast banned. Not P2P itself!
No. I think that's about enough for an episode.