Every Londener knows that trhe worlds most efficient intelligence network is the london taxi drivers. they all have what is known as "The knowledge". This sinister sounding piece of mental conditioning is actually a requirement before the driver gets a taxi licence.
Now we're giving this sinister shady organisation access to more technology to control our lives. Not only do they aspire to contain all knowledge, but they also want to knwo where each and every one of us is at any time.
Fortunately we have resistance. The London Underground is fighting against these evil beings. The LU provides a service that prevents mobiles from being used in this way.
The DMCA does not make it illegal. The actual legality has not been determined. So far all we have had is a judgement preventing a third party from manufacturing competing cartridges until the legality is determined.
We should just give up, and use whatever the "winning" format is.
we shouldn't. We do ("We" being the majority of people). This is why it's so hard to find a video cassette recorder that uses a format other than VHS, and why almost everyone uses Windows as their OS.
What benefit does ogg give? It may offer disadvantages, like the fact that Windows media player doesn't play it without adding an extra codec. And converting existing mp3s to ogg will reduce the quality, so what benefit does Ogg give that makes it worth changing over?
You said "There are no patents preventing anyone from using mp3s". I said there are, and provided an example. It's the reason that many games companies use ogg vorbis as well. If you are a company that can actually be targetted for patent infringement then there are patents preventing some people from using mp3.
There may be no patents preventing you from using mp3, but there are patents preventing other people from using mp3. I did not state that these patents prevent everyone from using it. I merely implied that some people are.
The company I worked for considered half a dozen options. Ogg Vorbis was best in some tests, average in others. One or two formats were better for the type of music we wanted. The reason we didn;t choose those were licencing costs.
Wavs are very large. mp3s are about a tenth of the size while retaining adequate quality. Losing another 50% isn't as important a consideration. mp3s are small enough for most people.
And many people simply don't believe that a lower bitrate could offer the same quality. People expect a 128kbps mp3 to sound the same as a 128kbps ogg. Just because they're wrong doesn't mean they don;t have this misconception.
Most people who use Ogg Vorbis do not use it for it's quality. All that matters in that respect is that Ogg Vorbis is comaparable to other formats at similar bitrates.
The important aspect of it is that it's free. There are no patents (at least as far as we know of) preventing anyone from using it, and it's made quite clear that the code can be included in open and closed source software without royalty payments.
That's true, but for the average user, Ogg vorbis has no advantage over mp3. All most people care about is whether it costrs them money. mp3 is free for most users so what benefit does this strange sounding opgg format give?
Most people who use ogg do not use it for it's quality. All that matters in that respect is that Ogg is comaprable to other formats at similar bitrates.
The important aspect of it is that it's free. There are no patents (at least as far as we know of) preventing anyone from using it, and it's made quite clear that the code can be included in open and closed source software without royalty payments.
Lots of people invented the telephone. Itwas just something that was due to come along at that time. It's quite possible that they were all independent. Even with a worldwide patent though, Yeates would probably not have been able to defend it.
Thanks for the link. This bit: "although he was too poor to protect his inventions with a patent (this would have costed him $250, that he did not have)". makes it seem very relevent. Patent costs arte just the first step. Defending your patent costs considerably more.
The cost of filing in several different countries is largely irrelevent to a small inventor. The income from one country alone could often result in a significant return on investment. There are other issues though:
1. The cost of filing in one country. Most inventions are failures. $7000 just for one country is a lot of money to invest in a product that the world just isn't ready for. With careful budgetting, this could support the inventor for another few months, allowing for him to perfect his invention
2. Timeframes. 20 years is far too long. Nothing that's 20 years old could ever be considered at all modern. Most cars last about 10 years. Computers are out of date in about 3. Even industrial equipment is usually outdated much more quickly than that. If something has not returned the investment cost within 5 years, just about any organisation would consider it a failure.
3. Lack of protection for independent inventors. It's actually very likely that several people will come up with the same idea at the same time. - for example, Bell beat Edison and others to the invention of the telephone by a short time - Shouldn't others be entitled to actually finish their invention without being charged with breaching a patent that hadn't been granted when they started?
I think it's just the general anger and bitterness. You're looking too hard. There isn't a "joke" as such. This is just the Penny Arcade people using their forum to bitch and whine about American Greetings in as abusive a way as possible whilst being absolutely sure that they have the legal protection that they can claim it was parody and not free speech.
Essentially, it's funny because it's totally in your face but using a (slightly) different method of saying what it's saying.
Two stories in a row about MS doing the right thing! I think this is all part of a cunning plan. We'll soon see stories like "MS demands the DMCA is repealed", "MS releases secure OS", "MS replaces Windows EULA with GPL".
A short time later, after gaining the support of all the geeks in the world, we'll see "MS decides to take over and enslave the world", and there will no longer be any organised geek resistance to prevent this.
Unless the laws are written to special-case free software, we might see Linus sued because Linux crashed one day.
This just means that the laws should special case free software. If free software fails, then the person responsible is the person who sold it, not the one who wrote it.
I believe a similar approach was taken with UCITA.
I agree. Most software is very reliable. More aircraft crashes are caused by mechanical problems than software issues. If there is a life threatening fault in a piece of software, this usually results in a recall. The only software that's really unreliable is consumer level, and you are quite unlikely to die from Word crashing (even that doesn't happen to me much).
Yes, but a single bug could sink them much more easily.
What's needed here is someone to nderwrite the software. Simply insure yourself against lawsuits. The chances of a bug causing damage are actually quite small. Lets assume the odds are 1 in 1000 that there is a bug that will cause the company to be wiped out. Then you need to charge $1000 + usual price for the software, offering a full guarentee that the software will not cause the company to go bankrupt, and make it very clear that the software is not suitable for any comapny with a net worth over $1 000 000.
Then it's just a matter of finding an insurance company to underwrite you that will agree with your odds of failure, and get them to cover the costs (up to $1000 000) if the software does go wrong.
Well, they are bound by the UK's data protection act, whcih means they could get into a lot of trouble if they do sell your information.
Unfortunately, I couldn't register. Kept asking me for my details. Shame really. I would have been interested to see if they sent anything to an address that's 100% swearwords.
rather than paying for the work that they have already done, what happens if you pay them for work that you may expect from them in the future?
This is just a thought experiment rather than a serious proposal, but it does mean that you are effectively reinvesting in the project, and those who feel it is unfair have a means of retaliation (refusing to work on the sequel)
Slashdot Mirror
They should all have liocence badges and properly calibrated metres though. Even the dodgy minicabs.
Every Londener knows that trhe worlds most efficient intelligence network is the london taxi drivers. they all have what is known as "The knowledge". This sinister sounding piece of mental conditioning is actually a requirement before the driver gets a taxi licence.
Now we're giving this sinister shady organisation access to more technology to control our lives. Not only do they aspire to contain all knowledge, but they also want to knwo where each and every one of us is at any time.
Fortunately we have resistance. The London Underground is fighting against these evil beings. The LU provides a service that prevents mobiles from being used in this way.
The DMCA does not make it illegal. The actual legality has not been determined. So far all we have had is a judgement preventing a third party from manufacturing competing cartridges until the legality is determined.
We should just give up, and use whatever the "winning" format is.
we shouldn't. We do ("We" being the majority of people). This is why it's so hard to find a video cassette recorder that uses a format other than VHS, and why almost everyone uses Windows as their OS.
What benefit does ogg give? It may offer disadvantages, like the fact that Windows media player doesn't play it without adding an extra codec. And converting existing mp3s to ogg will reduce the quality, so what benefit does Ogg give that makes it worth changing over?
You said "There are no patents preventing anyone from using mp3s". I said there are, and provided an example. It's the reason that many games companies use ogg vorbis as well. If you are a company that can actually be targetted for patent infringement then there are patents preventing some people from using mp3.
There may be no patents preventing you from using mp3, but there are patents preventing other people from using mp3. I did not state that these patents prevent everyone from using it. I merely implied that some people are.
And there are no patents preventing anyone from using MP3,
Tell that to the guys that received this letter
The company I worked for considered half a dozen options. Ogg Vorbis was best in some tests, average in others. One or two formats were better for the type of music we wanted. The reason we didn;t choose those were licencing costs.
Wavs are very large. mp3s are about a tenth of the size while retaining adequate quality. Losing another 50% isn't as important a consideration. mp3s are small enough for most people.
And many people simply don't believe that a lower bitrate could offer the same quality. People expect a 128kbps mp3 to sound the same as a 128kbps ogg. Just because they're wrong doesn't mean they don;t have this misconception.
Most people who use Ogg Vorbis do not use it for it's quality. All that matters in that respect is that Ogg Vorbis is comaparable to other formats at similar bitrates.
The important aspect of it is that it's free. There are no patents (at least as far as we know of) preventing anyone from using it, and it's made quite clear that the code can be included in open and closed source software without royalty payments.
That's true, but for the average user, Ogg vorbis has no advantage over mp3. All most people care about is whether it costrs them money. mp3 is free for most users so what benefit does this strange sounding opgg format give?
That's true, but pharmaceutical companies already are a special case in patent law pretty much for those reasons.
Most people who use ogg do not use it for it's quality. All that matters in that respect is that Ogg is comaprable to other formats at similar bitrates.
The important aspect of it is that it's free. There are no patents (at least as far as we know of) preventing anyone from using it, and it's made quite clear that the code can be included in open and closed source software without royalty payments.
Which is kinda my point.
Lots of people invented the telephone. Itwas just something that was due to come along at that time. It's quite possible that they were all independent. Even with a worldwide patent though, Yeates would probably not have been able to defend it.
Thanks for the link. This bit: "although he was too poor to protect his inventions with a patent (this would have costed him $250, that he did not have)". makes it seem very relevent. Patent costs arte just the first step. Defending your patent costs considerably more.
But it dopes mean that the record industry has less right to complain about us evil pirates.
The cost of filing in several different countries is largely irrelevent to a small inventor. The income from one country alone could often result in a significant return on investment. There are other issues though:
1. The cost of filing in one country. Most inventions are failures. $7000 just for one country is a lot of money to invest in a product that the world just isn't ready for. With careful budgetting, this could support the inventor for another few months, allowing for him to perfect his invention
2. Timeframes. 20 years is far too long. Nothing that's 20 years old could ever be considered at all modern. Most cars last about 10 years. Computers are out of date in about 3. Even industrial equipment is usually outdated much more quickly than that. If something has not returned the investment cost within 5 years, just about any organisation would consider it a failure.
3. Lack of protection for independent inventors. It's actually very likely that several people will come up with the same idea at the same time. - for example, Bell beat Edison and others to the invention of the telephone by a short time - Shouldn't others be entitled to actually finish their invention without being charged with breaching a patent that hadn't been granted when they started?
I think it's just the general anger and bitterness. You're looking too hard. There isn't a "joke" as such. This is just the Penny Arcade people using their forum to bitch and whine about American Greetings in as abusive a way as possible whilst being absolutely sure that they have the legal protection that they can claim it was parody and not free speech.
Essentially, it's funny because it's totally in your face but using a (slightly) different method of saying what it's saying.
Two stories in a row about MS doing the right thing! I think this is all part of a cunning plan. We'll soon see stories like "MS demands the DMCA is repealed", "MS releases secure OS", "MS replaces Windows EULA with GPL".
A short time later, after gaining the support of all the geeks in the world, we'll see "MS decides to take over and enslave the world", and there will no longer be any organised geek resistance to prevent this.
You'd have to talk to their lawyers to get access to a log file. :p
Suits me. If they want to take full responsibility for the bug.....
Sure, the specifics need some sort of work, but the basic principal is just a risk management situation to be dealt with by the free market.
Unless the laws are written to special-case free software, we might see Linus sued because Linux crashed one day.
This just means that the laws should special case free software. If free software fails, then the person responsible is the person who sold it, not the one who wrote it.
I believe a similar approach was taken with UCITA.
I agree. Most software is very reliable. More aircraft crashes are caused by mechanical problems than software issues. If there is a life threatening fault in a piece of software, this usually results in a recall. The only software that's really unreliable is consumer level, and you are quite unlikely to die from Word crashing (even that doesn't happen to me much).
A single lawsuit could sink us
Yes, but a single bug could sink them much more easily.
What's needed here is someone to nderwrite the software. Simply insure yourself against lawsuits. The chances of a bug causing damage are actually quite small. Lets assume the odds are 1 in 1000 that there is a bug that will cause the company to be wiped out. Then you need to charge $1000 + usual price for the software, offering a full guarentee that the software will not cause the company to go bankrupt, and make it very clear that the software is not suitable for any comapny with a net worth over $1 000 000.
Then it's just a matter of finding an insurance company to underwrite you that will agree with your odds of failure, and get them to cover the costs (up to $1000 000) if the software does go wrong.
Well, they are bound by the UK's data protection act, whcih means they could get into a lot of trouble if they do sell your information.
Unfortunately, I couldn't register. Kept asking me for my details. Shame really. I would have been interested to see if they sent anything to an address that's 100% swearwords.
rather than paying for the work that they have already done, what happens if you pay them for work that you may expect from them in the future?
This is just a thought experiment rather than a serious proposal, but it does mean that you are effectively reinvesting in the project, and those who feel it is unfair have a means of retaliation (refusing to work on the sequel)
Exactly. If you write something then you may as well save someone else the hassle of doing the same thing. A lot of people simply like to share.