Doesn't anyone have a memory?
They weren't trying to get rid of the Netscape browser per-se, they wanted to get rid of Netscape's servers.
Netscape server ran on a variety of operating systems. They created IE, which I DO believe is a better browser, and added features to it which could only be easily provided by a Microsoft IIS server. ASPs anyone?
Everyone who is saying "People had a choice in browsers" are missing the point. Microsoft released IE for free to deny Netscape revenue to continue competing with them in the server market.
RL example: If Coke had some money saved up and said "Ok, we're going to start giving away Coke for free until Pepsi goes out of business.", that would be illegal.
Right now, I view the music industry the same way I view Microsoft.
They release poor quality product, they treat their artists and customers like dirt, and they relentlessly attack anything that might infringe on their total control of their industry regardless of the consequences.
I will not patronize them.
On the other hand, if someone set up a site distributing pirated copies of Windows 2000, i'd fully support Microsoft's right to sue them.
Instead of worrying about people who are breaking the law, we should be concentrating on the use of technology to free artists from music industry contracts that rip all of us off.
Spam email is pretty easily filtered. The big problem nowadays are the shotgun spammers. The guys who send "FREE XXX SITE!!!!" emails from everyone from aaaaaaaa@aol.com to zzzzzzzz@aol.com.
I guarantee that the internet slowdown that results in is causing you a lot more delay and inconvienience than the occasional click of the delete button.
You really think jailtime is an appropriate punishment for spam mail?
What is spam mail? If the National Kidney foundation sends you an email asking you to donate your car, and ONE person out there complains because he was on an opt-out list, should government officers rush the NKF headquarters busting heads and arresting people?
I know that's an extreme/unrealistic example, but I don't think anything like this will ever happen in the US. I think most people in this country associate email with snail mail, and accept junk mail is a part of it. It needs to be associated with telemarketing, where lots of legislation is already in place to protect people from being harassed.
Incorrect about the tax code.
on
Geek Charities?
·
· Score: 1
You don't seem to understand. Its not a magic tax break, the money isn't donated for free. The way to think of it is that the money you donate is money you never earned...
That is, if you're in the 41% tax bracket, and you donate $1000, you can get up to $410 off in taxes. That still means you spent $590. Its not exactly some sort of money making scheme. Plus, the tax break only comes into effect after you've spent over 2% of your income towards charity or some other deductable things.
So a normal person who doesn't have other deductable 2% rule expenses, making $100,000/year, who donates $4000 to a charitable organization, will get a refund of $820. Maybe.
Back a few years ago, before tax code reform, the highest tax brackets were 91%! Thats why there were all sorts of insane donations back in the 50s to build libraries, etc, because a rich person could donate a MILLION dollars, and only have to actually lose $90,000.
They were still the property of Zap Me, who put them into schools for free. Now that they aren't allowed to put their advertising on them anymore, they have to take back their property. The schools can also buy the comptuers from the company if they want to keep them.
Saying ZapMe is "sending a bill to the schools" is a bit misleading.
Some of you are just as bad as those who will only vote for one of the two big parties. You say "I'm not going to fall into a mold and vote for a Republican or Democrat, so by default i'll vote for Nader, the one you vote for when you want to be different."
Vote Libertarian! All the personal freedom, none of the communism.
What I don't understand is, no matter what the format is, something EVENTUALLY has to convert it to a readable format to send to your audio card, so why couldn't anyone just read that data and re-encode it anyway they want?
Gnutella simply puts something in their program stating,
"Keep Gnutella ad free. Inform advertisers that you will not purchase their products or services while they use any advertising method that interferes with the gnutella network."
notified them that an opt-out solution by providing additional headers to my posts is not sufficient, as they are the ones needing a license to use my works, and I won't give them. It is their task to get the licenses required for the works of other authors presented on their site.
What happens when they start to block access or write laws banning other sites? If you read the article, there is a quote on how difficult it will be to block access to overseas sites, as they can change their IPs. This law could easily be a ban on sexually explicit sites, claiming that "Its not making anything legal that was illegal, or making anything illegal that was legal." One photo that could be called "degrading to women" and the site is legally obscene. Where does it go from there? Once a government controlled IP blocking system is in place, its a slippery slope. Could Metallica go into a court with a friendly judge and get an immediate cease and desist order with the site being blocked a few hours later? "Cyber Patrol - Government edition"
This is just a marketing ploy, people.
on
The CPO Cometh
·
· Score: 1
These companies are just going to grab someone from Marketing or customer relations, call them the "Chief Privacy Officer", and have them arrange meetings until they have a vague clue of what they're talking about.
That way, people who are worried about their privacy can think "Ahh, they have a CPO, which is important, like a CEO or a CFO! My privacy is insured!"
Slashdot Mirror
Doesn't anyone have a memory? They weren't trying to get rid of the Netscape browser per-se, they wanted to get rid of Netscape's servers. Netscape server ran on a variety of operating systems. They created IE, which I DO believe is a better browser, and added features to it which could only be easily provided by a Microsoft IIS server. ASPs anyone? Everyone who is saying "People had a choice in browsers" are missing the point. Microsoft released IE for free to deny Netscape revenue to continue competing with them in the server market. RL example: If Coke had some money saved up and said "Ok, we're going to start giving away Coke for free until Pepsi goes out of business.", that would be illegal.
Their computers will come "Free" with one year of Microsoft .NET access!
They release poor quality product, they treat their artists and customers like dirt, and they relentlessly attack anything that might infringe on their total control of their industry regardless of the consequences.
I will not patronize them.
On the other hand, if someone set up a site distributing pirated copies of Windows 2000, i'd fully support Microsoft's right to sue them.
Instead of worrying about people who are breaking the law, we should be concentrating on the use of technology to free artists from music industry contracts that rip all of us off.
I guarantee that the internet slowdown that results in is causing you a lot more delay and inconvienience than the occasional click of the delete button.
I know that's an extreme/unrealistic example, but I don't think anything like this will ever happen in the US. I think most people in this country associate email with snail mail, and accept junk mail is a part of it. It needs to be associated with telemarketing, where lots of legislation is already in place to protect people from being harassed.
That is, if you're in the 41% tax bracket, and you donate $1000, you can get up to $410 off in taxes. That still means you spent $590. Its not exactly some sort of money making scheme. Plus, the tax break only comes into effect after you've spent over 2% of your income towards charity or some other deductable things.
So a normal person who doesn't have other deductable 2% rule expenses, making $100,000/year, who donates $4000 to a charitable organization, will get a refund of $820. Maybe.
Back a few years ago, before tax code reform, the highest tax brackets were 91%! Thats why there were all sorts of insane donations back in the 50s to build libraries, etc, because a rich person could donate a MILLION dollars, and only have to actually lose $90,000.
Saying ZapMe is "sending a bill to the schools" is a bit misleading.
Some of you are just as bad as those who will only vote for one of the two big parties.
You say "I'm not going to fall into a mold and vote for a Republican or Democrat, so by default i'll vote for Nader, the one you vote for when you want to be different."
Vote Libertarian! All the personal freedom, none of the communism.
That's my favorite word now, too.
What I don't understand is, no matter what the format is, something EVENTUALLY has to convert it to a readable format to send to your audio card, so why couldn't anyone just read that data and re-encode it anyway they want?
Gnutella simply puts something in their program stating,
"Keep Gnutella ad free. Inform advertisers that you will not purchase their products or services while they use any advertising method that interferes with the gnutella network."
-----
(Insert my reply here)
But look! I reposted without permission of the author!
Happens hundreds of times a second, I suspect. Am I going to be sued?
What happens when they start to block access or write laws banning other sites? If you read the article, there is a quote on how difficult it will be to block access to overseas sites, as they can change their IPs. This law could easily be a ban on sexually explicit sites, claiming that "Its not making anything legal that was illegal, or making anything illegal that was legal." One photo that could be called "degrading to women" and the site is legally obscene. Where does it go from there? Once a government controlled IP blocking system is in place, its a slippery slope. Could Metallica go into a court with a friendly judge and get an immediate cease and desist order with the site being blocked a few hours later? "Cyber Patrol - Government edition"
These companies are just going to grab someone from Marketing or customer relations, call them the "Chief Privacy Officer", and have them arrange meetings until they have a vague clue of what they're talking about.
That way, people who are worried about their privacy can think "Ahh, they have a CPO, which is important, like a CEO or a CFO! My privacy is insured!"