There are STILL applications where vacuum tubes are better than transistors. Guitar amps and other pieces of audio equipment is a prime example. I wouldn't consider an amp that wasn't tube, nor would most serious guitarists. Many audiophiles also swear by tubes, for dynamic range and warmth. If you want a two way radio system to be able to work during a nuclear blast, only tubes will do, as the EMF will render transistors useless.
I would not be shocked to see some new application for tubes or tube-like technology. Tubes are pretty reliable, can take insane punishment, operate in a variety of environments, have exceptional range, tolerate wide variances in input strength and have a reasonable lifetime, even if shorter than transistors.
South Korean soap operas are apparently quite popular to watch illegally on imported DVD'
I would hate to go to jail just because I wanted to find out if Kim ever recovered from double amnesia to discover his wife was really his father's ex-lover...
>> What if you're running from a mugger and want to dial 911?
> Then don't lock out emergency functions - similar to the way that > (in the US at least) phones without a valid subscription can still call 911.
The editing on/. gets worse each day. What is more interesting of a question would have been "are walks as unique as fingerprints, and can this be used to violate privacy" How is this quantified, and could the police put you on a suspect list because your "walk" is similar to who they think committed some crime? Those are interesting questions. As for 911, as the parent points out, that would be obvious to anyone with any life experience.
The primary difference is that Unions are legally recognized groups that are given exclusions in many ways. Right or wrong, they are excluded from anti-trust issues, else so many wouldn't be so crooked. Whether or not they should be would be a different issue. In other words, because they aren't treated the same by law, I don't think you can draw a parallel here. The analogy doesn't work because they are too dissimilar in the eyes of the law.
Probes might do good science, but man alone inspires our kids to become scientists.
You lack imagination and underestimate children. To think that the only reason a child would want to enter science is because they saw a spaceman on the surface of mars is absurd. Most don't need to be manipulated, only pointed in the right direction. And not everyone in science gets to fly to the moon. Actually, most of the people who get to fly to the moon aren't scientists at all. Some people enter science out of the desire to be part of something bigger than themselves. Humans landing on the moon helps, but if you think that landing rovers that crawl all over the place for months sending back photos, and crashing probes into asteroids, and videoing comets explode over Jupiter isn't freaking cool, then yes, you lack imagination.
Go read some history on Standard Oil, Rockefeller, et al. The laws aren't perfect, but when you look at the Robber Baron Age, what you see is greed that killed competition and SLOWED progress down. The roll of government *should* be to only insure the playing field is level. I'm not saying that govt. does a great job at it, but the problem has been enforcement, not the actual laws, which have been around long enough without being replaced to demonstrate their value.
Because of that political contest we ended up with the pile of manure known as the shuttle program, and wont make it to the moon again for nearly a century after the last time we put foot on it. What a complete waste of resources.
Many would argue that going to the moon is a waste of resources, at least when it comes to sending humans. We have already been there and can send probes for a tiny fraction of the cost. Manned exploration is fine and dandy, but only in small doses if you want to get the best use of your resources. Same with Mars. Yes, we want to put a human up there and get them back, if for no other reason than "because it is there", but most of the really good science will happen with probes and rovers, not humans that have to sleep and eat half the day, using a majority of the resources to launch and maintain the craft simply to keep them alive.
Or more scary is the internet could have started as a purely commercial venture. Imagine if it had not existed, and AOL had created their own version of the internet. It is kind of what they were trying to do before the open internet kicked their butts. You would have several private nets (like in the 80s) and eventually, the big ones would buy out the small ones. You would have MUCH less content, as the price to enter the market with a website would be dictated by singular corporate interests. Most important is the fact that Free Software wouldn't be as far as it is now, with a more limited distribution method.
The only reason that the internet is as open as it is now is the US govt. was naive enough to not know what it could really be. Otherwise, they would have tried to control it more.
I would respectfully disagree. Unions are formed for worker protection, and you can still hire the same worker, they just are forced to be a part of a collective bargaining group: the union. This is different than excluding an entire class of musicians for reasons not related to monetary considerations. This is more like a company saying they will hire workers from one union, but not willing to hire workers from another union, even at the same pay or less. The Sherman Act actually has some teeth and is used rather frequently in the USA, often in surprisingly small cases. It might take 4 to 6 years to run through the system, but I am willing to bet it would come out on the side of the CC.
On the flip side, it is very possible to say you are ONLY going to use CC music, as that is a grant of exclusivity, and otherwise justified monetarily. Part of what gives the Sherman Act teeth is the exchange of money, so you could likely also say you are only going to use music that is "free as in beer" and be within the law. It is when one group is compensated and another group is excluded in a singular fashion, or when the source has a monopoly, that the Sherman Act seems to be applicable. And of course, IANAL, but I would be willing to bet next weeks lunch money on it.
Actually, I have always thought that the Soviets getting a satellite into space first was a good thing, as an American of 45 years. It put the fear of ungod into the American military complex to get into space, which ended up netting more good science than simply building bigger and bigger bombs. It also created a huge demand for science, and boosted the desire of teenagers to enter the science field. Nothing like fear to motivate a country into investing into science.
Being raised during the cold war in a lifer military family might color my perspective, but a lot of good things came out of the cold war. One of them is the internet, which might have taken much longer to develop if not for the fear of Soviet ICBMs, reinforced by that humble little beeping satellite named Sputnik.
They aren't barred, they are charged a royalty based upon "number of chairs", which is not the same as "seating capacity". (at least that was the standard 20 years ago). Theoretically, they have "sampled" what you play to have an idea of which artists get a tiny, tiny cut of the royalties they charge you. The majority of the money they collect goes to "expenses". It is a racket, and I have no idea who you have to blow if you are a musician and you want a decent cut of "royalties".
In reality, most clubs play music subject to royalties, which is all fine and good, but they really don't know what you play so they guess and give it to the artists they want to give it to, although that is offset by the fact that very little collected goes to anyone except their executive staff as pay and bonuses. And they will bulldog you if you don't pay. And if you claim you don't play music that they collect for, they *can* sue if they can demonstrate otherwise, so most clubs just pay to avoid the hassle. A decent size club used to pay around $1500-$2000 annually back in 1990, it is likely higher now.
The US has better laws then Canadian. Why can't Canadian be more like the US?
I wouldn't stretch that so far. Canada has better copyright legislation on the books. The US has very strong anti-trust legislation on the books. Then again, the US has had many more abuse monopolies over the last couple of centuries, making these laws necessary.
But to answer your question as to why Canada can't be more like the US, the answer is: Quebec.;)
Microsoft got nailed for bundling a web browser with their operating system (which was stupid, in a lot of people's opinions).
MS also got nailed for forcing Dell to pay for a license even on computers that didn't ship with MS software (the original source of the phrase "Microsoft Tax"). This was a separate issue than bundling IE with the OS. And if Dell is putting "We recommend Windows 7" on their website, rest assured that it isn't because they are forced to (the former lawsuit already settled that), it is because they are being paid to. If you read the recent news about how most of Dell's profits weren't from selling computers, but from "rebates" from Intel which have now ended due to ethics issues raised about Intel, then you would see that Dell is looking for any way to make money. A check on their stock price over the last 10 years would also indicate this.
This would likely not be possible simply because you don't have ASCAP or BMI handling the royalties, and they can't collect royalties on stuff that is both copyrighted as exclusive content and as CC. ASCAP and BMI have to HATE the CC, because there are no royalties to collect, so no way to screw over artists..er, collect on behalf of artists.
Own a bar? You pay ASCAP and BMI based on number of seats. Play only CC music? They will still claim you owe and try to shut you down, usually successfully. You see, a band *might* come in and play a song that they collect for. ASCAP and BMI are pretty much like the mafia, except the mafia has a code they live by.
To add some clarity, I am pretty sure that the basis for the lawsuits in my above statements was due to the Sherman Act, which says in part:
"Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal."
"Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony [. . . ]"
One has to ask if this is legal. Can you collectively bargain to exclude another group? In the USA, I know that it would likely not be. For instance, Company ABC can require a distributor only sell products from Company ABC in order to be a distributor, but it is flatly ILLEGAL for them to say "You can sell any product you want, as long as it is not from Company XZY". We have seen these lawsuits in my industry. You can require EXCLUSIVITY, but you can't exclude a singular company. I would have to imagine that the same would hold true for music under a single license. The key is whether or not someone will try it in court. And no, it doesn't matter what the contract says, it is illegal here. Then again, Canada is like a whole other country.
I don't doubt the validity of your statement, but I was only comparing them to the editors on Slashdot. Granted, it is a race for the bottom, but still in relative terms, Reuters' eds are frickin' geniuses.
Don't forget all the additional comments to the effect of: "The mods are on crack" or "I've got karma to burn" and other obvious filler material. It only works on/. because no one tries to pretend that this is a civil place. News sites have editors that are many times more informed than their average reader. On/., this is obviously NOT the case. Here, the inmates running the asylum are nuttier than the inmates reading the articles.
Pretty much what I was thinking as well. Not sure how that is a troll, as I thought it was fairly well thought out with some attention to detail. It wouldn't be hard to get the majority of people (RGB) who now pirate Photoshop to use Gimp if you could get it up to Photoshop 6 quality. Hell, I do commercial work all day now using Photoshop 6, as I haven't needed a reason to upgrade. As you likely know, piracy leads to sales. Microsoft used to know this, but of course, you don't need to build marketing momentum when you already have a monopoly.
And yes, if I was an executive at IBM, and MS bought Adobe, you damned right I would be looking at throwing some money at Gimp. Any good businessman *must* look at ways to knock the wind out of the sails of your competition. Microsoft did exactly this with giving IE away free, to cut the sales of Netscape. This is no different in many aspects, and obviously would be marketed under their "We love Free software" platform, which is a legitimate claim considering how much they have contributed.
As a final note: It is already insane how HUGE the Acrobat Reader installer currently is. I can install an entire operating system with a GUI using less space! This kind of bloat will be right at home under MS ownership. In two years, you will be able to order the Acrobat Reader two DVD install set.
The irony is that the new AdobeSoft would likely start supporting Linux and OSX to a lesser degree (or drop Linux "since no one uses it") which would make Flash even more irrelevant. There are already valid PDF readers and creators, so Acrobat is superfluous already.
That leaves Photoshop and a handful of video and image tools. An important segment, but history has shown us that any "must have" application can be replaced with the proper application of time and money. Since 95% of people use Photoshop for RGB only, IBM could throw some money at GIMP, leaving only the CMYK crowd stuck with Photoshop. Besides, 90% of the 95% are pirating it anyway, and with Microsoft's control, that will be reduced enough to open the market. Just a thought.
Yes, as a former member BBS of Fidonet, (and bluewave user), yes, we were able to have our own virtual "internet" at a cost. Sort of.
To those that are not familiar, it meant my BBS (the system users would call into) would call up a regional guy at midnight, and he would call a national guy at 3am, etc. to transmit all those messages. They were not real time, they bounced around systems via phone line. The average "email" from the US to Europe used to take 2 days. This is only slightly faster than RFC1149 - Standard for the transmission of IP datagrams on avian and was slightly more expensive.
In the same vein, I DO miss the internet back in the days when it was "hard to use". That is the problem when you make something so simple an idiot can use it: Idiots use it.
Slashdot Mirror
My point was, why should your phone do something that your car should do (or already does do)?
You do know that OnStar is only available as OEM equipment on GM (Government Motors) vehicles, right? Oh and Saab, like anyone buys those.
There are STILL applications where vacuum tubes are better than transistors. Guitar amps and other pieces of audio equipment is a prime example. I wouldn't consider an amp that wasn't tube, nor would most serious guitarists. Many audiophiles also swear by tubes, for dynamic range and warmth. If you want a two way radio system to be able to work during a nuclear blast, only tubes will do, as the EMF will render transistors useless.
I would not be shocked to see some new application for tubes or tube-like technology. Tubes are pretty reliable, can take insane punishment, operate in a variety of environments, have exceptional range, tolerate wide variances in input strength and have a reasonable lifetime, even if shorter than transistors.
South Korean soap operas are apparently quite popular to watch illegally on imported DVD'
I would hate to go to jail just because I wanted to find out if Kim ever recovered from double amnesia to discover his wife was really his father's ex-lover...
>> What if you're running from a mugger and want to dial 911?
> Then don't lock out emergency functions - similar to the way that
> (in the US at least) phones without a valid subscription can still call 911.
The editing on /. gets worse each day. What is more interesting of a question would have been "are walks as unique as fingerprints, and can this be used to violate privacy" How is this quantified, and could the police put you on a suspect list because your "walk" is similar to who they think committed some crime? Those are interesting questions. As for 911, as the parent points out, that would be obvious to anyone with any life experience.
The primary difference is that Unions are legally recognized groups that are given exclusions in many ways. Right or wrong, they are excluded from anti-trust issues, else so many wouldn't be so crooked. Whether or not they should be would be a different issue. In other words, because they aren't treated the same by law, I don't think you can draw a parallel here. The analogy doesn't work because they are too dissimilar in the eyes of the law.
Perhaps IP over Avian.
Probes might do good science, but man alone inspires our kids to become scientists.
You lack imagination and underestimate children. To think that the only reason a child would want to enter science is because they saw a spaceman on the surface of mars is absurd. Most don't need to be manipulated, only pointed in the right direction. And not everyone in science gets to fly to the moon. Actually, most of the people who get to fly to the moon aren't scientists at all. Some people enter science out of the desire to be part of something bigger than themselves. Humans landing on the moon helps, but if you think that landing rovers that crawl all over the place for months sending back photos, and crashing probes into asteroids, and videoing comets explode over Jupiter isn't freaking cool, then yes, you lack imagination.
The Soviet Union collapsed, and the USA doesn't give a sith about space anymore.
Sure we do. It's where you put the weapons.
Necessary no, wanted YES
Go read some history on Standard Oil, Rockefeller, et al. The laws aren't perfect, but when you look at the Robber Baron Age, what you see is greed that killed competition and SLOWED progress down. The roll of government *should* be to only insure the playing field is level. I'm not saying that govt. does a great job at it, but the problem has been enforcement, not the actual laws, which have been around long enough without being replaced to demonstrate their value.
Because of that political contest we ended up with the pile of manure known as the shuttle program, and wont make it to the moon again for nearly a century after the last time we put foot on it. What a complete waste of resources.
Many would argue that going to the moon is a waste of resources, at least when it comes to sending humans. We have already been there and can send probes for a tiny fraction of the cost. Manned exploration is fine and dandy, but only in small doses if you want to get the best use of your resources. Same with Mars. Yes, we want to put a human up there and get them back, if for no other reason than "because it is there", but most of the really good science will happen with probes and rovers, not humans that have to sleep and eat half the day, using a majority of the resources to launch and maintain the craft simply to keep them alive.
Or more scary is the internet could have started as a purely commercial venture. Imagine if it had not existed, and AOL had created their own version of the internet. It is kind of what they were trying to do before the open internet kicked their butts. You would have several private nets (like in the 80s) and eventually, the big ones would buy out the small ones. You would have MUCH less content, as the price to enter the market with a website would be dictated by singular corporate interests. Most important is the fact that Free Software wouldn't be as far as it is now, with a more limited distribution method.
The only reason that the internet is as open as it is now is the US govt. was naive enough to not know what it could really be. Otherwise, they would have tried to control it more.
I would respectfully disagree. Unions are formed for worker protection, and you can still hire the same worker, they just are forced to be a part of a collective bargaining group: the union. This is different than excluding an entire class of musicians for reasons not related to monetary considerations. This is more like a company saying they will hire workers from one union, but not willing to hire workers from another union, even at the same pay or less. The Sherman Act actually has some teeth and is used rather frequently in the USA, often in surprisingly small cases. It might take 4 to 6 years to run through the system, but I am willing to bet it would come out on the side of the CC.
On the flip side, it is very possible to say you are ONLY going to use CC music, as that is a grant of exclusivity, and otherwise justified monetarily. Part of what gives the Sherman Act teeth is the exchange of money, so you could likely also say you are only going to use music that is "free as in beer" and be within the law. It is when one group is compensated and another group is excluded in a singular fashion, or when the source has a monopoly, that the Sherman Act seems to be applicable. And of course, IANAL, but I would be willing to bet next weeks lunch money on it.
Actually, I have always thought that the Soviets getting a satellite into space first was a good thing, as an American of 45 years. It put the fear of ungod into the American military complex to get into space, which ended up netting more good science than simply building bigger and bigger bombs. It also created a huge demand for science, and boosted the desire of teenagers to enter the science field. Nothing like fear to motivate a country into investing into science.
Being raised during the cold war in a lifer military family might color my perspective, but a lot of good things came out of the cold war. One of them is the internet, which might have taken much longer to develop if not for the fear of Soviet ICBMs, reinforced by that humble little beeping satellite named Sputnik.
They aren't barred, they are charged a royalty based upon "number of chairs", which is not the same as "seating capacity". (at least that was the standard 20 years ago). Theoretically, they have "sampled" what you play to have an idea of which artists get a tiny, tiny cut of the royalties they charge you. The majority of the money they collect goes to "expenses". It is a racket, and I have no idea who you have to blow if you are a musician and you want a decent cut of "royalties".
In reality, most clubs play music subject to royalties, which is all fine and good, but they really don't know what you play so they guess and give it to the artists they want to give it to, although that is offset by the fact that very little collected goes to anyone except their executive staff as pay and bonuses. And they will bulldog you if you don't pay. And if you claim you don't play music that they collect for, they *can* sue if they can demonstrate otherwise, so most clubs just pay to avoid the hassle. A decent size club used to pay around $1500-$2000 annually back in 1990, it is likely higher now.
The US has better laws then Canadian. Why can't Canadian be more like the US?
I wouldn't stretch that so far. Canada has better copyright legislation on the books. The US has very strong anti-trust legislation on the books. Then again, the US has had many more abuse monopolies over the last couple of centuries, making these laws necessary.
But to answer your question as to why Canada can't be more like the US, the answer is: Quebec. ;)
Microsoft got nailed for bundling a web browser with their operating system (which was stupid, in a lot of people's opinions).
MS also got nailed for forcing Dell to pay for a license even on computers that didn't ship with MS software (the original source of the phrase "Microsoft Tax"). This was a separate issue than bundling IE with the OS. And if Dell is putting "We recommend Windows 7" on their website, rest assured that it isn't because they are forced to (the former lawsuit already settled that), it is because they are being paid to. If you read the recent news about how most of Dell's profits weren't from selling computers, but from "rebates" from Intel which have now ended due to ethics issues raised about Intel, then you would see that Dell is looking for any way to make money. A check on their stock price over the last 10 years would also indicate this.
This would likely not be possible simply because you don't have ASCAP or BMI handling the royalties, and they can't collect royalties on stuff that is both copyrighted as exclusive content and as CC. ASCAP and BMI have to HATE the CC, because there are no royalties to collect, so no way to screw over artists..er, collect on behalf of artists.
Own a bar? You pay ASCAP and BMI based on number of seats. Play only CC music? They will still claim you owe and try to shut you down, usually successfully. You see, a band *might* come in and play a song that they collect for. ASCAP and BMI are pretty much like the mafia, except the mafia has a code they live by.
To add some clarity, I am pretty sure that the basis for the lawsuits in my above statements was due to the Sherman Act, which says in part:
"Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal."
"Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony [. . . ]"
One has to ask if this is legal. Can you collectively bargain to exclude another group? In the USA, I know that it would likely not be. For instance, Company ABC can require a distributor only sell products from Company ABC in order to be a distributor, but it is flatly ILLEGAL for them to say "You can sell any product you want, as long as it is not from Company XZY". We have seen these lawsuits in my industry. You can require EXCLUSIVITY, but you can't exclude a singular company. I would have to imagine that the same would hold true for music under a single license. The key is whether or not someone will try it in court. And no, it doesn't matter what the contract says, it is illegal here. Then again, Canada is like a whole other country.
Haven't met many news site editors, have you?
I don't doubt the validity of your statement, but I was only comparing them to the editors on Slashdot. Granted, it is a race for the bottom, but still in relative terms, Reuters' eds are frickin' geniuses.
Why does every type of problem that anyone encounters now have to be suffixed with "gate".
I prefer to call this conundrum cliché-gate.
Don't forget all the additional comments to the effect of: "The mods are on crack" or "I've got karma to burn" and other obvious filler material. It only works on /. because no one tries to pretend that this is a civil place. News sites have editors that are many times more informed than their average reader. On /., this is obviously NOT the case. Here, the inmates running the asylum are nuttier than the inmates reading the articles.
Now I seriously want Microsoft to do this.
Pretty much what I was thinking as well. Not sure how that is a troll, as I thought it was fairly well thought out with some attention to detail. It wouldn't be hard to get the majority of people (RGB) who now pirate Photoshop to use Gimp if you could get it up to Photoshop 6 quality. Hell, I do commercial work all day now using Photoshop 6, as I haven't needed a reason to upgrade. As you likely know, piracy leads to sales. Microsoft used to know this, but of course, you don't need to build marketing momentum when you already have a monopoly.
And yes, if I was an executive at IBM, and MS bought Adobe, you damned right I would be looking at throwing some money at Gimp. Any good businessman *must* look at ways to knock the wind out of the sails of your competition. Microsoft did exactly this with giving IE away free, to cut the sales of Netscape. This is no different in many aspects, and obviously would be marketed under their "We love Free software" platform, which is a legitimate claim considering how much they have contributed.
As a final note: It is already insane how HUGE the Acrobat Reader installer currently is. I can install an entire operating system with a GUI using less space! This kind of bloat will be right at home under MS ownership. In two years, you will be able to order the Acrobat Reader two DVD install set.
The irony is that the new AdobeSoft would likely start supporting Linux and OSX to a lesser degree (or drop Linux "since no one uses it") which would make Flash even more irrelevant. There are already valid PDF readers and creators, so Acrobat is superfluous already.
That leaves Photoshop and a handful of video and image tools. An important segment, but history has shown us that any "must have" application can be replaced with the proper application of time and money. Since 95% of people use Photoshop for RGB only, IBM could throw some money at GIMP, leaving only the CMYK crowd stuck with Photoshop. Besides, 90% of the 95% are pirating it anyway, and with Microsoft's control, that will be reduced enough to open the market. Just a thought.
Yes, as a former member BBS of Fidonet, (and bluewave user), yes, we were able to have our own virtual "internet" at a cost. Sort of.
To those that are not familiar, it meant my BBS (the system users would call into) would call up a regional guy at midnight, and he would call a national guy at 3am, etc. to transmit all those messages. They were not real time, they bounced around systems via phone line. The average "email" from the US to Europe used to take 2 days. This is only slightly faster than RFC1149 - Standard for the transmission of IP datagrams on avian and was slightly more expensive.
In the same vein, I DO miss the internet back in the days when it was "hard to use". That is the problem when you make something so simple an idiot can use it: Idiots use it.