Until they remove DRM. Don't let them control what you can do with your files
Unenlightened moderators or those that are crack dependent may mod you down.
I think the point needs to be made that as good as all the itunes seems to be, everybody is forgetting one critical fact;
You can not resale the music that you have purchased like with a regular LP, tape, or CD. Apple has purposefully left out first sale rights as it would erode the artificial value of the music. Even if there was a mechanism to erase all your copies and resale your itunes to someone else, Apple would not allow it, as this would put downward price pressure on the music Apple sells.
The music industry has controlled the price of CDs through illegal collusion, and probably are still managing to do so. Itunes is a natural extension of artificially controlling the price of music.
If normal economic forces were allowed to take over, there are quite a few industry executives that would no longer be able to afford their drug habit.
There are some intersting ideas as to what the end of the universe could be.
There's also another theory about that if a couple particles collide with enough energy they can create a more perfect vacuum that would essentially "take over" the current universe (I suppose like an implosion). Maybe somebody knows the link for this.
I mention this as a backdrop for an interesting short story by Isaac Asimov called The Last Question. This link is a summary and contains significant spoilers, you may want to read the story first I think that it is apropos, as it deals with a powerful computer called Multivac.
This story is interesting to read, and interesting humanistic view. Good for pondering this slashdot thread/story. Good science fiction is useful.
1st - Do any of you see the hypocrisy in buying from the Russian site? Are you the same people complaining about the outsourcing of American jobs/economy?
Though I do not think I speak for all of slashdot, I think that it's safe to say that some would like to see the music industry (aka RIAA aka The Untouchables) be outsourced downward
2nd - Has it occurred to anyone that the music industry is now mob run?
However, in this instance (the corn genome) still fails the test as it's only allowed to be distributed to members of the Corn Growers Association or educational institutions.
I believe the GPL says that you can not restrict who it is distributed to.
Many plant genomes are also the equivalent of OpenSource, free for all in educational institutions to peruse
I would disagree that it is an example of opensource. The idea of traditional open source is that anybody has access to the source code. Not just educational institutions and/or somebody specifically registered with certain institutions such as the National Corn Growers Association.
If google loses in court they should refuse to index AXA _at all
Why wait until they lose? yank their cord now and give them a sense of reality.
Who says google has to list anybody?
Re:Fanboy......but......
on
JOE Hits 3.0
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I think it is. I never knew about this project until now, and was quite afraid I was going to have to learn a new ide when I wanted to return to programming.
There are those of us who consider the turbo pascal interface an extension of our fingers, because we used it so heavily back in the day.
Agreed. I did paint with a rather broad brush stroke. The only thing I lay claim to is that it's reminiscent of another magnetic technology, which was never able to overcome technical details and economy. Not that they are the same. Though they both seem to use thin films, just in different ways.
Not that it will be that way with spintronics, but it seems that the difficulties are always in the details.
Yes, the story of Einstein's brain is quite interesting.
It's a somewhat long story, and pieces of it have been doled out to a number of people over the years, by Dr. Thomas Harvey, the person who originally did the autopsy on Einstein and removed his brain for scientific analysis. The stories of why and how this happened are varied, but suffice it to say that it was done for "scientific purposes".
Dr. Harvey had been "keeper of the brain" since Einstein's death in 1955. He took it home with him and it stayed with him wherever he moved to.
It is somewhat disconcerting when that Japanese professor caught up with Dr. Harvey and asked for a piece of the brain. Dr. Harvey promptly pulled it out on the cutting board and cut off a piece with a steak knife to give him. parent link.
The weirdness does not end there. There was a cross country road trip with Einstein's brain residing in a tupperware container in the back of a Buick Skylark.
I believe (someone correct me on this) that the final pieces may have been given by an aging Dr. Harvey to Princeton to reside with other "Einstein collectibles". The only problem I have with this is that it does not account for the pieces that were not encased in wax. Maybe somebody can enlighten me on this.
I don't see how this is "off-topic", as it could be argued that it is "Einstein's final years: the sequel".
Release a completely free high quality Windows emulator. It worked for OS/2.
It wasn't Microsoft that released the emulator, it was IBM.
Actually I remember the days that they (IBM) was working on it, and some of the comments made from some people that knew what was going on during development.
IBM slaved to get that thing to work, and required a huge amount of effort. But they finally did suceed, and it was included in later versions of warp.
I imagine the reason that they didn't continue onto W95 is because it was too hard and they wanted people writing os2 apps, not w32 apps. However, as usually, microsoft was able to leverage its marketshare with the promise of backwards compatibility, and people bought it. The rest, they say, is history.
A simple splash screen is far different than pages of who-knows-what legalize that you are forcing on somebody.
One can be considered a notice, while the other is an implied contractural agreement (though it is quite legally questionable).
doctor's services, on the other hand, I would categorize essential. But I think you'll find that in situations where software is essential for human life (such as you described above), there is liability involved. That's why those kind of devices cost tens of thousands of dollars.
You're the one that chose the example of Doctor's malpractice insurance in your earlier post. But you are right, that is why those systems are expensive.
So in short, if your mother doesn't like it, she can just stop using the computer.
So in short, you are saying that it is ok for companies to foist crappy and defective products on unsuspecting consumers?
It's not as though her life's going to be shortend by doing so. People need to take responsibility for their computers, or else alleviate themselves of it.
If that isn't "blaming the victim" I don't know what is. So, you would rather my mother accept either having porn trojans on her computer (or stop using it) rather than Microsoft take care of their security problems in the first place?? Is it "ok" that companies can make defective products and sell them to the public??
I think years of consumer legislation that improves the quality and safety of products (from cars to baby toys to food) speaks for itself. It's just that it hasn't reached software yet because people like you are all too willing to roll over and accept whatever the corporations want to sell them.
It's not like Microsft can't make a secure product. They have more money in the bank than most third world countries.
Your arguments are sounding increasingly silly. Don't defend the guilty.
The reason for the existence of the EULA is first and foremost the phrase that is in every single one about not being liable for consequential damages. Probably the second most important one is that you are not allowed to steal the product, or parts of the product and resell them independently.
That's pretty much straw-men arguments.
First, all you would have to do is a have a splash screen that said "copyright 2004 all rights reserved. No warranty implied nor given." That would pretty much cover the purpose of the simpler EULAs out there. If you were particularly worried about it you could ad the statement "Suitability for any purpose not guaranteed."
By doing this you do not require the end user to agree to an EULA, but at the same time notify him that you aren't giving him a warranty.
Probably the second most important one is that you are not allowed to steal the product, or parts of the product and resell them independently.
That's what a copyright notice is for You don't need an EULA to enforce this. Also, did an EULA stop all those warez people from copying programs that were caught in operation fastlink that we have been hearing about?
However, if you install a backup program, never run it and lose all your data you probably can find a lawyer that will file saying the backup software company should have done something to prevent this from happening. This is the legal climate that exists today.
I do not think so. The fact that people will sue over a cup of hot coffee being spilled in their lap doesn't mean that you require them to agree to sign a contract each time they buy a cup of coffee.
This is the legal climate that exists today. Doctors have to join large groups just to afford the malpractice insurance. Small companies need to have a full time lawyer on staff to review stuff and properly set up agreements. If you don't do this, you lose everything and maybe end up all working for somebody that takes over the whole thing.
Rather than hiring a full time lawyer maybe these companies need to use the money in improving their product so that it doesn't fail. There is a reason why doctors have to have malpractice insurance. it is to hold them accountable for their actions
Why should software companies be any different? What makes them *so special* that they feel the need to be let off the hook for *everything*. Other companies have to offer warranties and accept responsibility for the integrity of their products. Why not software?
If I'm hooked up to a machine at the hospital that is performing a function necessary to the health of my person and it crashes because it is running Windows 98 and subsequently hurts my health, I'm going to sue regardless of any EULAs that some software designer agreed to or not.
If Microsoft was held accountable for the products they make, we would have a lot less problems with trojans, viruses, and other malicious software than we due today.
I just finished cleaning a bunch of porn trojans off my mothers computer that were probably put there through a security hole in Microsoft Windows. She was absolutely livid, as she should be.
I don't know any way out of the current situation other than revamping the entire legal system and maybe more.
Nothing in the legal system says a piece of software has to have an EULA. Maybe rather than worry about reforming the legal system we should reform the way software is bought and sold. Maybe software companies need to be held accountable as to the quality of the products they make, rather than tossing an EULA on it thinking that excuses them for shoveling a load of crapware onto our computers.
The GPL have more requierements than that. Derivatives must share the same license and so on.
There is no reason why an end user should have to agree to any contract, no matter how ennobling the GPL may seem.
I think the distinction needs to be made between the end user and the developer
Not every one who runs the software is going to be interested in having the software. In fact, only a small minority is going to want to have access to the source code. The vast majority are going to be "end users" that are not going to have any interest in possesion of the source code.
I haven't delved in the exact legalize of the GPL lately, but I know enough to understand that there is no reason that there can not be a splash screen that says "copyright 2004 All rights reserved. Distributed under the terms of the GPL. You may have other rights available. Go to such and such URL or see help." This way you do not have to have the end user agree to an EULA.
Nauturally you can include all the terms of the GPL with the source code or accompanying readme file.
If the GPL requires an EULA (which I seriously doubt) then that would be a reason not to use the GPL or include GPL software in the software you write.
There is no reason or argument that can be made whatsoever that necessitates the use of an EULA.
Slashdot Mirror
Until they remove DRM. Don't let them control what you can do with your files
Unenlightened moderators or those that are crack dependent may mod you down.
I think the point needs to be made that as good as all the itunes seems to be, everybody is forgetting one critical fact;
You can not resale the music that you have purchased like with a regular LP, tape, or CD. Apple has purposefully left out first sale rights as it would erode the artificial value of the music. Even if there was a mechanism to erase all your copies and resale your itunes to someone else, Apple would not allow it, as this would put downward price pressure on the music Apple sells.
The music industry has controlled the price of CDs through illegal collusion, and probably are still managing to do so. Itunes is a natural extension of artificially controlling the price of music.
If normal economic forces were allowed to take over, there are quite a few industry executives that would no longer be able to afford their drug habit.
There are some intersting ideas as to what the end of the universe could be.
There's also another theory about that if a couple particles collide with enough energy they can create a more perfect vacuum that would essentially "take over" the current universe (I suppose like an implosion). Maybe somebody knows the link for this.
I mention this as a backdrop for an interesting short story by Isaac Asimov called The Last Question. This link is a summary and contains significant spoilers, you may want to read the story first I think that it is apropos, as it deals with a powerful computer called Multivac.
This story is interesting to read, and interesting humanistic view. Good for pondering this slashdot thread/story. Good science fiction is useful.
1st - Do any of you see the hypocrisy in buying from the Russian site? Are you the same people complaining about the outsourcing of American jobs/economy?
Though I do not think I speak for all of slashdot, I think that it's safe to say that some would like to see the music industry (aka RIAA aka The Untouchables) be outsourced downward
2nd - Has it occurred to anyone that the music industry is now mob run?
Stop giving the mob a bad name. It's either these people or maybe these people.
In Soviet Russia, the music downloads you!!!
I consider this a karma sacrifice for the better good of slashdot.
"GNU/Linuxy"
Folks, you have just witnesed the birth of a new future slashdot cliche'/joke meme.
There's lots of mileage in this one.
so he must want every word to prefixed with "GNU/"'' joke bugs me.
You're GNU here, aren't you?
Ok. thanks for the clarification.
However, in this instance (the corn genome) still fails the test as it's only allowed to be distributed to members of the Corn Growers Association or educational institutions.
I believe the GPL says that you can not restrict who it is distributed to.
Many plant genomes are also the equivalent of OpenSource, free for all in educational institutions to peruse
I would disagree that it is an example of opensource. The idea of traditional open source is that anybody has access to the source code. Not just educational institutions and/or somebody specifically registered with certain institutions such as the National Corn Growers Association.
From the article;
[Richard Jefferson] is sowing the seeds of a revolt, citing the open source ethos of Linus Torvalds and Richard Stallman as inspiration.
Does this mean we have to start calling it Gnu/tomato???
If google loses in court they should refuse to index AXA _at all
Why wait until they lose? yank their cord now and give them a sense of reality.
Who says google has to list anybody?
I think it is. I never knew about this project until now, and was quite afraid I was going to have to learn a new ide when I wanted to return to programming.
There are those of us who consider the turbo pascal interface an extension of our fingers, because we used it so heavily back in the day.
Now that you mention it-
From the story text;
As if pictures can't be doctored and are absolute proof....
If that is not a "troll" I do not know what is. What if they do come back with pictures, does that automatically make them liars?
Agreed. I did paint with a rather broad brush stroke. The only thing I lay claim to is that it's reminiscent of another magnetic technology, which was never able to overcome technical details and economy. Not that they are the same. Though they both seem to use thin films, just in different ways.
Not that it will be that way with spintronics, but it seems that the difficulties are always in the details.
1. Open Non-Profit Organization
2. ???
3. Profit!!!!
I think that it goes more like this;
1. Resign from overseeing a linux distibution that requires long hours and thankless mind-numbing work.
2. ???
3. Profit!!!!
What this sounds like is a form of bubble memory, a "miracle" technology that was going to take over the world back in the day.
There were actully commercial parts made. But somebody killed it with their idea to have battery cmos ram. Then eeprom and flash memory came along.
They could actually make this work better with the refined manufacturing processes we have today. So I would not discount it out of hand.
Yes, the story of Einstein's brain is quite interesting.
It's a somewhat long story, and pieces of it have been doled out to a number of people over the years, by Dr. Thomas Harvey, the person who originally did the autopsy on Einstein and removed his brain for scientific analysis. The stories of why and how this happened are varied, but suffice it to say that it was done for "scientific purposes".
Dr. Harvey had been "keeper of the brain" since Einstein's death in 1955. He took it home with him and it stayed with him wherever he moved to.
It is somewhat disconcerting when that Japanese professor caught up with Dr. Harvey and asked for a piece of the brain. Dr. Harvey promptly pulled it out on the cutting board and cut off a piece with a steak knife to give him. parent link.
The weirdness does not end there. There was a cross country road trip with Einstein's brain residing in a tupperware container in the back of a Buick Skylark.
I believe (someone correct me on this) that the final pieces may have been given by an aging Dr. Harvey to Princeton to reside with other "Einstein collectibles". The only problem I have with this is that it does not account for the pieces that were not encased in wax. Maybe somebody can enlighten me on this.
I don't see how this is "off-topic", as it could be argued that it is "Einstein's final years: the sequel".
Where's my wife? :)
That'll come next
Only in Soviet Russia. In America, the wife keeps track of YOU!
No way this will abused at all... I look forward to seeing goatse in all its glory displayed over Dublin.
I seriously doubt that they are going to see that. Because the sky is going to be slashdotted!!
First Post!
Release a completely free high quality Windows emulator. It worked for OS/2.
It wasn't Microsoft that released the emulator, it was IBM.
Actually I remember the days that they (IBM) was working on it, and some of the comments made from some people that knew what was going on during development.
IBM slaved to get that thing to work, and required a huge amount of effort. But they finally did suceed, and it was included in later versions of warp.
I imagine the reason that they didn't continue onto W95 is because it was too hard and they wanted people writing os2 apps, not w32 apps. However, as usually, microsoft was able to leverage its marketshare with the promise of backwards compatibility, and people bought it. The rest, they say, is history.
A simple splash screen is far different than pages of who-knows-what legalize that you are forcing on somebody.
One can be considered a notice, while the other is an implied contractural agreement (though it is quite legally questionable).
doctor's services, on the other hand, I would categorize essential. But I think you'll find that in situations where software is essential for human life (such as you described above), there is liability involved. That's why those kind of devices cost tens of thousands of dollars.
You're the one that chose the example of Doctor's malpractice insurance in your earlier post. But you are right, that is why those systems are expensive.
So in short, if your mother doesn't like it, she can just stop using the computer.
So in short, you are saying that it is ok for companies to foist crappy and defective products on unsuspecting consumers?
It's not as though her life's going to be shortend by doing so. People need to take responsibility for their computers, or else alleviate themselves of it.
If that isn't "blaming the victim" I don't know what is. So, you would rather my mother accept either having porn trojans on her computer (or stop using it) rather than Microsoft take care of their security problems in the first place?? Is it "ok" that companies can make defective products and sell them to the public??
I think years of consumer legislation that improves the quality and safety of products (from cars to baby toys to food) speaks for itself. It's just that it hasn't reached software yet because people like you are all too willing to roll over and accept whatever the corporations want to sell them.
It's not like Microsft can't make a secure product. They have more money in the bank than most third world countries.
Your arguments are sounding increasingly silly. Don't defend the guilty.
After spending 3 billion pounds all that will be caught is another 3 illegal immigrants pirating software
And the Business Software Alliance/RIAA/MPAA and friends will consider it all well worth it.
I did not mean to imply filesharing was legal in my post (unless it is allowed by the copright holder).
I think that it is morally acceptable to modify any software that you obtain legally, as it runs on your computer.
I say morally, as the DMCA could legally prevent some activities. However, I'm somebody who is at disagreement with this law.
The reason for the existence of the EULA is first and foremost the phrase that is in every single one about not being liable for consequential damages. Probably the second most important one is that you are not allowed to steal the product, or parts of the product and resell them independently.
That's pretty much straw-men arguments.
First, all you would have to do is a have a splash screen that said "copyright 2004 all rights reserved. No warranty implied nor given." That would pretty much cover the purpose of the simpler EULAs out there. If you were particularly worried about it you could ad the statement "Suitability for any purpose not guaranteed."
By doing this you do not require the end user to agree to an EULA, but at the same time notify him that you aren't giving him a warranty.
Probably the second most important one is that you are not allowed to steal the product, or parts of the product and resell them independently.
That's what a copyright notice is for You don't need an EULA to enforce this. Also, did an EULA stop all those warez people from copying programs that were caught in operation fastlink that we have been hearing about?
However, if you install a backup program, never run it and lose all your data you probably can find a lawyer that will file saying the backup software company should have done something to prevent this from happening. This is the legal climate that exists today.
I do not think so. The fact that people will sue over a cup of hot coffee being spilled in their lap doesn't mean that you require them to agree to sign a contract each time they buy a cup of coffee.
This is the legal climate that exists today. Doctors have to join large groups just to afford the malpractice insurance. Small companies need to have a full time lawyer on staff to review stuff and properly set up agreements. If you don't do this, you lose everything and maybe end up all working for somebody that takes over the whole thing.
Rather than hiring a full time lawyer maybe these companies need to use the money in improving their product so that it doesn't fail. There is a reason why doctors have to have malpractice insurance. it is to hold them accountable for their actions
Why should software companies be any different? What makes them *so special* that they feel the need to be let off the hook for *everything*. Other companies have to offer warranties and accept responsibility for the integrity of their products. Why not software?
If I'm hooked up to a machine at the hospital that is performing a function necessary to the health of my person and it crashes because it is running Windows 98 and subsequently hurts my health, I'm going to sue regardless of any EULAs that some software designer agreed to or not.
If Microsoft was held accountable for the products they make, we would have a lot less problems with trojans, viruses, and other malicious software than we due today.
I just finished cleaning a bunch of porn trojans off my mothers computer that were probably put there through a security hole in Microsoft Windows. She was absolutely livid, as she should be.
I don't know any way out of the current situation other than revamping the entire legal system and maybe more.
Nothing in the legal system says a piece of software has to have an EULA. Maybe rather than worry about reforming the legal system we should reform the way software is bought and sold. Maybe software companies need to be held accountable as to the quality of the products they make, rather than tossing an EULA on it thinking that excuses them for shoveling a load of crapware onto our computers.
The GPL have more requierements than that. Derivatives must share the same license and so on.
There is no reason why an end user should have to agree to any contract, no matter how ennobling the GPL may seem.
I think the distinction needs to be made between the end user and the developer
Not every one who runs the software is going to be interested in having the software. In fact, only a small minority is going to want to have access to the source code. The vast majority are going to be "end users" that are not going to have any interest in possesion of the source code.
I haven't delved in the exact legalize of the GPL lately, but I know enough to understand that there is no reason that there can not be a splash screen that says "copyright 2004 All rights reserved. Distributed under the terms of the GPL. You may have other rights available. Go to such and such URL or see help." This way you do not have to have the end user agree to an EULA.
Nauturally you can include all the terms of the GPL with the source code or accompanying readme file.
If the GPL requires an EULA (which I seriously doubt) then that would be a reason not to use the GPL or include GPL software in the software you write.
There is no reason or argument that can be made whatsoever that necessitates the use of an EULA.