the article falls into the common fallacy of equating P2P with illegal copying -- I'm one of the numerous artists who wants people to download my music for free
Well, since you have the time to post articles here instead of chasing groupies, I'd have to guess the RIAA couldn't care less whether or not people are downloading your music for free - since it seems probable you aren't going to get very many people to PAY for it. Correct me if I'm wrong on that.
Of course, YOU fall into the fallacy of assuming that the RIAA opposes P2P because they want to provide people like yoursef from sharing your music - which you are and should be free to do. I've always understood the RIAA is interested in protecting the copyrights of their members - which are being violated-a-plenty by P2P.
Where in this article does Ballmer say he is going to "stomp Linux?"
Did you ever see the video of Ballmer 'stomp'ing around a convention stage, almost tripping over himself and hyperventilating at the end ? If you did, you can't read any Ballmer quotes without picturing him stomping around like some sort of wanna-be-silverback gorilla in mating season.
In a followup, Richard Stallman indicated that if you use Emacs or any of a laundry list of utilities in modifying said Mozilla, the resulting browser name must be prefixed with 'GNU'.
Apropos to another of today's articles, wouldn't Richard Stallman and the FSF insist it be called a "GNU/Linux worm" ?
I was underwhelmed by the prior edition
on
Professional PHP4 XML
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I bought the previous version, and was underwhelmed. There was a lot of fluff and whitespace; large chunks of pages devoted to offsetting images of webpages with nothing much in them.
One example: their shopping cart example was borderline trivial, and the majority of the code was formatting - which made it damn near impossible to follow the code for all the FONT and other HTML tags. I expect a book written for 'professionals' to give me tips-from-the-battlefield, NOT handwaving exercises.
If someone knew PHP (a seemingly fair assumption, given the title of this book), it seems like they'd be far better off looking for examples on the Net., or for another book.
While its target audience is different, I found O'Reilly's 'Programming PHP' to be excellent and I use it 20x more than the WROX book.
I hardly think the US Military is going to want to get involved in shipping computers to people who fancy themselves revolutionaries and who want to get the computers over there so that they can better coordinate their riots and protests. Medical missionaries these people are not.
They're getting free computers and wireless networks, while I'm still studying my calendar and wondering when I'll be able to afford to pay the still-exorbitant-for-me prices for a few wireless NICs and switches !
I feel really bad for Carly Fiorona. She may actually believe that she is digging a foundation for her company. . .
Why feel sorry for an intellegent (and highly compensated) person who should know better ? Why not feel sorry instead for the misguided Compaq/HP foot soldiers and shareholders who are going to be screwed over by her bunglings ?
I just can't believe how amazed people here are that someone would charge $621K or whatever to have their genome mapped. This is something that had not even been done for any human barely 2 years ago, and then only at the HUGE expense to governments all over the world, and now you can get it done for less than a million dollars ? Do these people realize how immense is the enterprise they can buy now, for less than a lot of houses that dot-commers were buying in the Bay area that same 2 years ago ?
And many of these are the same people who probably ooh-and-ahh at anime cels costing tens of thousands of dollars, or who dream of plans spending tens of thousands of dollars wiring their house with the latest optical-this and wireless-that.
People have spent far more money in far sillier ways.
Rather than ripping IBM for criticising - fairly, IMHO - MySQL on a laundry list of technical (and NOT philosophical) grounds, I would think the open-source-rah-rah crowd here should take pleasure at noting this: when open-source software is being evaluated NOT on the basis of whether or not it is open-source, but RATHER on its technical merits, a watershed has been marked.
Ultimately most people don't care about the history wrapped up in a product - they care about whether or not the product does what they need it do. Jews who lost family members in WWII drive Porsches (for instance) now without blinking, even though the cars bear the same name that built the most powerful German war machines, for instance, because Porsche makes a damn good car.
If open-source software is being evaluated on whether or not it can do the job, rather than on the merits/loopholes/risks of open-source software, that's a Good Thing (tm) for the OSS crowd - it means the hangups companies may have for OSS are as big as they were before. It means products are being evaluated as products, and not as proxies for philosophies or agendas.
No mention in a Slashdot article of the Stones' stance on P2P and file 'sharing' ??? Sounds to me like, as astute businessmen and musicians, their opinions would be highly relevant.
There are federal and/or provincial minimum guidelines. I believe they provide for something like 1 week per year of service. Upon severance, I believe companies are required to 'make the employee whole'. In some cases, this means compensating them more depending upon their age (older people are less likely to be able to find suitable work), qualifications (more qualified people might have a harder time finding equivalent positions), etc. There is considerable subjectivity here, but also case histories you can use as supporting evidence.
What is provided for in your severance package can NOT be less than what is provided by law. So you need to look at your package and determine how much MORE they are providing you, in compensation for you giving up whatever rights you give up when you sign the severance agreement. For instance, you might have stock options which expire 30 days after you cease becoming an employee, but your company might offer you an additional 3 months IF you sign the agreement. What price do you put on your ability to sue, and what price do you put on the additional exercise/vesting period ? The answer is, as so often it is with legal-type questions here, 'it depends'.
You need to weigh the tradeoffs between what they're offering you and what you're giving up. But be advised, the legal minimums in Canada are pretty minimal. They're almost certainly giving you more than you are entitled to. Whether they are giving you more than you think you deserve is a different question.
Big deal. After two stinkers (Diablo II and Warcraft 3) in a row for which I ran to the store on the first day they were available, and paid dearly for, I am hardly holding my breath for the next Blizzard release.
They had my brand loyalty with Warcraft I/II and Diablo, and their associated expansion panks. They lost it with Diablo II and Warcraft 3. Here's hoping that Ensemble Studios doesn't let me down with the new Age of Mythology, or I don't know where my gaming dollars will go.
Can you get Ecoli poisoning from a McDonalds burger ? Or do you have to wait for them to come out with an expansion back with Jack-in-the-box restaurants ?
If players start seeing intrusive ads they'll start to turn away from it.
And if players start turning away from it, companies will stop doing it. So what's the problem ? If it's really a bother to anyone, that person should voice his opinion in the only way that really matters - by not buying it. Methinks, however, that ovewhelming success of the new Sims product will show that LOTS of people don't mind that much.
Moreover, if they're really getting shafted like they think they are, why doesn't such a glittering roster of blue-chip stars get together and finance their own record company, where they can control things ? SURELY, together they could do something like Spielberg/Katzenberg/Geffen did when those guys cut out their middlemen ?
It does make one wonder. We're not talking about dime-store independent artists here.
That presumes that the reviewers are advocates first, reviewers second. I, for one, would fire the ass of any reviwer on my staff who puts his/or her politics or agenda in the way of my putting out a review that lots of my readers might be interested in.
simple: 20 for a hour of stereo music, of which maybe one or two songs may be rememberable enough - or 22 for a feature movie with sharp picture, great sound and extras?
I've paid $20 for a CD with a SINGLE song I like, because I get great enjoyment from a single song I enjoy, and listen to such songs over and over.
I can't go see a movie more than once for my ticket.
I don't like what the RIAA is doing...When I do want some RIAA stuff, I generally pirate it...I get it without giving them any money
Jesus, I don't think a post more clearly outlines the anti-RIAA/pro-P2P hypocrisy so often brandished here than this post. You're pirating the stuff because you're cheap. I, for one, am not convinced by your self-righteous post that you're going to PAY as soon as the RIAA makes it easier for you to get it for free.
If you really want to change the RIAA's policy, try sending them money after you pirate something. Maybe if enough people who were supposedly willing to pay for alternatively-distribued content DID so, the RIAA could be convinced that the P2P world isn't mostly populated by mostly-thieves.
Huh ? How does RIAA objecting to the distribution of copyrighted material for free consitute unwillingness to "compete in the open market place" ? If (say) Richard Stallman raises an objection to (say) commercial distribution sans source of (say) GPL'ed software like GNU Emacs, does this constitute unwillingness to compete in the open market place ? And how would this 'prove' the Napster model anyways ? This company's model is COMPLETELY different than Napsters - they plan to make available content owned and copyrighted by THEMSELVES. Napster was built around making trading available of content owned and copyrighted BY SOMEONE ELSE. BIG difference.
Slashdot Mirror
the article falls into the common fallacy of equating P2P with illegal copying -- I'm one of the numerous artists who wants people to download my music for free
Well, since you have the time to post articles here instead of chasing groupies, I'd have to guess the RIAA couldn't care less whether or not people are downloading your music for free - since it seems probable you aren't going to get very many people to PAY for it. Correct me if I'm wrong on that.
Of course, YOU fall into the fallacy of assuming that the RIAA opposes P2P because they want to provide people like yoursef from sharing your music - which you are and should be free to do. I've always understood the RIAA is interested in protecting the copyrights of their members - which are being violated-a-plenty by P2P.
Where in this article does Ballmer say he is going to "stomp Linux?"
Did you ever see the video of Ballmer 'stomp'ing around a convention stage, almost tripping over himself and hyperventilating at the end ? If you did, you can't read any Ballmer quotes without picturing him stomping around like some sort of wanna-be-silverback gorilla in mating season.
In a followup, Richard Stallman indicated that if you use Emacs or any of a laundry list of utilities in modifying said Mozilla, the resulting browser name must be prefixed with 'GNU'.
Apropos to another of today's articles, wouldn't Richard Stallman and the FSF insist it be called a "GNU/Linux worm" ?
I bought the previous version, and was underwhelmed. There was a lot of fluff and whitespace; large chunks of pages devoted to offsetting images of webpages with nothing much in them.
One example: their shopping cart example was borderline trivial, and the majority of the code was formatting - which made it damn near impossible to follow the code for all the FONT and other HTML tags. I expect a book written for 'professionals' to give me tips-from-the-battlefield, NOT handwaving exercises.
If someone knew PHP (a seemingly fair assumption, given the title of this book), it seems like they'd be far better off looking for examples on the Net., or for another book.
While its target audience is different, I found O'Reilly's 'Programming PHP' to be excellent and I use it 20x more than the WROX book.
I hardly think the US Military is going to want to get involved in shipping computers to people who fancy themselves revolutionaries and who want to get the computers over there so that they can better coordinate their riots and protests. Medical missionaries these people are not.
They're getting free computers and wireless networks, while I'm still studying my calendar and wondering when I'll be able to afford to pay the still-exorbitant-for-me prices for a few wireless NICs and switches !
I feel really bad for Carly Fiorona. She may actually believe that she is digging a foundation for her company. . .
Why feel sorry for an intellegent (and highly compensated) person who should know better ? Why not feel sorry instead for the misguided Compaq/HP foot soldiers and shareholders who are going to be screwed over by her bunglings ?
Will it still be fast enough to overcome the final gripe about Mozilla, namely that it's just too slow?
Will the next KDE/GNOME or whatever desktop finally be user-friendly enough as a MacOS, OS X or even (shudder) a Windows desktop ?
Without so much as even a beta to try, who knows until we get the product ?
I just can't believe how amazed people here are that someone would charge $621K or whatever to have their genome mapped. This is something that had not even been done for any human barely 2 years ago, and then only at the HUGE expense to governments all over the world, and now you can get it done for less than a million dollars ? Do these people realize how immense is the enterprise they can buy now, for less than a lot of houses that dot-commers were buying in the Bay area that same 2 years ago ?
And many of these are the same people who probably ooh-and-ahh at anime cels costing tens of thousands of dollars, or who dream of plans spending tens of thousands of dollars wiring their house with the latest optical-this and wireless-that.
People have spent far more money in far sillier ways.
Rather than ripping IBM for criticising - fairly, IMHO - MySQL on a laundry list of technical (and NOT philosophical) grounds, I would think the open-source-rah-rah crowd here should take pleasure at noting this: when open-source software is being evaluated NOT on the basis of whether or not it is open-source, but RATHER on its technical merits, a watershed has been marked.
Ultimately most people don't care about the history wrapped up in a product - they care about whether or not the product does what they need it do. Jews who lost family members in WWII drive Porsches (for instance) now without blinking, even though the cars bear the same name that built the most powerful German war machines, for instance, because Porsche makes a damn good car.
If open-source software is being evaluated on whether or not it can do the job, rather than on the merits/loopholes/risks of open-source software, that's a Good Thing (tm) for the OSS crowd - it means the hangups companies may have for OSS are as big as they were before. It means products are being evaluated as products, and not as proxies for philosophies or agendas.
No mention in a Slashdot article of the Stones' stance on P2P and file 'sharing' ??? Sounds to me like, as astute businessmen and musicians, their opinions would be highly relevant.
There are federal and/or provincial minimum guidelines. I believe they provide for something like 1 week per year of service. Upon severance, I believe companies are required to 'make the employee whole'. In some cases, this means compensating them more depending upon their age (older people are less likely to be able to find suitable work), qualifications (more qualified people might have a harder time finding equivalent positions), etc. There is considerable subjectivity here, but also case histories you can use as supporting evidence.
What is provided for in your severance package can NOT be less than what is provided by law. So you need to look at your package and determine how much MORE they are providing you, in compensation for you giving up whatever rights you give up when you sign the severance agreement. For instance, you might have stock options which expire 30 days after you cease becoming an employee, but your company might offer you an additional 3 months IF you sign the agreement. What price do you put on your ability to sue, and what price do you put on the additional exercise/vesting period ? The answer is, as so often it is with legal-type questions here, 'it depends'.
You need to weigh the tradeoffs between what they're offering you and what you're giving up. But be advised, the legal minimums in Canada are pretty minimal. They're almost certainly giving you more than you are entitled to. Whether they are giving you more than you think you deserve is a different question.
So they scrapped it rather than get a "That game is soooo last-year" reaction.
You mean like Diablo 2? No, wait, that game got a "That is soooo 1997" reaction....in 2001.
Note that this game will be console-only,
Big deal. After two stinkers (Diablo II and Warcraft 3) in a row for which I ran to the store on the first day they were available, and paid dearly for, I am hardly holding my breath for the next Blizzard release.
They had my brand loyalty with Warcraft I/II and Diablo, and their associated expansion panks. They lost it with Diablo II and Warcraft 3. Here's hoping that Ensemble Studios doesn't let me down with the new Age of Mythology, or I don't know where my gaming dollars will go.
Can you get Ecoli poisoning from a McDonalds burger ? Or do you have to wait for them to come out with an expansion back with Jack-in-the-box restaurants ?
If players start seeing intrusive ads they'll start to turn away from it.
And if players start turning away from it, companies will stop doing it. So what's the problem ? If it's really a bother to anyone, that person should voice his opinion in the only way that really matters - by not buying it. Methinks, however, that ovewhelming success of the new Sims product will show that LOTS of people don't mind that much.
I'd rather go out into the brave new world than live with dinosaurs that are far too big for their boots.
Anyone else get a laugh out of the fact that Keith Richards is derisively calling anyone a dinosaur ??
Moreover, if they're really getting shafted like they think they are, why doesn't such a glittering roster of blue-chip stars get together and finance their own record company, where they can control things ? SURELY, together they could do something like Spielberg/Katzenberg/Geffen did when those guys cut out their middlemen ?
It does make one wonder. We're not talking about dime-store independent artists here.
This is just a sad example of how paranoid the music companies have become...
That, or it's a sad example of how bad the piracy issue can be...
That presumes that the reviewers are advocates first, reviewers second. I, for one, would fire the ass of any reviwer on my staff who puts his/or her politics or agenda in the way of my putting out a review that lots of my readers might be interested in.
simple: 20 for a hour of stereo music, of which maybe one or two songs may be rememberable enough - or 22 for a feature movie with sharp picture, great sound and extras?
I've paid $20 for a CD with a SINGLE song I like, because I get great enjoyment from a single song I enjoy, and listen to such songs over and over.
I can't go see a movie more than once for my ticket.
I don't like what the RIAA is doing...When I do want some RIAA stuff, I generally pirate it...I get it without giving them any money
Jesus, I don't think a post more clearly outlines the anti-RIAA/pro-P2P hypocrisy so often brandished here than this post. You're pirating the stuff because you're cheap. I, for one, am not convinced by your self-righteous post that you're going to PAY as soon as the RIAA makes it easier for you to get it for free.
If you really want to change the RIAA's policy, try sending them money after you pirate something. Maybe if enough people who were supposedly willing to pay for alternatively-distribued content DID so, the RIAA could be convinced that the P2P world isn't mostly populated by mostly-thieves.
Huh ? How does RIAA objecting to the distribution of copyrighted material for free consitute unwillingness to "compete in the open market place" ? If (say) Richard Stallman raises an objection to (say) commercial distribution sans source of (say) GPL'ed software like GNU Emacs, does this constitute unwillingness to compete in the open market place ?
And how would this 'prove' the Napster model anyways ? This company's model is COMPLETELY different than Napsters - they plan to make available content owned and copyrighted by THEMSELVES. Napster was built around making trading available of content owned and copyrighted BY SOMEONE ELSE. BIG difference.
noone suggest Wil Wheaton.