Wow, what a short article. The text posted contains all the text of the article, except for the following lines:
State and federal prosecutors say the tactic is legal. The photos are being taken by two Wilmington police squads created to arrest drug dealers.
Many of the people whose photos have been taken were stopped briefly for loitering and let go.
Then after the article, there is this notice:
Copyright 2002 by The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Does this mean that/. is in violation of AP's copyright?
define "geek".
The way you are defining it is negative.
I didn't define it really, but I can say what I think it means. It is someone who loves technology, and isn't afraid to embrace it and try to learn about it. Geeks are "hands-on" people, and while there are the "theoretical geeks", most of them aren't afraid to dive into things and check them out. I would have used the term hacker, because that is the truer term, but hacker has been given a bad image.
And I don't think the way I described geeks as being negative. I think it is a positive thing that we have these kinds of people. Have you ever met a scientist? Those guys are wacked out. Same with mathematicians, and physicists. But that is good, that is what their role is, it is OK. True, they can be socially capable, but for the most part they have their niche. Same goes for artists, musicians, etc. And the same can be said with marketing people. While it is possible that they can interact with the geeks, usually they can't really connect. And that is a good thing.
No matter how much the guys in the golf shirts and suits pretend to know about linux, you will always need the true geek to get the most out of it. Who cares if the people on the "front lines" are business people. I think that linux has it's heart in the right place, and no amount of posing and shlubbing can change that. If it does, on the corporate level, there will always be those in the trenches who can just have fun with it and hack it. I don't look at it as a change, just an evolution. If you want to attract more people, you are going to get all kinds of people. Even marketing drones. It comes with the territory. I think there is enough room in the linux pool for everyone. The key is, the technology is the base of it all, so without the tech people, it won't exist.
Being a geek used to be bad (80s) then trendy (90s) and now it is seen as necessary.
DAMMIT! Why won't they embrace the technology and offer us, the FANS and their customers, the music?!
Why not something like this:
Anything a year old or less, they don't offer digitally. (or they offer digitally, but you have to buy the whole album) Anything older than one year, you can get on MP3 per song. If it is 1-5 years old, it will cost you $0.50 per song. If it is 5 years old or older, it only costs $0.25 per song.
Set up a friggin website where you can buy the MP3s and download them. Go into the large music chains, like Virgin et al, and set up a "burning studio" where you can pick out however many songs you want, and they will burn them to CD for you, with a small overhead charge for the media and the burn. While you are waiting for your burn, you can browse the CDs of the new stuff that are for sale.
Bottom line, if people could easily get the music they want, they will pay a reasonable price for it. What good is all of the old Ratt, Trixster, and Cinderella stuff that is sitting there collecting dust? I'd like to hear that stuff again, but I am not going to pay $18 for their CDs.
I know there are technical issues with this plan, but technical issues can be overcome. Make the entire catalog searchable. Have preset categories, like "all the top10 songs for each month during 1985". The interest in music would skyrocket. Make getting music "legally" worthwhile, and people will pay for it.
What a surprise, he's afraid that software vendors are going to own his thoughts. "In other words, the products of our creative minds, the very essence of our humanity, are being relentlessly stripped from us."
Hey, KDE is very good and all, and yes, there are some real serious issues about proprietary document formats. But anytime somebody starts into this sort of extremist scare-mongering, even if I basically agree with them, I just tune it out. Most people who use such exaggeration aren't capable of thinking through the issue clearly. It's become far too common these days to make some trivial cause into something of earth-shattering importance. Spare me.
Hmm. Guess you missed this story. Sure, the guy signed an invention disclosure agreement, but what if MS put a similar clause in the EULA? "I agree, that by using this software, that I forfeit any rights to any invention created all or in part by any of the software contained herein, and the intellectual property rights to those inventions shall be the sole property of Microsoft."
MSFT is not capable of preventing you from viewing your own creations unless you are stupid enough to let them.
My standard answer to the "MSFT can't do XXX" argument is "Who is going to stop them?"
Don't let the government take care of you--do it yourself. You'll be much better off in the long run.
I have to agree with you here, because the government can F up just about anything. But as long as the government doesn't control open source, I think everything will be OK. (and I don't think they can control it)
Have you looked into Knoppix? You could run all of the machines off of a ramdisk, have them use floppies to save their configurations if they want. You could even remove the hard drives from the machines. I have found that less than 128MB may cause you some issues, but it will still work.
Your only problem would be people swiping the discs, but you could also offer them for sale.
You can argue the features of browsers all you want. They are all becoming similar because once one of them creates a nice feature, the others will follow. But answer this question for me - have you patched your browser to fix the huge SSL flaw?
To be technically correct, they have a MAX speed of 40X. They don't burn at that speed throughout the entire burn, they may reach that speed at some point though. That's why the actual burn time of a CD has pretty much reached it's limit.
Going from 8x to 16x is not the same as going from 16x to 32x.
In fact, Richard Stallman wrote an editorial in 1999 and said 'Because copying hardware is so hard, the question of whether we're allowed to do it is not vitally important.' DRM has perhaps changed that. Isn't the need for open hardware becoming critical? What is the status of the open hardware efforts?
You answered your own question in Stallman's quote. Do you think the ability to copy hardware, or produce it, has gotten easier since 1999? As other commenters have pointed out, open hardware would be illegal if DRM is mandated as the big companies hope. If it is only selectively implemented, then there will be producers of non-DRM hardware out there. And they will do quite well. As long as it is legal to have non-DRM hardware, we will have it. If it is illegal, then it won't matter. Open standards for something illegal don't really help anyone.
I said: I am secure in my feelings, but they aren't of superiority. They are of clarity.
Then you commented: Said like a true Muslim extremist.
Yep, jump on that bandwagon too, sheep. I'll bet after typing that you were strutting around chanting "U S A, U S A".
Gee, you seemed to miss my other statement, which sounds nothing like any organized religion, let alone a Muslim extremist:
I think for myself, and if other people happen to think the way I do, then that is fine. I form my own opinions, and sometimes I do change my mind.
Information Wave Technologies has announced it will actively deny the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) from accessing the contents of its network. Earlier this year, the RIAA announced its new plan to access computers without owner's consent for the sake of protecting its assets. Information Wave believes this policy puts its customers at risk of unintentional damage, corporate espionage, and invasion of privacy to say the least.
Due to the nature of this matter and RIAA's previous history, we feel the RIAA will abuse software vulerabilities in a client's browser after the browser accesses its site, potentially allowing the RIAA to access and/or tamper with your data. Starting at midnight on August 19, 2002, Information Wave customers will no longer be able to reach the RIAA's web site. Information Wave will also actively seek out attempts by the RIAA to thwart this policy and apply additional filters to protect our customers' data.
Information Wave will also deploy peer-to-peer clients on the Gnutella network from its security research and development network (honeynet) which will offer files with popular song titles derived from the Billboard Top 100 maintained by VNU eMedia. No copyright violations will take place, these files will merely have arbitrary sizes similar to the length of a 3 to 4 minute MP3 audio file encoded at 128kbps. Clients which connect to our peer-to-peer clients, and then afterwards attempt to illegally access the network will be immediately blacklisted from Information Wave's network. The data collected will be actively maintained and distributed from our network operations site.
The placement of this policy is not intended to hamper the RIAA's piracy elimination agenda or advocate Internet piracy, but to ensure the safety of our customers' data attached to our network from hackers or corporate espionage hidden by the veil of RIAA copyright enforcement.
If you have questions, comments, or concerns regarding this policy, please e-mail riaa@informationwave.net.
I have just sent them an email of thanks and encouragement. I think everyone else who agrees with their actions should do the same. It is nice to see someone taking a public stand, and they should be encouraged.
Earlier this month, the Federal Communications Commission approved regulations that would require television manufacturers to include anticopying technology in the next generation of televisions.
Did I miss something? What was this regulation, and when was it approved? I know of the one that requires TV manufacturers to include digital tuners in all new sets by 2005, but when was it regulated that they must contain DRM technology?
Or is this article just the Christian Science Monitor jumping to conclusions? Yeah, we all know that they will put DRM in there if they get the chance, but this article says that it has been mandated by the FCC. I don't think that is true.
If you consume anything, you ARE a consumer. If you want to pretend that you have completely free will, and are unaffected by any sort of marketing or advertising, go ahead.
I can't say I am unaffected, because it is getting harder and harder to do. And I refuse to be a consumer, a thoughtless idiot who just buys and does things because that is what you are supposed to do. If you ever see me driving around in an SUV talking on a cellphone, I will have buckled under the pressure and given in.
I find your comments EXTRA pretentious coming from someone who sells FUCKING T-SHIRTS! I'm sure you care a lot about the people who buy your shirts and their family.
Ha. Good point. But for the record, I don't sell Tshirts. They are for sale, but nobody is really buying them. That isn't my profession, it is a hobby. I have made a total of $6 on those shirts. I don't do any advertising for them, I don't pretend to be something I am not. I put some ideas I had on shirts. Buy them, don't buy them - I don't care. And don't consume them, I am sure they woulnd't taste very good. And thanks for looking! Set up your own store at cafepress.com, and put your own ideas on shirts. They're harmless, really.
You're a self-righteous slashdot prick, secure in your feelings of geek superiority, but in actual fact incapable of the basic comprehension to recognize the trap you've already fallen into - the trap of discounting others rather than attempting to educate them. It's assholes like you that make the 'geek perspective', whatever that is, hard to get out into the mainstream mindset.
Funny, I know a lot of people who are not geeks who have the same opinion. It has nothing to do with being a geek, don't blend the two ideas. True, I am secure in my feelings, but they aren't of superiority. They are of clarity. I have quite clear feelings on certain topics, and I'll express them if I feel like it. Unfortunately, most people who coast through their life do what they do because that is what everyone else does. I think for myself, and if other people happen to think the way I do, then that is fine. I form my own opinions, and sometimes I do change my mind. If that bothers you, then that is your problem, not mine.
Compared to some other companies *cough*NVIDIA*cough* ATI has been very helpful to linux developers. While NVIDIA only releases binaries, and only for x86, ATI actually provides developers with technical specs to aid development on other platforms
Probably because they want some competent people to write some drivers for them.:-)
Really? You have never purchased or used a product made or sold by someone else?
That makes me a customer. We are programmed to be consumers. What do consumers do? They consume, that is all. That is what we are to most big companies. Contrary to what they would have you believe, they don't care about you or your family, what your needs are, what you think of their product. Now go off and consume something, like a good little brainwashed drone.
Remember, its easier to get into the consumers heads when you are cool and calm. Just going off makes you look immature, and gets you ignored...
OK, first off, I am not a consumer, and don't like being treated like one. But I digress.
Cool and calm (i.e. passionless sheep) is what allowed the DMCA to get passed in the first place. Far fewer people would be in opposition to it if it weren't so broad and vague. The fact of the matter is, it is so vague that it COULD be interpreted in many different ways. You can't say that there is a zero percent chance of something happening when there is nothing in the law to prevent it. The fact of the matter is, the DMCA was used as a big stick to threaten researchers to bow to corporate pressure. The threat was removed, but it was still possible that the researchers could have been prosecuted under the DMCA. All it is going to take is one case as precedent and the whole game is over, that is how our legal system works. Maybe the big entertainment companies are just waiting for the right opportunity to present itself.
And if you think that they won't prosecute someone under the DMCA, think again. It is a law, and they have legal right to do so. It doen't matter what the INTENTION of the law is, it matter what the law says.
Slashdot Mirror
State and federal prosecutors say the tactic is legal. The photos are being taken by two Wilmington police squads created to arrest drug dealers.
Many of the people whose photos have been taken were stopped briefly for loitering and let go.
Then after the article, there is this notice:
Copyright 2002 by The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Does this mean that /. is in violation of AP's copyright?
I didn't define it really, but I can say what I think it means. It is someone who loves technology, and isn't afraid to embrace it and try to learn about it. Geeks are "hands-on" people, and while there are the "theoretical geeks", most of them aren't afraid to dive into things and check them out. I would have used the term hacker, because that is the truer term, but hacker has been given a bad image.
And I don't think the way I described geeks as being negative. I think it is a positive thing that we have these kinds of people. Have you ever met a scientist? Those guys are wacked out. Same with mathematicians, and physicists. But that is good, that is what their role is, it is OK. True, they can be socially capable, but for the most part they have their niche. Same goes for artists, musicians, etc. And the same can be said with marketing people. While it is possible that they can interact with the geeks, usually they can't really connect. And that is a good thing.
No doubt because people can easily use their VCRs to pirate movies. I guess Jack Valenti was right after all.
Being a geek used to be bad (80s) then trendy (90s) and now it is seen as necessary.
That's because their PR people haven't acknowledged that it is a problem yet. Give them 6-8 months. Sheesh, you Open Source people sure are impatient.
Arbitrary commards run by Microsoft if I do.
You know, I think I would rather trust the strangers.
Why not something like this:
Anything a year old or less, they don't offer digitally. (or they offer digitally, but you have to buy the whole album) Anything older than one year, you can get on MP3 per song. If it is 1-5 years old, it will cost you $0.50 per song. If it is 5 years old or older, it only costs $0.25 per song.
Set up a friggin website where you can buy the MP3s and download them. Go into the large music chains, like Virgin et al, and set up a "burning studio" where you can pick out however many songs you want, and they will burn them to CD for you, with a small overhead charge for the media and the burn. While you are waiting for your burn, you can browse the CDs of the new stuff that are for sale.
Bottom line, if people could easily get the music they want, they will pay a reasonable price for it. What good is all of the old Ratt, Trixster, and Cinderella stuff that is sitting there collecting dust? I'd like to hear that stuff again, but I am not going to pay $18 for their CDs.
I know there are technical issues with this plan, but technical issues can be overcome. Make the entire catalog searchable. Have preset categories, like "all the top10 songs for each month during 1985". The interest in music would skyrocket. Make getting music "legally" worthwhile, and people will pay for it.
Duh - THERE IS NO COMPETITION! That is the point. Do people read the EULA? No, not the majority of them.
Hmm. Guess you missed this story. Sure, the guy signed an invention disclosure agreement, but what if MS put a similar clause in the EULA? "I agree, that by using this software, that I forfeit any rights to any invention created all or in part by any of the software contained herein, and the intellectual property rights to those inventions shall be the sole property of Microsoft."
Think it won't happen? Who is going to stop them?
My standard answer to the "MSFT can't do XXX" argument is "Who is going to stop them?"
Don't let the government take care of you--do it yourself. You'll be much better off in the long run.
I have to agree with you here, because the government can F up just about anything. But as long as the government doesn't control open source, I think everything will be OK. (and I don't think they can control it)
Your only problem would be people swiping the discs, but you could also offer them for sale.
*sounds of crickets in Redmond*
I thought so.
Moe: Heh heh, I got it used from the navy. You can flash-fry a buffalo in forty seconds.
Homer: Forty seconds? But I want it now!
To be technically correct, they have a MAX speed of 40X. They don't burn at that speed throughout the entire burn, they may reach that speed at some point though. That's why the actual burn time of a CD has pretty much reached it's limit. Going from 8x to 16x is not the same as going from 16x to 32x.
Easy, they'll just release their next chip, which will outperform this one.
And the circle of life (Moore's Law) goes on...
You answered your own question in Stallman's quote. Do you think the ability to copy hardware, or produce it, has gotten easier since 1999? As other commenters have pointed out, open hardware would be illegal if DRM is mandated as the big companies hope. If it is only selectively implemented, then there will be producers of non-DRM hardware out there. And they will do quite well. As long as it is legal to have non-DRM hardware, we will have it. If it is illegal, then it won't matter. Open standards for something illegal don't really help anyone.
Then you commented: Said like a true Muslim extremist.
Yep, jump on that bandwagon too, sheep. I'll bet after typing that you were strutting around chanting "U S A, U S A".
Gee, you seemed to miss my other statement, which sounds nothing like any organized religion, let alone a Muslim extremist:
I think for myself, and if other people happen to think the way I do, then that is fine. I form my own opinions, and sometimes I do change my mind.
August 19, 2002
Information Wave Technologies has announced it will actively deny the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) from accessing the contents of its network. Earlier this year, the RIAA announced its new plan to access computers without owner's consent for the sake of protecting its assets. Information Wave believes this policy puts its customers at risk of unintentional damage, corporate espionage, and invasion of privacy to say the least.
Due to the nature of this matter and RIAA's previous history, we feel the RIAA will abuse software vulerabilities in a client's browser after the browser accesses its site, potentially allowing the RIAA to access and/or tamper with your data. Starting at midnight on August 19, 2002, Information Wave customers will no longer be able to reach the RIAA's web site. Information Wave will also actively seek out attempts by the RIAA to thwart this policy and apply additional filters to protect our customers' data.
Information Wave will also deploy peer-to-peer clients on the Gnutella network from its security research and development network (honeynet) which will offer files with popular song titles derived from the Billboard Top 100 maintained by VNU eMedia. No copyright violations will take place, these files will merely have arbitrary sizes similar to the length of a 3 to 4 minute MP3 audio file encoded at 128kbps. Clients which connect to our peer-to-peer clients, and then afterwards attempt to illegally access the network will be immediately blacklisted from Information Wave's network. The data collected will be actively maintained and distributed from our network operations site.
The placement of this policy is not intended to hamper the RIAA's piracy elimination agenda or advocate Internet piracy, but to ensure the safety of our customers' data attached to our network from hackers or corporate espionage hidden by the veil of RIAA copyright enforcement.
If you have questions, comments, or concerns regarding this policy, please e-mail riaa@informationwave.net.
riaa@informationwave.net
Earlier this month, the Federal Communications Commission approved regulations that would require television manufacturers to include anticopying technology in the next generation of televisions.
Did I miss something? What was this regulation, and when was it approved? I know of the one that requires TV manufacturers to include digital tuners in all new sets by 2005, but when was it regulated that they must contain DRM technology?
Or is this article just the Christian Science Monitor jumping to conclusions? Yeah, we all know that they will put DRM in there if they get the chance, but this article says that it has been mandated by the FCC. I don't think that is true.
I can't say I am unaffected, because it is getting harder and harder to do. And I refuse to be a consumer, a thoughtless idiot who just buys and does things because that is what you are supposed to do. If you ever see me driving around in an SUV talking on a cellphone, I will have buckled under the pressure and given in.
I find your comments EXTRA pretentious coming from someone who sells FUCKING T-SHIRTS! I'm sure you care a lot about the people who buy your shirts and their family.
Ha. Good point. But for the record, I don't sell Tshirts. They are for sale, but nobody is really buying them. That isn't my profession, it is a hobby. I have made a total of $6 on those shirts. I don't do any advertising for them, I don't pretend to be something I am not. I put some ideas I had on shirts. Buy them, don't buy them - I don't care. And don't consume them, I am sure they woulnd't taste very good. And thanks for looking! Set up your own store at cafepress.com, and put your own ideas on shirts. They're harmless, really.
Funny, I know a lot of people who are not geeks who have the same opinion. It has nothing to do with being a geek, don't blend the two ideas. True, I am secure in my feelings, but they aren't of superiority. They are of clarity. I have quite clear feelings on certain topics, and I'll express them if I feel like it. Unfortunately, most people who coast through their life do what they do because that is what everyone else does. I think for myself, and if other people happen to think the way I do, then that is fine. I form my own opinions, and sometimes I do change my mind. If that bothers you, then that is your problem, not mine.
Probably because they want some competent people to write some drivers for them. :-)
That makes me a customer. We are programmed to be consumers. What do consumers do? They consume, that is all. That is what we are to most big companies. Contrary to what they would have you believe, they don't care about you or your family, what your needs are, what you think of their product. Now go off and consume something, like a good little brainwashed drone.
OK, first off, I am not a consumer, and don't like being treated like one. But I digress.
Cool and calm (i.e. passionless sheep) is what allowed the DMCA to get passed in the first place. Far fewer people would be in opposition to it if it weren't so broad and vague. The fact of the matter is, it is so vague that it COULD be interpreted in many different ways. You can't say that there is a zero percent chance of something happening when there is nothing in the law to prevent it. The fact of the matter is, the DMCA was used as a big stick to threaten researchers to bow to corporate pressure. The threat was removed, but it was still possible that the researchers could have been prosecuted under the DMCA. All it is going to take is one case as precedent and the whole game is over, that is how our legal system works. Maybe the big entertainment companies are just waiting for the right opportunity to present itself.
And if you think that they won't prosecute someone under the DMCA, think again. It is a law, and they have legal right to do so. It doen't matter what the INTENTION of the law is, it matter what the law says.