First, I thought Quicktime (not to be confused with Quicktime Player") used a plug-in type architecture for codecs. So in order to play "DIVX" media, I put the plugin into ~Library/Quicktime (OS X). So there is nothing to prevent Quicktime from using "open" codecs.
Second, I thought things like MPEG1-4 were "open" standards, just not "open-source" or "free".
So as you can see, either I'm very confused or a lot of people are confusing the terminology. I'm not always sure which.
IMO the PITA factor is too high now. I have a high -bandwidth connection, I know where I can download movies, but it still takes too long and the results are so poor that I'll just go to the public library and check it out or rent it from down the street. If I wanted to pirate it, an analog-analog (VHS) copy is better quality than most the stuff I've seen on the net and wouldn't really cost any more in the end.
Cool! That means I can translate any written works to Klingon, and they're no longer copyrighted by anyone but me. Hmmm. Maybe pig-latin would be easier.
Let's say Yahoo is a physical store. It would be illegal for their stores in France to carry Nazi memorabilia, but perfectly legal for their US stores. Now if a French national on vacation in the US buys these products and tries to take them home, Yahoo would still not be held responsible, the individual would.
The problem with the internet, though, is you don't always know when you're on vacation in another country. Sometimes you don't even know if your store is in another country.
Why should that effort ever become yours to take, seventy years later or seventy thousand?
Just out of curiosity, do you feel the same about patents? After all, if someone puts in the effort to invent something, why should it ever become anyone else's to take?
I don't see the benefit to society being any different between a scientific invention vs. a work of literature, so why should one become "public domain" where the other does not?
"There will come a day when nobody but eccentrics and bibliophiles will read normal books."
and
" If this case were to succeed, the US government would condem the blind people of the world to illiteracy."
Just FYI (wouldn't think about being nitpicky on/.) most blind people have a heck-of-a-time with "normal books" too. But you're right in that technology is making text more accessible to the blind than it ever has been, and now its illegal for them to tap into it.
Sure, shredding/deleting documents can prevent them from being used against you, but it also prevents you from using them in your defense (or as evidence against someone else).
Nah, if you really want to be cruel, add a few lines to the script to have it fire up iTunes and play through your music library repeatedly with visual effects on at full screen. Anyone with a lower than average IQ will be mesmerized, entering a catatonic state, and eventually starve to death.
Just wanted to point out the fact that all of us are communicating via an unreadable by humans, binary code (generally ASCII).
Is my speech not protected because it is being conveyed in a language that only a computer can understand and translate? Is it protected only when displayed on a monitor or printed, but not as it is saved on the hard drive or transmitted over the internet?
Historic point, made more irrelevant by the change in media (digital media, CDs, DVDs). Fair use as in your example of copying records to cassettes is applicable because the copy will never equal the original in quality. Ditto for VHS/Beta consumer media.
I keep hearing the manta that "the rules have changed because digital media can be perfectly reproduced." But I have to ask what this has to do with anything?
As far as I know (IANAL) there is nothing in IP law or the Fair Use doctrine that says anything about the quality of the copy being made. If I want to make a backup copy of a CD I purchased, where does it say the backup has to be of lower quality?
Re:Okay so they live forever. Why can't other cell
on
The Immortal Cell
·
· Score: 1
What I don't get is why can't other cancer cells do that?
Many other cancer cells do. In fact there are tons of immortalized cell lines available to research labs. The important aspect of the HeLa cells is that they were the first ones that did it well.
As what it costs to obtain HeLa cells, the situation is a lot like open source software. Most people get them from someone they know, but it you want you can pay a "distributor".
Except that OEMs aren't in the business of selling operating systems, they're in the business of selling computers.
So to continue this fun "burger" analogy, imagine there is a company that has a monopoly on ketchup (say MicroCondiments). You run a burger joint, and your business is selling burgers. Another company comes to you and wants to pay you to use their mustard so they can make their product visible to the public. You get money and free mustard, they get exposure, your customers have an additional option for configuring their burger. Everyone wins.
The problem is that that MicroCondiments also sells mustard, so they now tell you that if you put any mustard on a burger with their ketchup, you also have to make their mustard available. After all, they have to make sure nobody "tarnishes" the taste of their ketchup. Sure, you can still sell burgers without ketchup, but your going to go out of business real fast.
So now the original deal isn't as valuable to the original mustard manufacturer, so he's not willing to pay you as much (if anything) for a non-exclusive deal. He loses, you lose, and your customers don't know the difference.
So then I have to ask why not let the OEM (or VAR)determine the ISPs they think (for whatever reason) are the best match for their customers? Isn't that really the "fairest" way to do it?
Should a theatre that bought the rights to show "Planet of the Apes" be allowed to 'do anything they want' with it? Like re-edit it? Put ads for the local hardware store in it??
Hate to tell you this, but many theatres do show local advertisements before the movie.
From a different perspective, do movie studios dictate what advertisements can be shown during a movie they've licensed to a network?
So if the OEM licenses it just like I do, why is it I can modify the desktop and they can't? Why can"t I have the OEM, acting as my agent, modify the desktop in a manner that is more to my liking? It used to be that part of what differentiated one PC manufacturer from another, was what software was pre-installed, and how that software was configured. That is until MS used its monopoly position to "argue" that they new what the customer wanted more than the OEM, so OEMs are no longer allowed to mess with Microsoft's out-of-box experience.
If I buy a book, underline some words and scribble on the side of the page references and comments, would this be illegal? Am I modifying the original content of the author?
Funny, last I checked MS still hadn't bought a copy of my web site.
I'm really surprised more people in the media haven't commented on how much NeXT there is in MacOS X.
I'm not. A quick survey here (5 people) shows they've all heard of unix, only one of those 5 have heard of NeXT. Its easier for the media to build on what people "know" than it is to actually inform them.
The simplest way to explain how it works is that your full install of OS 9 is run as a single process under OSX when Classic is started. The advantage of this is that OS 9 is not being emulated, the OS and apps are "native", its just that they have to share resources (CPU time, memory) with OSX.
The disadvantage is that since OS 9 and the classic (legacy) apps are being run under a single process (Classic), they don't benefit from protected memory and multitask cooperatively within that "Classic" process. The end result is that if an app running under Classic crashes, it can take out other apps running under Classic, but OSX and OSX native apps still chug along merrily.
Slashdot Mirror
Second, I thought things like MPEG1-4 were "open" standards, just not "open-source" or "free".
So as you can see, either I'm very confused or a lot of people are confusing the terminology. I'm not always sure which.
What non- "closed, fascist licensed codecs" would that be? They do use open (not to be confused with open-source) codecs where possible.
IMO the PITA factor is too high now. I have a high -bandwidth connection, I know where I can download movies, but it still takes too long and the results are so poor that I'll just go to the public library and check it out or rent it from down the street. If I wanted to pirate it, an analog-analog (VHS) copy is better quality than most the stuff I've seen on the net and wouldn't really cost any more in the end.
Cool! That means I can translate any written works to Klingon, and they're no longer copyrighted by anyone but me. Hmmm. Maybe pig-latin would be easier.
The problem with the internet, though, is you don't always know when you're on vacation in another country. Sometimes you don't even know if your store is in another country.
Just out of curiosity, do you feel the same about patents? After all, if someone puts in the effort to invent something, why should it ever become anyone else's to take?
I don't see the benefit to society being any different between a scientific invention vs. a work of literature, so why should one become "public domain" where the other does not?
and
" If this case were to succeed, the US government would condem the blind people of the world to illiteracy."
Just FYI (wouldn't think about being nitpicky on
Sure, shredding/deleting documents can prevent them from being used against you, but it also prevents you from using them in your defense (or as evidence against someone else).
Nah, if you really want to be cruel, add a few lines to the script to have it fire up iTunes and play through your music library repeatedly with visual effects on at full screen. Anyone with a lower than average IQ will be mesmerized, entering a catatonic state, and eventually starve to death.
It just amazes me that some people think Apple should dump a method so many people prefer to use, just because they think its "annoying and stupid".
Is my speech not protected because it is being conveyed in a language that only a computer can understand and translate? Is it protected only when displayed on a monitor or printed, but not as it is saved on the hard drive or transmitted over the internet?
You mean like punch-card, butterfly ballots?
I keep hearing the manta that "the rules have changed because digital media can be perfectly reproduced." But I have to ask what this has to do with anything?
As far as I know (IANAL) there is nothing in IP law or the Fair Use doctrine that says anything about the quality of the copy being made. If I want to make a backup copy of a CD I purchased, where does it say the backup has to be of lower quality?
Many other cancer cells do. In fact there are tons of immortalized cell lines available to research labs. The important aspect of the HeLa cells is that they were the first ones that did it well.
As what it costs to obtain HeLa cells, the situation is a lot like open source software. Most people get them from someone they know, but it you want you can pay a "distributor".
So to continue this fun "burger" analogy, imagine there is a company that has a monopoly on ketchup (say MicroCondiments). You run a burger joint, and your business is selling burgers. Another company comes to you and wants to pay you to use their mustard so they can make their product visible to the public. You get money and free mustard, they get exposure, your customers have an additional option for configuring their burger. Everyone wins.
The problem is that that MicroCondiments also sells mustard, so they now tell you that if you put any mustard on a burger with their ketchup, you also have to make their mustard available. After all, they have to make sure nobody "tarnishes" the taste of their ketchup. Sure, you can still sell burgers without ketchup, but your going to go out of business real fast.
So now the original deal isn't as valuable to the original mustard manufacturer, so he's not willing to pay you as much (if anything) for a non-exclusive deal. He loses, you lose, and your customers don't know the difference.
On another note, anyone else getting hungry?
So then I have to ask why not let the OEM (or VAR)determine the ISPs they think (for whatever reason) are the best match for their customers? Isn't that really the "fairest" way to do it?
I forgot to add the fact that many networks do edit shows/movies for both time and content.
Hate to tell you this, but many theatres do show local advertisements before the movie.
From a different perspective, do movie studios dictate what advertisements can be shown during a movie they've licensed to a network?
So if the OEM licenses it just like I do, why is it I can modify the desktop and they can't? Why can"t I have the OEM, acting as my agent, modify the desktop in a manner that is more to my liking? It used to be that part of what differentiated one PC manufacturer from another, was what software was pre-installed, and how that software was configured. That is until MS used its monopoly position to "argue" that they new what the customer wanted more than the OEM, so OEMs are no longer allowed to mess with Microsoft's out-of-box experience.
Not unlike the many places that used to sell cherry-coke, before Coca-Cola ever bottled it.
Funny, last I checked MS still hadn't bought a copy of my web site.
I'm not. A quick survey here (5 people) shows they've all heard of unix, only one of those 5 have heard of NeXT. Its easier for the media to build on what people "know" than it is to actually inform them.
What kind of warranty and support do you get with that system?
How long does it take you to put together and how much is your time worth?
Still seems to me that you pretty much get what you pay for, PC or Mac.
The disadvantage is that since OS 9 and the classic (legacy) apps are being run under a single process (Classic), they don't benefit from protected memory and multitask cooperatively within that "Classic" process. The end result is that if an app running under Classic crashes, it can take out other apps running under Classic, but OSX and OSX native apps still chug along merrily.
Then again, if you do that, its more likely you'll accidently shoot yourself or someone else than have a killer break down your door.
Just some food for thought.