Been quite a bit of talk about adding the feature; however, there are problems.
An example would be if I were to accidently d/l a Britney Spears song, even if it was a good copy, I'd most likely vote it as bogus 'cuase, well, it is "Britney Spears".
Very hard to put into place a system where people don't mod things down because it's a genre or artist they can't stand. At least w/o making the system so restrictive that people actually will use it.
Re:Sharp isn't the first to do it
on
3D LCD Display
·
· Score: 1
From Berman's quote in the News.com article..."There is no excuse or justification for P2P piracy. Of course, consumers would like free music at the click of a mouse," he said. "They would also like gasoline for less than $1 dollar a gallon. But we don't confiscate people's property and pass it out because people want it for free."
A more legit comparison would be if I were to steal gas. Lets look at that, shall we...
I pull up to a gas station and fill up w/o paying. What happens now? Does Texico come by by house and slash my tires? Does Chevron sneak in and fill my tank with water? No. They call the cops.
The Way It Should Be!
I still don't get why the RIAA thinks that age old method should differ for them.
Great start, and so many great places it could go:
on
Quake 3 2600 Adventure
·
· Score: 1
So far he's got a great looking mod on the way of one of the best games (at the time) to ever hit the shelves.
Just image some of the possibilities:
CTF multiplayer using the chalices and castles to gain points for your color.
Cannot kill dragons unless you posses the right color sword (weapon, relic, whatever).
If he can figure out a way to make a movable bride, it might make it more interesting to protect/assult each castle in a CTF type senerio.
And the one I'd like to see most...Large square block character models:)
Here is the problem I see with mandating file formats "open"...
What stops MS from making the default (in Gov. Editions anyway) Save feature in Word to be.rtf? They can then say (even with "some" legitimacy perhaps) that Word supports open standards.
I'm sure they'd figure out how to support open standards with most of thier suites, knowing full well not many would actually use them.
If everyone who received spam (political or otherwise) didn't just delete it, rather cut&paste the originators web page into a browser (being sure to remove any identifying code), went to the spammers web site, found a "Subscribe to email" box and, once there, placed the email address of their congressmen, governors, mayors, etc. in the boxes...
I wonder how longer it would take the politicians to enact decent anti-spam legislature...?
(On a side note: If media companys can attack Joe Blow Kazaa user, does this mean I can attack spammers? Oh, Pretty Please?!?)
I've been reading through other peoples questions and comments and have seen a lot of discussion regarding binaries and source being made available, downloadablity, licensing apps, proprietary software, etc.. Maybe I'm missing something, but understanding from www.unitedlinux.com is it is not a distro in and of itself. Rather it is a common set of standards which would contain requirements like standardized paths, required installed files (tools, compliers, etc), version, variables, etc. Each distro belonging to United Linux would then build their own distro around those standards (and incl. a "United Linux Inside" type logo), only changing non-backend system affecting features (e.g. color scheme of X and inclusion extra apps like office, text logon vs. pretty picture logon, iptables default rule set, etc...Hell, even a completely different installation program could be used). Theoretically, one would only have to work with one of the four (current) member's distro and it would (err...should) work for all member's distros. So I guess what I'm asking is, shouldn't many those times of questions still be asked to the individual members and not to United Linux as a whole?
Seems to me the whole web page borders on the fraudulent.
Instead of just going back and forth about it, why not start opening cases with places like The Better Business Bureau? There are several government agencies, consumer watchdog groups, etc. which would also be able to determine the legal extent of the subterfuge being propagated.
(Note: I cannot think of such groups at the moment; however, I'm sure someone can provide the names of the those best suited to act.)
While I doubt it'd do much good, if a big enough grass roots effort were to be started, it might just cause pages like this to be removed/altered.
Point is, if groups/orgs/bureaus don't know, and nobody complains, *nothing* will *most definitely* be what end up getting done about it.
Slashdot Mirror
That is exactly the reason I kind of (very, very little) secretly want this to pass.
Reminds me of IRC years ago. Taking over channels, attack bots, etc. It was a game to be played. One that isn't as fun in the current state of IRC.
While many might drop out of P2P if this gets passed. Many might flock to the game of attack & defend that would surely ensue.
Been quite a bit of talk about adding the feature; however, there are problems.
An example would be if I were to accidently d/l a Britney Spears song, even if it was a good copy, I'd most likely vote it as bogus 'cuase, well, it is "Britney Spears".
Very hard to put into place a system where people don't mod things down because it's a genre or artist they can't stand. At least w/o making the system so restrictive that people actually will use it.
Here is a little more info on the DTI...
6 /i ndex.html
c ia l/3dlcd/
http://www4.tomshardware.com/display/01q2/01051
Philips also has some info...
http://www.research.philips.com/generalinfo/spe
From Berman's quote in the News.com article..."There is no excuse or justification for P2P piracy. Of course, consumers would like free music at the click of a mouse," he said. "They would also like gasoline for less than $1 dollar a gallon. But we don't confiscate people's property and pass it out because people want it for free."
A more legit comparison would be if I were to steal gas. Lets look at that, shall we...
I pull up to a gas station and fill up w/o paying.
What happens now?
Does Texico come by by house and slash my tires? Does Chevron sneak in and fill my tank with water? No. They call the cops.
The Way It Should Be!
I still don't get why the RIAA thinks that age old method should differ for them.
So far he's got a great looking mod on the way of one of the best games (at the time) to ever hit the shelves.
:)
Just image some of the possibilities:
CTF multiplayer using the chalices and castles to gain points for your color.
Cannot kill dragons unless you posses the right color sword (weapon, relic, whatever).
If he can figure out a way to make a movable bride, it might make it more interesting to protect/assult each castle in a CTF type senerio.
And the one I'd like to see most...Large square block character models
Here is the problem I see with mandating file formats "open"...
.rtf? They can then say (even with "some" legitimacy perhaps) that Word supports open standards.
What stops MS from making the default (in Gov. Editions anyway) Save feature in Word to be
I'm sure they'd figure out how to support open standards with most of thier suites, knowing full well not many would actually use them.
If everyone who received spam (political or otherwise) didn't just delete it, rather cut&paste the originators web page into a browser (being sure to remove any identifying code), went to the spammers web site, found a "Subscribe to email" box and, once there, placed the email address of their congressmen, governors, mayors, etc. in the boxes...
I wonder how longer it would take the politicians to enact decent anti-spam legislature...?
(On a side note: If media companys can attack Joe Blow Kazaa user, does this mean I can attack spammers? Oh, Pretty Please?!?)
I've been reading through other peoples questions and comments and have seen a lot of discussion regarding binaries and source being made available, downloadablity, licensing apps, proprietary software, etc..
Maybe I'm missing something, but understanding from www.unitedlinux.com is it is not a distro in and of itself. Rather it is a common set of standards which would contain requirements like standardized paths, required installed files (tools, compliers, etc), version, variables, etc. Each distro belonging to United Linux would then build their own distro around those standards (and incl. a "United Linux Inside" type logo), only changing non-backend system affecting features (e.g. color scheme of X and inclusion extra apps like office, text logon vs. pretty picture logon, iptables default rule set, etc...Hell, even a completely different installation program could be used).
Theoretically, one would only have to work with one of the four (current) member's distro and it would (err...should) work for all member's distros. So I guess what I'm asking is, shouldn't many those times of questions still be asked to the individual members and not to United Linux as a whole?
Seems to me the whole web page borders on the fraudulent.
Instead of just going back and forth about it, why not start opening cases with places like The Better Business Bureau? There are several government agencies, consumer watchdog groups, etc. which would also be able to determine the legal extent of the subterfuge being propagated.
(Note: I cannot think of such groups at the moment; however, I'm sure someone can provide the names of the those best suited to act.)
While I doubt it'd do much good, if a big enough grass roots effort were to be started, it might just cause pages like this to be removed/altered.
Point is, if groups/orgs/bureaus don't know, and nobody complains, *nothing* will *most definitely* be what end up getting done about it.