Re:I find this funny.
on
EMC Buying Dantz
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
While Dantz is _the_ Mac backup software company, the reason why EMC is interested is because Retrospect for Windows is the only software with the exception of Veritas that can back up live NTFS filesystems, with or without Volume Shadow Copy support.
Well that's concerning, because if they're buying it for Windows features... well, the Mac stuff may be "de-prioritised" (or insert suitable euphemism here), leaving us without forward development of the main backup software for the platform...
MPAA: OMG! You're downloading movies you evil pirate! Why?! STOP IMMEDIATELY!!
Me: Human error. Watch. *Click* - OOPS! Finger slipped!
What's more concerning is that this may open the door for spammers to pull the "accident" route and bypass the law. It wouldn't be a long running business practice, but what's to stop them setting up a shell company, "accidentally" spamming a lot of people, then closing the company up so it doesn't "accidentally" do it twice?
Set up a new company, wash, rinse, repeat.
-- james
There's a good article over on Wired
on
Halo 2 Ready to Ship
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Whilst many will not know, Bungie originally started out life as a Mac developer... until Bungie sold out to MS, in the ultimate act of treason for many Mac users:)
Even still, I hope Halo 2 makes it off the XBox onto the Mac and the PC. The first one was great, and Bungie make great looking games with a great plot.
I took that comment as Steve Ballmer saying more digital music is pirated then not. Does everyone on this board actually disagree with that?
This isn't about music piracy. This is about Ballmer taking a shot at Apple because they have a product which is user focused, whereas MS have a product which is RIAA focused.
Else, he would have just said that "more digital music is pirated than not". But he didn't, did he?
Pretty true. I'm sure that there will be 10 or so +5 rated posters who say that all the music on their iPod is legit, but Slashdot isn't indicative of the world and you'd be niave to think anything else.
And what does this prove? I could level the exact same claim at Windows users - most home copies of Windows are pirated (unless OEM) - and anyway, how does the music get onto the iPod?
Hmm, maybe via a computer. And Windows users are using the iPods too!
Probably true. Microsoft have control of the desktop market and are playing into the content providers hands. They'll happily embrace anything which is stricter on the end-user in the name of revenues and he knows it.
What MS embraces is less important than what consumers embrace, and they have a habit of not embracing restrictive formats. Like DIV-X (the old version, where you had to connect to get permission to play your movie); and DVD-A / SACD.
Again probably true. Think a couple of years down the line when you either have a choice of 4 models supporting AAC+ or 150 products all supporting WMA.
Jobs has said that he will open up AAC playback if the iPod market share drops below #1. Similarly, he will consider putting WMA playback on the iPod if the iTMS falls below #1.
But right now, despite the absolute lack of competition, the cheaper songs/players elsewhere - the iPod is #1, and so is the iTMS. Every time a consumer chooses either, they create a barrier for themselves to using another service. Who wants to change all their music formats, etc over?
Not forgetting the intense competition from both hardware manufacturers and those who run WMA music stores - in which both will be aiming to provide the best features and functionality for the best price. When Apple's only competition is themselves, then there is less of an incentive (look at Palm procrastinating for years as a fine example)
Yeah, or Microsoft procrastinating in the OS market. Your analogy is flawed. Apple have created this market with one product - the product has defined the market. People don't want a music player, they want an iPod. And which music store is the only one to work with an iPod when they want to try legal downloaded music?
You guessed it.
Generally I think he's pretty much on the ball, although I have no doubt that the predictable response from Slashbots will be "i won't buy from Microsoft" and "All my music is legit" - when, in fact, there are a lot of people who will and also have large numbers of music on their iPod which is legally questionable.
Your point being? I think Ballmer's way off, and it is reflected by Microsoft's market share in this market. Consumers don't want MS DRM, and Apple has a better product all round.
M$ systems sell very well. M$ peripherals, not so much. No amount of FUD, or lawyer-posturing, will get an M$ audio system into people's pockets over the iPod.
Hey Ballmer! The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote.
I don't understand the "corporate America" distinction.
it has to do with the fact that the RIAA wants DRM, and the user doesn't. so Ballmer's looking after the corporate interests ahead of the user interests.
What's funny is that he doesn't realise that new entertainment formats are mostly demand driven. People don't like div-x (the old one, where you had to "connect" to get movies), people don't use it. Same with DVD-A and SACD. Invariably, formats with draconian restrictions on them don't work. And although he wants to label people thieves, there's a very good reason why the iPod is popular, and MS's DRM isn't. The irony is Ballmer himself points it out in the article - "My 12-year-old at home doesn't want to hear that he can't put all the music that he wants in all of the places that he would like it". This isn't about stealing, it's about fair use. 12 year olds just want to do whatever they want to do with their music - like the rest of us. If stolen, free music is the only way we can get there, then so be it. Why pay for restrictions, when freedom is quite literally free?
It makes me laugh, the 12-y-o son of the man running the most powerful IT company in the world gets it, but Ballmer himself doesn't.
Which oddly enough is a theme repeated in the second article - his vision for the digital home - which involves "converged devices that integrate video, audio and computer technology". He's pretty much ripped off Steve Jobs' digital hub strategy from two years ago... and then he goes on to say: "There is no way that you can get there with Apple."
Sorry Steve, the only organisation you can be guaranteed to not get there with is Microsoft. It makes poor copies of good products, labels consumers who want freedom "thieves", and calls out organisations who innovate as not being good enough.
-- james
Re:Not outsourcing - from a business point of view
on
Inside Wal-Mart IT
·
· Score: 1
Over the long run, the market will do the right thing if you let it be.
Hmm. I wonder how much longer we'll see MS as a staple of corporate desktops everywhere then?
-- james PS And don't go posting that link about Bill Gates predicting Windows will be gone in 10 years that was on the main page earlier today. 1) he has a vested interest in saying that (EU antitrust), and 2) we all know how good Billy boy is at predictions (640k of memory, anyone?)
I guess that whole "United STATES" thing just went over your head in high school history class, eh?
What worked 200 years ago does not necessarily work today. To say that things have to remain exactly the way they always were... well, why not invite the Brits back?
And those areas are enumerated in the Constitution. Try actually reading the document to see what they are. Pay particular attention to the 9th and 10th Amendments.
It's a living document. Not one that is laid down and is suggested to be perfect forever. Do you really imagine the founding fathers could forsee 200 years into the future to get everything right? They made a document that worked then, with the option to change things with constitutional amendments.
Since law for everyone, everywhere would be set at the federal level, and local concerns would never hold any weight or water. Might as well do away with the idea of statehood altogether.
Actually, I think that's an excellent idea.
Clearly you've never worked for government. The larger the bureaucracy, the more inefficient it becomes. You'd still need approximately the same amount of government, only now it'd be under control of the feds and cost much, much more to operate. Worse, that government no longer answers to the locals who pay for it.
As opposed to having 50 sets of arbitrary lines drawn in the ground based on what? I jump over some imaginary line and suddenly a new set of laws apply?
A few hundred years ago, sure, people stayed entirely within their own state for most of their lives. Not any more. What about one America instead of 50?
I'll pass on your test-bed version of one-world government, thanks.
Well, of course, you're entitled to your opinion. But I genuinely believe that having 50 sets of laws and legislatures and whatever else is a bad idea, when it's governing one country. The fact that companies are setting up within various localities to get the most lax law just proves the point; there's no such thing as restricting laws to a state any more. People/companies/criminals don't respect state boundaries.
If the US really wants to wake up and join the real world, it would start to pass certain powers to the Federal Govt. That way, it won't have 50 sets of laws based on whereabouts you are in the country at the time. There are certain areas that make sense to be centralised; not only would it make complying with the law easier, but it would save the taxpayers a lot of $$$ in not having to employ fifty sets of state legislature and bureaucracy...
Damn straight. The customer should be the number one priority for pretty much any corporate entity, though sometimes they do seem to lose the plot a little.
And don't forget DVD-A and SACD. Some of us want high rez music formats without the DRM crud attached. If they can pull it off CDs, they sure as hell can pull it off the struggling formats.
yes! but what about changing tack slightly; how about
"do you think there is a relationship between the amount an organisation/corporation donates to a political candidate/party and the benefit that organisation/corporation in turn receives from politicians after the donation is made? Do you think this is how a democracy should work, with those making the largest donations getting the most attention from politicians? If not, what do you propose to do about it? "
On the subject of talking to the marketing department, I wish they'd release "Requiem for a Tower" - it's a piece of music that was originally from Requiem for a Dream, but they totally rescored it for The Two Towers trailer. It's awesome! I've emailed to get it released, and if you're at all interested in getting this cool piece of music to see the light of day, send feedback here: http://www.lordoftherings.net/feedback.html and send email here: info@theantfarm.net who rescored the music.
it just shits me these damn copyright laws - that art can be created and then hidden from those who love it.
the man is so far off base from a normal human being I'm wondering if he's not the RIAA's Manchurian Candidate:
The UMG boss had little sympathy for the twelve-year-old girl in a New York housing project who had harbored an MP3 of the theme tune to her favorite show on her computer, and had been sued by the RIAA. Her family paid out thousands of dollars in a settlement. She was a "serious file sharer", insisted Kennedy.
The first step in beating these pricks is to get Congress's hands out of their pockets. Until that happens, people like this will be put in positions of power where he can continue to go after the little 12-y-o criminals.
is the Register's commentary about this quote by Kennedy: "For 79p you've got a work of art that's like a Picasso, only one that's as close to the original as you can get," he said. [**]
the [**] equates to: Don't write to us - we'll find him a good earwax specialist.
Maybe this is because I'm only halfway through my morning coffee...but...why?
It seems at this point these companies are merely flooding a drowning market that is online music stores. Seems like a new one pops up weekly among the big companies.
It's a damn good question, and it's good to see some IT guys asking it. Not asking it led to the last big IT bubble, and the last big IT crash.
These morons will soon work out that unless that have something to differentiate them, they're going to drown in the MS/Apple ocean with large set up costs and nobody buying their product.
It's turning into a new version of the dot com boom.
Distributing copyrighted works without permission, especially unpublished copyrighted works straight out of a camera, can result in severe statutory damages.
Hey Jack! The MPAA called, they said they want you to take your job back!;)
Sounds like as good a reason as any to limit the amount people can spend on a Presidential campaign.
yes, there are freedom of speech issues but most countries already deign to regulate political campaigning, especially around election time. it's not that much of a stretch to set a hard limit, and only allow it to increase with inflation. plus less of those stupid ads on tv.
in effect it prevents those voters who have more money donating more $$$ to their favoured candidate, and in essence getting "more than their one vote".
take a look at what they're demonstrating, too. Linux Quake 3 on a Powerbook... and Linux GIMP on a Windows machine. These aren't really things that can't be done already today.... but that may be just that the article doesn't go into a lot of depth. Show me Windows Quake 3 running on a Powerbook, now that would be something a little more impressive.
It will be interesting to see the software in any case, and see whether it really does live up to the promise. Because if it does, they're right, it's comp sci's equivalent of turning base metal into gold.
Have you never heard the phrase "To vote with your feet"? Moving from one, crappy, ISP to a slightly better forced one to imitate the other and, hopefully, to go one better, and so on, until their respective services are worth the money you pay for them. Best part is: you're always getting the better deal, if you keep up with the philosophy.
I totally agree, but if you'd read the (very good) article you'd see that these people don't have the option of voting with their feet. There's a monopoly provider, and when the community utility company tried to compete, the monopoly lodged some kind of protest and now the whole thing is stalled.
The people can't vote with their feet, because the law is preventing them. This isn't capitalism, this is closer to a state-enforced monopoly, which is reminiscent of a country that America used to joke about for the very same reason.
Corporations don't care about the consumer. They never have, and they likely never will. Corporations care about the consumer's money. As long as they can provide the bare minimum required to keep the money flowing into their coffers, that's all they'll do.
This is the one thing I can never really understand about America, and the reason I submitted the story.
Why on earth don't you guys change the laws? Corporations and their incessant drive for money can be a positive force, if they're funneled in the right direction. It's the reason you have the anti-monopoly laws and so on. But somewhere in the past twenty years, it's all been forgotten, as if to say that corporations making money in and of itself is the goal.
Because it's not the only - it should be about maximising social benefit - not just bottom line dollars, but also communities, people, and the environment. I don't want to come across as a left-leaning hippie, but what on earth is the point of these corporations if everyone suffers at the hands of them?
This story is the perfect example. Why should a corporation dictate to a community that it can't be competed with? Where is the benefit in that? And that this "loophole" in capitalism has been identified, where is all the righteous indignation at allowing a corporation to exploit the law to maintain an obvious monopoly over these poor people who just want broadband?
I'm living in a city where we're benefitting from a public utility's decision to roll out cable to us. Most all the other cable companies had passed us by, but what if the satellite providers and ADSL providers had decided to try to legally stall the roll out? The outcry here would be enormous! We have a governmental agency designed to promote competition, and they would have come down on any similar attempts like a tonne of bricks.
I guess all this boils down to a single question - why do you guys let these corporations get away with blue murder without doing anything?
Slashdot Mirror
Well that's concerning, because if they're buying it for Windows features... well, the Mac stuff may be "de-prioritised" (or insert suitable euphemism here), leaving us without forward development of the main backup software for the platform...
-- james
What's more concerning is that this may open the door for spammers to pull the "accident" route and bypass the law. It wouldn't be a long running business practice, but what's to stop them setting up a shell company, "accidentally" spamming a lot of people, then closing the company up so it doesn't "accidentally" do it twice?
Set up a new company, wash, rinse, repeat.
-- james
about the team behind Halo 2
l
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/halo.htm
It's a good read if you're into the game!
-- james
Whilst many will not know, Bungie originally started out life as a Mac developer... until Bungie sold out to MS, in the ultimate act of treason for many Mac users :)
Even still, I hope Halo 2 makes it off the XBox onto the Mac and the PC. The first one was great, and Bungie make great looking games with a great plot.
-- james
This isn't about music piracy. This is about Ballmer taking a shot at Apple because they have a product which is user focused, whereas MS have a product which is RIAA focused.
Else, he would have just said that "more digital music is pirated than not". But he didn't, did he?
-- james
And what does this prove? I could level the exact same claim at Windows users - most home copies of Windows are pirated (unless OEM) - and anyway, how does the music get onto the iPod?
Hmm, maybe via a computer. And Windows users are using the iPods too!
What MS embraces is less important than what consumers embrace, and they have a habit of not embracing restrictive formats. Like DIV-X (the old version, where you had to connect to get permission to play your movie); and DVD-A / SACD.
Jobs has said that he will open up AAC playback if the iPod market share drops below #1. Similarly, he will consider putting WMA playback on the iPod if the iTMS falls below #1.
But right now, despite the absolute lack of competition, the cheaper songs/players elsewhere - the iPod is #1, and so is the iTMS. Every time a consumer chooses either, they create a barrier for themselves to using another service. Who wants to change all their music formats, etc over?
Yeah, or Microsoft procrastinating in the OS market. Your analogy is flawed. Apple have created this market with one product - the product has defined the market. People don't want a music player, they want an iPod. And which music store is the only one to work with an iPod when they want to try legal downloaded music?
You guessed it.
Your point being? I think Ballmer's way off, and it is reflected by Microsoft's market share in this market. Consumers don't want MS DRM, and Apple has a better product all round.
-- james
Hey Ballmer! The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote.
-- james
I think Jobs would be more likely to say Microsoft executives are dorks.
And unlike Ballmer in everything he's said in those two articles, Jobs would be damned right.
-- james
it has to do with the fact that the RIAA wants DRM, and the user doesn't. so Ballmer's looking after the corporate interests ahead of the user interests.
What's funny is that he doesn't realise that new entertainment formats are mostly demand driven. People don't like div-x (the old one, where you had to "connect" to get movies), people don't use it. Same with DVD-A and SACD. Invariably, formats with draconian restrictions on them don't work. And although he wants to label people thieves, there's a very good reason why the iPod is popular, and MS's DRM isn't. The irony is Ballmer himself points it out in the article - "My 12-year-old at home doesn't want to hear that he can't put all the music that he wants in all of the places that he would like it". This isn't about stealing, it's about fair use. 12 year olds just want to do whatever they want to do with their music - like the rest of us. If stolen, free music is the only way we can get there, then so be it. Why pay for restrictions, when freedom is quite literally free?
It makes me laugh, the 12-y-o son of the man running the most powerful IT company in the world gets it, but Ballmer himself doesn't.
Which oddly enough is a theme repeated in the second article - his vision for the digital home - which involves "converged devices that integrate video, audio and computer technology". He's pretty much ripped off Steve Jobs' digital hub strategy from two years ago... and then he goes on to say: "There is no way that you can get there with Apple."
Sorry Steve, the only organisation you can be guaranteed to not get there with is Microsoft. It makes poor copies of good products, labels consumers who want freedom "thieves", and calls out organisations who innovate as not being good enough.
-- james
Hmm. I wonder how much longer we'll see MS as a staple of corporate desktops everywhere then?
-- james
PS And don't go posting that link about Bill Gates predicting Windows will be gone in 10 years that was on the main page earlier today. 1) he has a vested interest in saying that (EU antitrust), and 2) we all know how good Billy boy is at predictions (640k of memory, anyone?)
What worked 200 years ago does not necessarily work today. To say that things have to remain exactly the way they always were... well, why not invite the Brits back?
It's a living document. Not one that is laid down and is suggested to be perfect forever. Do you really imagine the founding fathers could forsee 200 years into the future to get everything right? They made a document that worked then, with the option to change things with constitutional amendments.
Actually, I think that's an excellent idea.
As opposed to having 50 sets of arbitrary lines drawn in the ground based on what? I jump over some imaginary line and suddenly a new set of laws apply?
A few hundred years ago, sure, people stayed entirely within their own state for most of their lives. Not any more. What about one America instead of 50?
Well, of course, you're entitled to your opinion. But I genuinely believe that having 50 sets of laws and legislatures and whatever else is a bad idea, when it's governing one country. The fact that companies are setting up within various localities to get the most lax law just proves the point; there's no such thing as restricting laws to a state any more. People/companies/criminals don't respect state boundaries.
-- james
If the US really wants to wake up and join the real world, it would start to pass certain powers to the Federal Govt. That way, it won't have 50 sets of laws based on whereabouts you are in the country at the time. There are certain areas that make sense to be centralised; not only would it make complying with the law easier, but it would save the taxpayers a lot of $$$ in not having to employ fifty sets of state legislature and bureaucracy...
-- james
And don't forget DVD-A and SACD. Some of us want high rez music formats without the DRM crud attached. If they can pull it off CDs, they sure as hell can pull it off the struggling formats.
-- james
yes! but what about changing tack slightly; how about
"do you think there is a relationship between the amount an organisation/corporation donates to a political candidate/party and the benefit that organisation/corporation in turn receives from politicians after the donation is made? Do you think this is how a democracy should work, with those making the largest donations getting the most attention from politicians? If not, what do you propose to do about it? "
How about that?
-- james
On the subject of talking to the marketing department, I wish they'd release "Requiem for a Tower" - it's a piece of music that was originally from Requiem for a Dream, but they totally rescored it for The Two Towers trailer. It's awesome! I've emailed to get it released, and if you're at all interested in getting this cool piece of music to see the light of day, send feedback here:
http://www.lordoftherings.net/feedback.html
and send email here:
info@theantfarm.net
who rescored the music.
it just shits me these damn copyright laws - that art can be created and then hidden from those who love it.
-- james
the man is so far off base from a normal human being I'm wondering if he's not the RIAA's Manchurian Candidate:
The UMG boss had little sympathy for the twelve-year-old girl in a New York housing project who had harbored an MP3 of the theme tune to her favorite show on her computer, and had been sued by the RIAA. Her family paid out thousands of dollars in a settlement. She was a "serious file sharer", insisted Kennedy.
The first step in beating these pricks is to get Congress's hands out of their pockets. Until that happens, people like this will be put in positions of power where he can continue to go after the little 12-y-o criminals.
-- james
is the Register's commentary about this quote by Kennedy:
:)
"For 79p you've got a work of art that's like a Picasso, only one that's as close to the original as you can get," he said. [**]
the [**] equates to: Don't write to us - we'll find him a good earwax specialist.
Damn straight!
-- james
Is that speaking from experience?
-- james
It's a damn good question, and it's good to see some IT guys asking it. Not asking it led to the last big IT bubble, and the last big IT crash.
These morons will soon work out that unless that have something to differentiate them, they're going to drown in the MS/Apple ocean with large set up costs and nobody buying their product.
It's turning into a new version of the dot com boom.
-- james
Hey Jack! The MPAA called, they said they want you to take your job back!
-- james
Sounds like as good a reason as any to limit the amount people can spend on a Presidential campaign.
yes, there are freedom of speech issues but most countries already deign to regulate political campaigning, especially around election time. it's not that much of a stretch to set a hard limit, and only allow it to increase with inflation. plus less of those stupid ads on tv.
in effect it prevents those voters who have more money donating more $$$ to their favoured candidate, and in essence getting "more than their one vote".
-- james
maybe that will make /. too.
;)
this place is slowly shifting from "news for nerds" to "news for dorks"
there is a distinction!
-- james
very true :)
take a look at what they're demonstrating, too. Linux Quake 3 on a Powerbook... and Linux GIMP on a Windows machine. These aren't really things that can't be done already today.... but that may be just that the article doesn't go into a lot of depth. Show me Windows Quake 3 running on a Powerbook, now that would be something a little more impressive.
It will be interesting to see the software in any case, and see whether it really does live up to the promise. Because if it does, they're right, it's comp sci's equivalent of turning base metal into gold.
-- james
I totally agree, but if you'd read the (very good) article you'd see that these people don't have the option of voting with their feet. There's a monopoly provider, and when the community utility company tried to compete, the monopoly lodged some kind of protest and now the whole thing is stalled.
The people can't vote with their feet, because the law is preventing them. This isn't capitalism, this is closer to a state-enforced monopoly, which is reminiscent of a country that America used to joke about for the very same reason.
-- james
This is the one thing I can never really understand about America, and the reason I submitted the story.
Why on earth don't you guys change the laws? Corporations and their incessant drive for money can be a positive force, if they're funneled in the right direction. It's the reason you have the anti-monopoly laws and so on. But somewhere in the past twenty years, it's all been forgotten, as if to say that corporations making money in and of itself is the goal.
Because it's not the only - it should be about maximising social benefit - not just bottom line dollars, but also communities, people, and the environment. I don't want to come across as a left-leaning hippie, but what on earth is the point of these corporations if everyone suffers at the hands of them?
This story is the perfect example. Why should a corporation dictate to a community that it can't be competed with? Where is the benefit in that? And that this "loophole" in capitalism has been identified, where is all the righteous indignation at allowing a corporation to exploit the law to maintain an obvious monopoly over these poor people who just want broadband?
I'm living in a city where we're benefitting from a public utility's decision to roll out cable to us. Most all the other cable companies had passed us by, but what if the satellite providers and ADSL providers had decided to try to legally stall the roll out? The outcry here would be enormous! We have a governmental agency designed to promote competition, and they would have come down on any similar attempts like a tonne of bricks.
I guess all this boils down to a single question - why do you guys let these corporations get away with blue murder without doing anything?
-- james