I think you have to pay for performing rights, at least in the UK. Copyright has expired on most of the great classical composers, but it hasn't expired on modern works (including the famously-protected ones like Happy Birthday).
Therefore, you can't make a recording of a copyright-protected work without paying a license fee.
How do you know the second statement was false ? I don't even know what a tpyos is, but there was so little on that page that I can easily believe it didn't have a tpyos on it.
I don't know whether there were any typos on the page, but it makes no statement about that.
The FoF concentrates on MS's protection of the Windows API, and describes the attempt to force acceptance of IE in order to avoid losing control of 3rd party apps.
The economist article describes a possible break-up remedy where MS's internet interests are discarded and the application software division is separated, in order to create an stable, open API to the Windows OS. This shows that some other opinion also concentrates on MS's monopoly in this area.
However, MS also has an effective monopoly in the Word document format, and if IE usage continues to grow in the browser market they will also have sufficient control of web-related network protocols to provide a monopoly position there, too. This is already apparent in the number of sites (especially service sites such as banks) which will work only with IE or Windows due to the use of proprietary plugins or extensions.
Is it possible to produce a judgement which will also restrict MS's monopoly (or potential monopoly) in these areas too, or will it have to address only the OS API, perhaps leaving an applications company intact to pursue the same damaging strategies ?
Depends on which bit of Europe you're talking about.
The UK government is apparently about to announce an anti-terrorist bill which includes provisions for law enforcement agencies to insist on the decryption of documents.. with those same agencies defining which files are encrypted. Since any reasonable-length file could potentially contain hidden, encrypted data, that pretty well leaves UK residents at the mercy of the police.
Targeting at the low-electrical-power market does usually mean that it isn't (yet) competitive in the high-computing-power market. It makes sense to sell your new product into the niche that suits it best, just to get a foothold and some income before you try for a more difficult area. If it can take on the high-power end adequately, there's not a lot of point in restricting it to a particular market segment.
The Arm is reasonably powerful now, but wasn't always : before StrongArm, it was computationally powerful for it's price and wattage, but not really comparable with 486/Pentium.
XFree86 has support for (some) graphics tablets - certainly SummaGraphics and maybe some others. I was able to modify it to suit another, unsupported summagraphics tablet.
A news item this morning (R4 Today programme) described some government moves to make stock options MORE popular as a means of rewarding employees, with particular reference to hitech startups.
I wonder if it's coincidental that it follows Mr. Tony's recent heart-to-heart with Bill Gates ?
And 6 months later, when there are plenty of major forks in existence, and Linux is still going strong with no damage as a result, the FUDders will look pretty silly..
Redhat kernels (at least, the ones I tried..) are not identical to the standard ones, and so the standard kernel patches can't be applied. This is a nuisance, but only to Redhat users who have to download a huge rpm instead of a few 100K patch file : it doesn't hurt anybody else.
The only other problem I've had is that Redhat initscripts require build-specific System.map and module-info files. The stock release doesn't create those, so you have to bodge around it. Maybe this is documented properly somewhere now - if so, I haven't found it yet. Again, a pain only to Redhat users.
It might not be added if Linus didn't like the implementation (unlikely, given the backing, but it might happen sometime).
But would that be a problem ? I don't think so - it would just mean that Turbo customers wanting those modifications wouldn't be able to use the latest stock kernel. That's their choice - it doesn't cause anybody else a problem unless large numbers of closed-source application developers start producing apps that ONLY run on the modified kernel.
Seems to me Redhat already does this with their nonstandard module-info thing.. it might be easy to get around, but it does mean that the kernel releases don't plug in and go.
Is this a troll, or are you really missing the point over and over ? If a company wants guaranteed support, they can BUY it. But they can BUY it from more than one vendor, so they get the support they require AND competitive tendering. Win-win.
Picking up on an earlier comment.. one way in which Wine might provide a substantial improvement to the Win32 API is by implementing a Win64 API. Given Microsoft's record of portability, it's likely that Wine will be WAY ahead on this one (and will have Win32 on 64-bit platforms from day one). Win2000 will look pretty sick running in 32 bit mode against Wine running Win32 apps over a 64 bit kernel.
Certainly WinCE looks poorer by the minute in the PDA market. And despite M$'s desire to dive into the telecoms market, there's no evidence yet of any influence there.
But there are some other consumer appliances that WinCE is aimed at - there is a Clarion ICE system based on it, and there are / have been some set-top-boxes. Both of these have the potential to be attractive to Windows users, and perhaps WinCE has less disadvantages in these higher-cost, higher-power applications than it has in low-power PDAs and telephones.
What's WinCE's progress in these areas ? Is it failing there too ?
But, but... I thought NT was 'much easier to administrate' than Linux, because you had a small number of well-organised service packs, not a host of minor patches .
What about those disclaimers that PHB's like to put on the bottom of their email
"You're not supposed to read this email even though my broken Exchange server sent it to you marked urgent, so you'd better send it right back without even THINKING about reading it"
Does it really have any legal meaning at all ? Or is just the pointless posturing of someone who's read too much media hype ?
Slashdot Mirror
I think you have to pay for performing rights, at least in the UK. Copyright has expired on most of the great classical composers, but it hasn't expired on modern works (including the famously-protected ones like Happy Birthday).
Therefore, you can't make a recording of a copyright-protected work without paying a license fee.
Cyberborg ..
..
That would assimilate machines, right ? Embracing and extending its victims
How about a new slash logo for Transmeta ?
How do you know the second statement was false ? I don't even know what a tpyos is, but there was so little on that page that I can easily believe it didn't have a tpyos on it.
I don't know whether there were any typos on the page, but it makes no statement about that.
The FoF concentrates on MS's protection of the Windows API, and describes the attempt to force acceptance of IE in order to avoid losing control of 3rd party apps.
The economist article describes a possible break-up remedy where MS's internet interests are discarded and the application software division is separated, in order to create an stable, open API to the Windows OS. This shows that some other opinion also concentrates on MS's monopoly in this area.
However, MS also has an effective monopoly in the Word document format, and if IE usage continues to grow in the browser market they will also have sufficient control of web-related network protocols to provide a monopoly position there, too. This is already apparent in the number of sites (especially service sites such as banks) which will work only with IE or Windows due to the use of proprietary plugins or extensions.
Is it possible to produce a judgement which will also restrict MS's monopoly (or potential monopoly) in these areas too, or will it have to address only the OS API, perhaps leaving an applications company intact to pursue the same damaging strategies ?
Depends on which bit of Europe you're talking about.
.. with those same agencies defining which files are encrypted. Since any reasonable-length file could potentially contain hidden, encrypted data, that pretty well leaves UK residents at the mercy of the police.
The UK government is apparently about to announce an anti-terrorist bill which includes provisions for law enforcement agencies to insist on the decryption of documents
Targeting at the low-electrical-power market does usually mean that it isn't (yet) competitive in the high-computing-power market. It makes sense to sell your new product into the niche that suits it best, just to get a foothold and some income before you try for a more difficult area. If it can take on the high-power end adequately, there's not a lot of point in restricting it to a particular market segment.
The Arm is reasonably powerful now, but wasn't always : before StrongArm, it was computationally powerful for it's price and wattage, but not really comparable with 486/Pentium.
XFree86 has support for (some) graphics tablets - certainly SummaGraphics and maybe some others. I was able to modify it to suit another, unsupported summagraphics tablet.
While not a lawyer, I'm sure you'd find that Richard Stallman would be able to provide useful advice.
Why would you want to ?
.. video recording, videoconferencing (how about video IRC on an ADSL set-top-box ?)
So you can run all those cool video apps on it
Wrong thread - that bird robot was built to catch spy flies ...
A news item this morning (R4 Today programme) described some government moves to make stock options MORE popular as a means of rewarding employees, with particular reference to hitech startups.
I wonder if it's coincidental that it follows Mr. Tony's recent heart-to-heart with Bill Gates ?
And 6 months later, when there are plenty of major forks in existence, and Linux is still going strong with no damage as a result, the FUDders will look pretty silly ..
Redhat kernels (at least, the ones I tried ..) are not identical to the standard ones, and so the standard kernel patches can't be applied. This is a nuisance, but only to Redhat users who have to download a huge rpm instead of a few 100K patch file : it doesn't hurt anybody else.
The only other problem I've had is that Redhat initscripts require build-specific System.map and module-info files. The stock release doesn't create those, so you have to bodge around it. Maybe this is documented properly somewhere now - if so, I haven't found it yet. Again, a pain only to Redhat users.
It might not be added if Linus didn't like the implementation (unlikely, given the backing, but it might happen sometime).
.. it might be easy to get around, but it does mean that the kernel releases don't plug in and go.
But would that be a problem ? I don't think so - it would just mean that Turbo customers wanting those modifications wouldn't be able to use the latest stock kernel. That's their choice - it doesn't cause anybody else a problem unless large numbers of closed-source application developers start producing apps that ONLY run on the modified kernel.
Seems to me Redhat already does this with their nonstandard module-info thing
Is _that_ what MCP stands for ? ... call me a '70s throwback, but I thought it was Male Chauvanist Pig.
No wonder it keeps appearing in items recently
Is this a troll, or are you really missing the point over and over ?
If a company wants guaranteed support, they can BUY it. But they can BUY it from more than one vendor, so they get the support they require AND competitive tendering. Win-win.
Picking up on an earlier comment .. one way in which Wine might provide a substantial improvement to the Win32 API is by implementing a Win64 API. Given Microsoft's record of portability, it's likely that Wine will be WAY ahead on this one (and will have Win32 on 64-bit platforms from day one). Win2000 will look pretty sick running in 32 bit mode against Wine running Win32 apps over a 64 bit kernel.
Mainsoft probably have no intention of refusing .. what better way to sell off a company that will lose it's primary product when Wine is good enough ?
Certainly WinCE looks poorer by the minute in the PDA market. And despite M$'s desire to dive into the telecoms market, there's no evidence yet of any influence there.
But there are some other consumer appliances that WinCE is aimed at - there is a Clarion ICE system based on it, and there are / have been some set-top-boxes. Both of these have the potential to be attractive to Windows users, and perhaps WinCE has less disadvantages in these higher-cost, higher-power applications than it has in low-power PDAs and telephones.
What's WinCE's progress in these areas ? Is it failing there too ?
But, but ... I thought NT was 'much easier to administrate' than Linux, because you had a small number of well-organised service packs, not a host of minor patches .
What about those disclaimers that PHB's like to put on the bottom of their email
"You're not supposed to read this email even though my broken Exchange server sent it to you marked urgent, so you'd better send it right back without even THINKING about reading it"
Does it really have any legal meaning at all ? Or is just the pointless posturing of someone who's read too much media hype ?
You're right. If that product contains nuts, he's lawyer's dogmeat.
.. and a soldering iron ?
But what happens to the second John Smith who wants to register smith.ind ?
Someone takes adverts supporting Microsoft and you act shocked to find Microsoft paid ?
What are you smoking ?
Are there really Americans (apart from B.G.) who are so upset about the DOJ trial that they'd pay for ads to support Microsoft's point of view ?