Money makes the world go around
on
Movies in Space?
·
· Score: 2
My guess is that it's cheaper to float your actors with special effects than to send them up and shoot them in real zero gravity.
I'm sure they would charge another good $15,000,000 per astronaut up there. Combined with training costs and the fact that you need more than several actors/one cameraman, I don't think things will be that cost effective.
In my research on.NET for a few articles of mine, I have constantly found references to how Microsoft will support other operating systems such as Linux. Read between the lines however. Microsoft only wishes to create an implementation of the.NET server software, else they may miss out on the larger portion of the Internet that runs on *nix systems. Never once have I found a mention of a potential Linux of Apple client.
It only touched on the concept, but they built a tower where they wanted the obelisk. They ran a rope through the tower (via a network of pulleys) down to the obelisk. The kite was at the top of the tower (where there was more wind) and was presumably launched from there. With the kite tethered in this manner, you don't need to control where the kite goes so long as it keeps going up or in a direction away from the tower. This will pull the ropes, thus lifting the stone (or the obelisk). Stacking stones in this case is even simpler because the tower will allow the stones to be lifted to nearly the exact same location on the horizontal plane.
Yes, and the problem with that is you get a *huge* scaffold in the process (think Great Pyramid). Simply put, this whole idea runs back into the same problem that lead scientists to believe that the ancient Egyptians used mud instead of wood for scaffolding- that there just wasn't enough timber available. Kite flying could be important, but only after the blocks have already been lifted to a certain point on the pyramid.
I fully understand what your concerns are. Sticking magnets to people does have a true positive effect.
The principle here is that red blood cells carry oxygen through the utilization of hemoglobin, and hemoglobin contains iron. Now my basic academic knowledge (and I hope yours too) includes an idea that magnets attract themselves to iron materials. Hence, magnets do draw blood into an area and thus enhance regeneration and the such.
There you have it, the basic science of magnetism. How does it work? Through tried and true tests of basic Chinese treatments over thousands of years. What is disgusting is the advertising of this product as an "immortality device". Certainly we would be able to meet centuries old Chinese people if that were the case. Blood flow isn't increased, it's only redirected. This person simply utilized what his mother told him and got a patent on it. He makes money off the principles of ages-old science.
He also makes it plainly obvious that much of it is marketing bs. Personally I use magnets as well as several people (being Chinese myself). Its not much of a loss. Get some ceramic magnets and use a good adhesive to put them where the old medicine books say to.
The software is a dramatic shift in the way mission operations are conducted. Typically all science data, good or bad, is sent back to Earth. This software will have the ability to make real-time decisions based on the images it acquires and send back only those that it deems important. This will eliminate the need for scientists to preview thousands of low-priority images and let them focus on only the high-priority data transmitted back.
Well that sounds an awful lot like a content filter. The fact that its also one for pictures should make the task of censoring/filtering out images exponentially tougher. I'll put my money on the AI doing a good job when they actually perfect filters back home.
The district's disciplinary policy considers the severity of the infraction and is not one of the district's "zero-tolerance" policies, he said.
When you ask "Gee, hey, maybe sometimes tolerance is a good thing", what has it done here? I'm not saying its a bad thing, but you have to assume the worst, that this kid wasn't just looking around where he wasn't supposed to. If you check other posts, then you'll find its rumored that the kid was changing grades, perhaps even charging money to do so for others. The father didn't actually complain about the punishment, only the references to possible jail time after the death. The principal would have thought he was doing the right thing, without the spectre of zero-tolerance to guide him.
Also, look at the fact that the district actually caught him. I would guess that if he did hack into the system, he actually modified something and that of course is asking for trouble.
Nevertheless this kid committed suicide. For some kid to do this, he probably had other problems. Perhaps not actual terrible situations to deal with, but some insecurities and this is only what took him over the edge. May he rest in peace.
In the age where California is criticized for being all enviromental and stuff, hence making all power problems OUR problems:
The only obstacles to accurate prophecy are the vested interests, which may retard progress for economic reasons, tradition, conservatism, labor-union policies and legislation.
It is a crime to burn raw coal and pollute air with smoke and soot.
Judge: What is it? From the industry standpoint, what do you suggest?
Sims: Well, the industry could make copies of older movies available, but the fact is that fair use has -
Judge: In non-digital form? Is that what you mean by copies?
Sims: Yeah, well, or in unencrypted digital form. There are many paintings, Your Honor, for example, which have long passed out of copyright, but that doesn't give me a right to go into someone's living room and look at them. There are motion pictures that are screened in theatres, and a condition of entrance is ordinarily that you cannot make a - take a camera in with you and make a copy of that. Those kinds of restrictions that govern access are privilege of copyright owners or former copyright owners, and they do not raise First Amendment problems to the existence of those property rights.
Nobody has really brought this up yet, but I feel it might potentially have the most damaging effect the the defense if not answered adequately in the future briefs. Here the plaintiffs have brought up a pair of analogies that are completely correct, or at least to the point where they are fully acceptable by the public.
Naturally the defense did not have a chance to respond as this was the final argument and the afterward speeches were already prepared. The defense better mention that these two examples are of cases where the intended viewer is *NOT* the owner of the copyrighted works. In the case of the DVD players and such the user has bought their DVD and supposedly can do whatever he/she likes with it under the principles of fair use. Without these analogies in play, the MPAA hopefully will have little other precendent in any other argument.
Another note about code being a language and such. Why not play descramble.mp3 in front of the court? Also, if somebody would make a compiler for the English language (I suppose that couldn't include slang and exceptions though), could we get English instructions banned as well? (Making bombs, that sort of thing) Anybody think it is possible?
A security vulnerability results because the ISAPI extension contains an unchecked buffer in a section of code that handles input parameters. This could enable a remote attacker to conduct a buffer overrun attack and cause code of HER choice to run on the server. Such code would run in the Local System security context. This would give the attacker complete control of the server, and would enable her to take virtually any action SHE chose.
Strange, I was under the the impression that malicious hackers would always be adolescent boys who watch pr0n and live like slobs.
The US Constitution DOES apply here, though not in the way that I've been hearing people say. You are correct that the United States would not need a search warrant to hack computers from halfway around the world. The US does have every right to do so as you state.
However, when these people are in U.S. territory the rules change. You are guaranteed the rights of any other US citizen when present. These men entered the country legally with passports. They have a right for their communications, keystrokes, etc. to be free from surveillance while here. It's like what happened to the US citizen in Singapore who was vandalizing property while there. He was given due process and equal punishment as dictated by law.
The only exceptions to the rule are under the "critical zone approach" as ruled by the Supreme Court. The Court fully recognizes that the Fourth Amendment does not apply in "critical zones" (often international airports). The FBI may have conducted this search legally if they had only obtained the warrant beforehand (including a provision for obtaining the keylogger data).
And hegemony? For crissakes, its been that way 100% since the Cold War. It doesn't matter whether or not we're enforcing Constitutional law. Instead, if we do *anything* in our self-interest with the military, we're hegemonic. Take the Kuwait oil fields and the Gulf War as an example. And, well, I might be facing the draft in a few years so I'll refrain from complaining about the military.;)
Sorry I didn't get an opportunity to respond sooner since I didn't see any responses sooner...but if you didn't notice I was trying to be sarcastic. The true xenophobia is the media companies trying to "Americanize" everything. Oh well
The problem with Windows is that too much can be done. I come from a more affluent community where most students have computers and know what format c: can do. Of course, the district handles this issue by mandating security systems- and believe me, they crash the systems all the time and screw up the T-1 connection to the point where its less than a 100 bytes/sec. Not only that, but students are fustrated and don't want to use the computers because they would rather work at home. It's silly and the solution on Linux is pretty much protecting the root password.
Besides that, the other advantages are that students can still work on PowerPoint or any other file they could use at home as well. Stability and speed may not be as important to education in some aspects, but the more the merrier.
Also, from the site's page you can read the following reasons for choosing Linux.
Low cost - Example: Using Flex-ATX motherboards from Intel our costs are about $200 per workstation. All of the software is FREE. You don't even have to register it! There are many other choices for terminal hardware.
Ease of installation - Once you configure your server, you just plug the terminals in. You will never have to configure individual workstations again. There are no hard drives to format and no software to configure. You just plug them in...
Ease of maintenance - All software updates are done on the server. You only update one computer and every terminal is updated at the same time. You only have one computer to backup.
High performance - Terminals run at the speed of the server. Regardless of the speed of the local cpu or amount of memory in the terminal, applications run at the speed of the server and use the server memory. Targeting your funds to make a fast server makes all the terminals fast too.
Great software - You have control of the software packages installed and you have 100's of programs to choose from. Our standard installs include Netscape, the Gimp and StarOffice and more.
Reliability - The Linux OS has proven itself to be robust and free of annoying system crashes. Computers running reliable software are more effective in classrooms.
If M$ or Windoze sucks is even mentioned in the reasons given, I must be blind. Frankly, this is not an issue over fighting Microsoft but exposing kids to products that work and can still interact with Windows if need be. These people are only doing the smart thing by posting to Slashdot where they know they will find people who can truly implement their plan the fastest. The bottom line is that whatever deep, dark, and ugly motivations these people may have, but you must listen to the fact that they can prove their point without flaming Microsoft.
I wouldn't trust my children to educators who put the interests of projecting their viewpoint over the interests of the children to learn with the best tools available to use.
I also wouldn't trust my children to educators who are not willing to choose the best tools for children to learn with because they are not skilled enough or do not want to go through the trouble of explaining alternative viewpoints versus the norm (and that applies to both the student and themselves).
I never assumed that people dont feel comfortable with the environment. I just think that there is no need to go as far as to completely scratch plans just to make a nice desktop environment. The current system combined with a better installer, better software, simplified docs, and some setting changes would get around the problem easily.
...that there are better things out there. Much of her article assumes that Linux must be sold to the consumer in order to be popular. True. However, if Linux is to move in the path that she suggests, we go back to ground zero with an "evil empire".
1. Standards: She complains that there are no standards in Linux. However, there are of course MS standards which aren't necessarily good either. Linux only has to work with current standards and make its own playing field. There is no reason why a standard has to be permanent when it is inferior to another product. IBM already said in its ads that it wants to use the Linux standards. They'll change soon enough.
2. Much of the complaints revolve around the installations- off floppies etc. Michael is right though; Linux need not be arcane, only one distribution has to be superior.
3. Documentation: The average joe (AOL perhaps) user probably wouldn't frequent newsgroups and the such nearly as often as regular engineers. There exist support groups that can speak English if you want them to, and the current system just lets users have a little more than plain Microsoft tech support style help.
4. Beta- it's as if this word has some severe connotation. The artcle once again treats Linux as an object under development and then inferior- but that doesn't mean that Microsoft products are fixed and ready to go from Day 1 and "beta" versions aren't superior to Microsoft products as is. The Linux kernel can change for all it wants but the if one distribution remains the same that's all that's needed.
5. Money: Mentioned is the fact that Linux must be sold as a product in order to be successful. On the contrary, we all know what "free" has done for Linux.
6. Linux is just a fad- once again a common argument answered prolifically on linux.org. Just because something is made by a disorganized group doesn't mean its inferior. It's only the end result that matters.
7. Linux should remove options, Linux should have only one standard interface- Heck its microsoft monopolies all over again. The distribution argument comes in here again, and god forbid that users should need less options. You don't have to always look for everything at once.
8. Linux should have an interface that doesn't crash. This looks an interesting argument, but its the choice between the console and the BSOD. If a user feels like they can't do anything more, they reboot. Simple as that.
There are various other points, but to sum it up these are just the standard anti-Linux arguments. To bend to them would force Linux into a situation where it is nothing more than a Windows look-alike and act-alike. Doing so would surely force Linux out of business. As the article admits that Linux is seeing success right now (and assumes that it will hit the brick wall running later), there is no reason why things should be changed. Linux is to be a tool to revolutionize the industry and offer something new, not a cheaper, more stable alternative to Windows. Linux will not die off because it can always change when change is necessitated...and that is not right now.
W2k ran pretty well on this current box. I switched to ME (still wanna play diablo and stuff) because W2k simply took up too much RAM. I had 128 megs total, and after a few minutes of counter-strike the computer would promptly freeze. This does fit in with your hardware argument, but I'd rather use a system that doesn't require so much extra resources just for an OS.
The sex scandal example is pretty silly. Firstly the guy sent out the email himself (what a braggart). If people want to get the word out, they could treat the whole thing like a copyrighted work and still quote enormous portions of the e-mail, say people can send their annotated version around the world, and you still get the same problem.
Secondly, how is this law going to be enforced? We could a) have the government read all e-mails and check to see all the notices (as if we love Carnivore enough as is) or b) have somebody sue the person. I think most people will end up ignoring the law (and also not sue their relatives/friends if they are that close).
Thirdly, copyright law is designed to protect the works of people so they can earn money from it/get credited with the original ideas. It simply states that revenue will be made from each copy or acknowledgement is given. You can't make too many copies of stuff because it theoretically takes away from the benefits given to the author. Of course, how does forwarding one's e-mail give anything (unless its some spammer). Frankly, this just seems like part of the paranoia surrounding cases like Napster. If anything, it should be a privacy law, not copyright law.
If the government is so concerned, they should enact a law that says your implied permission to do anything with an e-mail is given by simply recieving the e-mail. It should be made a crime for violating a condition set forth in the e-mail. People don't need to see more legal phrases and contracts everywhere.
As I was saying, they wouldnt need to get the whole file, just a portion, and maybe just blacklist the person's file. As for different bitrates etc, yes there will be variation, but enough that it can be determined. "Impossible" in such programming really means "too lazy to do it, we'll compromise instead". Even song length would be sufficient enough for a while, long enough to develop that other system.
If they want to remove such files so badly, why don't they just scan the actual content of the files? Look for the approximate length, and scan the first 50-100k for a certain unknown data string. To circumvent that, people would have to use some sort of encryption/decryption scheme on the other side, and I'm sure the average Joe user won't know how to do that. Plus, if Joe can even find out where to find such encryption is, then Napster can find it and modify their search queries.
Sure, it's a helluva lot more work, but it certainly beats renaming files completely.
From what I can see there is absolutely nothing wrong here.
The article does talk about how Blizzard owns Diablo the game and is suing over the use of the word Diablo. However, despite all the talk about how Diablo is such a popular game series, Blizzard is only trying to make a movie.
In the complaint, Blizzard said it intends to produce a film called Diablo and based on the game. The suit notes Blizzard owns a trademark, filed in April 1996 and approved in July 2000, for that Diablo movie mark, which the suit also notes is currently being contested by New Line. Further, Blizzard also has a pending application for a movie called Diablo II: Salvation, filed in February 1997 and approved in July 2000.
Obviously, Blizzard not only owns the trademark to the game, but to the movie as well. If they can prove that they were indeed going to make such a movie, and that no previous ownership of the name existed, then Blizzard has the right to make the movie. The game doesn't matter when only a movie trademark is contested here. This is an blatant flamebait article that focuses too much on the popularity of the game.
By changing the mp3 file format, then we dont have an mp3, we have a Napster file. Such a file would have to be protected by encryption or some key, else Napster wouldn't be able to control what happened to a file unless they learn how to puppet Windows completely. What does this mean?
We get a monopoly on the file format. If Napster is determined to prevent its users from using their files elsewhere, then it won't give out the encryption to decode it and remove the protection. The only truly secure choice is to use a DVD style monopoly on media players. So much for quality. Heck, if they wanted to charge to use the files anywhere else besides the Napster client, money will flow to them one way or the other.
Just as in DeCSS, somebody will probably want their own DVD/mp3 player, and thus crack the encryption. All we're getting into here is the same old debate on whether it is legitimate to modify the files because it was distributed to you accordingly.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure they would charge another good $15,000,000 per astronaut up there. Combined with training costs and the fact that you need more than several actors/one cameraman, I don't think things will be that cost effective.
In my research on .NET for a few articles of mine, I have constantly found references to how Microsoft will support other operating systems such as Linux. Read between the lines however. Microsoft only wishes to create an implementation of the .NET server software, else they may miss out on the larger portion of the Internet that runs on *nix systems. Never once have I found a mention of a potential Linux of Apple client.
Yes, and the problem with that is you get a *huge* scaffold in the process (think Great Pyramid). Simply put, this whole idea runs back into the same problem that lead scientists to believe that the ancient Egyptians used mud instead of wood for scaffolding- that there just wasn't enough timber available. Kite flying could be important, but only after the blocks have already been lifted to a certain point on the pyramid.
I fully understand what your concerns are. Sticking magnets to people does have a true positive effect.
The principle here is that red blood cells carry oxygen through the utilization of hemoglobin, and hemoglobin contains iron. Now my basic academic knowledge (and I hope yours too) includes an idea that magnets attract themselves to iron materials. Hence, magnets do draw blood into an area and thus enhance regeneration and the such.
There you have it, the basic science of magnetism. How does it work? Through tried and true tests of basic Chinese treatments over thousands of years. What is disgusting is the advertising of this product as an "immortality device". Certainly we would be able to meet centuries old Chinese people if that were the case. Blood flow isn't increased, it's only redirected. This person simply utilized what his mother told him and got a patent on it. He makes money off the principles of ages-old science.
He also makes it plainly obvious that much of it is marketing bs. Personally I use magnets as well as several people (being Chinese myself). Its not much of a loss. Get some ceramic magnets and use a good adhesive to put them where the old medicine books say to.
Well that sounds an awful lot like a content filter. The fact that its also one for pictures should make the task of censoring/filtering out images exponentially tougher. I'll put my money on the AI doing a good job when they actually perfect filters back home.
When you ask "Gee, hey, maybe sometimes tolerance is a good thing", what has it done here? I'm not saying its a bad thing, but you have to assume the worst, that this kid wasn't just looking around where he wasn't supposed to. If you check other posts, then you'll find its rumored that the kid was changing grades, perhaps even charging money to do so for others. The father didn't actually complain about the punishment, only the references to possible jail time after the death. The principal would have thought he was doing the right thing, without the spectre of zero-tolerance to guide him.
Also, look at the fact that the district actually caught him. I would guess that if he did hack into the system, he actually modified something and that of course is asking for trouble.
Nevertheless this kid committed suicide. For some kid to do this, he probably had other problems. Perhaps not actual terrible situations to deal with, but some insecurities and this is only what took him over the edge. May he rest in peace.
The only obstacles to accurate prophecy are the vested interests, which may retard progress for economic reasons, tradition, conservatism, labor-union policies and legislation.
It is a crime to burn raw coal and pollute air with smoke and soot.
That's right, Mr. Cheney.
Sims: Well, the industry could make copies of older movies available, but the fact is that fair use has -
Judge: In non-digital form? Is that what you mean by copies?
Sims: Yeah, well, or in unencrypted digital form. There are many paintings, Your Honor, for example, which have long passed out of copyright, but that doesn't give me a right to go into someone's living room and look at them. There are motion pictures that are screened in theatres, and a condition of entrance is ordinarily that you cannot make a - take a camera in with you and make a copy of that. Those kinds of restrictions that govern access are privilege of copyright owners or former copyright owners, and they do not raise First Amendment problems to the existence of those property rights.
Nobody has really brought this up yet, but I feel it might potentially have the most damaging effect the the defense if not answered adequately in the future briefs. Here the plaintiffs have brought up a pair of analogies that are completely correct, or at least to the point where they are fully acceptable by the public.
Naturally the defense did not have a chance to respond as this was the final argument and the afterward speeches were already prepared. The defense better mention that these two examples are of cases where the intended viewer is *NOT* the owner of the copyrighted works. In the case of the DVD players and such the user has bought their DVD and supposedly can do whatever he/she likes with it under the principles of fair use. Without these analogies in play, the MPAA hopefully will have little other precendent in any other argument.
Another note about code being a language and such. Why not play descramble.mp3 in front of the court? Also, if somebody would make a compiler for the English language (I suppose that couldn't include slang and exceptions though), could we get English instructions banned as well? (Making bombs, that sort of thing) Anybody think it is possible?
I don't have the link the the article, but a while back NASA ran a story on these elevators.
According to it, the location of choice for these elevators would be in Africa for two good reasons:
1) Less earthquakes than the rest of the world
2) Relatively mild atmospheric turbulence, weather (hurricanes and such wouldn't be healthy)
...Of course, just like in any other place there still is the possibility of a Red Mars terrorist attack.
Listed on his asteroid page:
1. Austin Powers ('nuff said about science)
2. ArPITageddon (just check the html link)
Strange, I was under the the impression that malicious hackers would always be adolescent boys who watch pr0n and live like slobs.
The US Constitution DOES apply here, though not in the way that I've been hearing people say. You are correct that the United States would not need a search warrant to hack computers from halfway around the world. The US does have every right to do so as you state.
;)
However, when these people are in U.S. territory the rules change. You are guaranteed the rights of any other US citizen when present. These men entered the country legally with passports. They have a right for their communications, keystrokes, etc. to be free from surveillance while here. It's like what happened to the US citizen in Singapore who was vandalizing property while there. He was given due process and equal punishment as dictated by law.
The only exceptions to the rule are under the "critical zone approach" as ruled by the Supreme Court. The Court fully recognizes that the Fourth Amendment does not apply in "critical zones" (often international airports). The FBI may have conducted this search legally if they had only obtained the warrant beforehand (including a provision for obtaining the keylogger data).
And hegemony? For crissakes, its been that way 100% since the Cold War. It doesn't matter whether or not we're enforcing Constitutional law. Instead, if we do *anything* in our self-interest with the military, we're hegemonic. Take the Kuwait oil fields and the Gulf War as an example. And, well, I might be facing the draft in a few years so I'll refrain from complaining about the military.
Sorry I didn't get an opportunity to respond sooner since I didn't see any responses sooner...but if you didn't notice I was trying to be sarcastic. The true xenophobia is the media companies trying to "Americanize" everything. Oh well
If we steal (or graciously recieve) any more of their MIG fighters and what not, and Russia sues, this could get interesting.
The author of the article doesn't says otherwise. The quote specifically mentions North America, which implies that it isn't the tallest anyways.
Besides that, the other advantages are that students can still work on PowerPoint or any other file they could use at home as well. Stability and speed may not be as important to education in some aspects, but the more the merrier.
Also, from the site's page you can read the following reasons for choosing Linux.
Low cost - Example: Using Flex-ATX motherboards from Intel our costs are about $200 per workstation. All of the software is FREE. You don't even have to register it! There are many other choices for terminal hardware. Ease of installation - Once you configure your server, you just plug the terminals in. You will never have to configure individual workstations again. There are no hard drives to format and no software to configure. You just plug them in... Ease of maintenance - All software updates are done on the server. You only update one computer and every terminal is updated at the same time. You only have one computer to backup. High performance - Terminals run at the speed of the server. Regardless of the speed of the local cpu or amount of memory in the terminal, applications run at the speed of the server and use the server memory. Targeting your funds to make a fast server makes all the terminals fast too. Great software - You have control of the software packages installed and you have 100's of programs to choose from. Our standard installs include Netscape, the Gimp and StarOffice and more. Reliability - The Linux OS has proven itself to be robust and free of annoying system crashes. Computers running reliable software are more effective in classrooms.
If M$ or Windoze sucks is even mentioned in the reasons given, I must be blind. Frankly, this is not an issue over fighting Microsoft but exposing kids to products that work and can still interact with Windows if need be. These people are only doing the smart thing by posting to Slashdot where they know they will find people who can truly implement their plan the fastest. The bottom line is that whatever deep, dark, and ugly motivations these people may have, but you must listen to the fact that they can prove their point without flaming Microsoft.
I wouldn't trust my children to educators who put the interests of projecting their viewpoint over the interests of the children to learn with the best tools available to use.
I also wouldn't trust my children to educators who are not willing to choose the best tools for children to learn with because they are not skilled enough or do not want to go through the trouble of explaining alternative viewpoints versus the norm (and that applies to both the student and themselves).
I never assumed that people dont feel comfortable with the environment. I just think that there is no need to go as far as to completely scratch plans just to make a nice desktop environment. The current system combined with a better installer, better software, simplified docs, and some setting changes would get around the problem easily.
...that there are better things out there. Much of her article assumes that Linux must be sold to the consumer in order to be popular. True. However, if Linux is to move in the path that she suggests, we go back to ground zero with an "evil empire".
1. Standards: She complains that there are no standards in Linux. However, there are of course MS standards which aren't necessarily good either. Linux only has to work with current standards and make its own playing field. There is no reason why a standard has to be permanent when it is inferior to another product. IBM already said in its ads that it wants to use the Linux standards. They'll change soon enough.
2. Much of the complaints revolve around the installations- off floppies etc. Michael is right though; Linux need not be arcane, only one distribution has to be superior.
3. Documentation: The average joe (AOL perhaps) user probably wouldn't frequent newsgroups and the such nearly as often as regular engineers. There exist support groups that can speak English if you want them to, and the current system just lets users have a little more than plain Microsoft tech support style help.
4. Beta- it's as if this word has some severe connotation. The artcle once again treats Linux as an object under development and then inferior- but that doesn't mean that Microsoft products are fixed and ready to go from Day 1 and "beta" versions aren't superior to Microsoft products as is. The Linux kernel can change for all it wants but the if one distribution remains the same that's all that's needed.
5. Money: Mentioned is the fact that Linux must be sold as a product in order to be successful. On the contrary, we all know what "free" has done for Linux.
6. Linux is just a fad- once again a common argument answered prolifically on linux.org. Just because something is made by a disorganized group doesn't mean its inferior. It's only the end result that matters.
7. Linux should remove options, Linux should have only one standard interface- Heck its microsoft monopolies all over again. The distribution argument comes in here again, and god forbid that users should need less options. You don't have to always look for everything at once.
8. Linux should have an interface that doesn't crash. This looks an interesting argument, but its the choice between the console and the BSOD. If a user feels like they can't do anything more, they reboot. Simple as that.
There are various other points, but to sum it up these are just the standard anti-Linux arguments. To bend to them would force Linux into a situation where it is nothing more than a Windows look-alike and act-alike. Doing so would surely force Linux out of business. As the article admits that Linux is seeing success right now (and assumes that it will hit the brick wall running later), there is no reason why things should be changed. Linux is to be a tool to revolutionize the industry and offer something new, not a cheaper, more stable alternative to Windows. Linux will not die off because it can always change when change is necessitated...and that is not right now.
W2k ran pretty well on this current box. I switched to ME (still wanna play diablo and stuff) because W2k simply took up too much RAM. I had 128 megs total, and after a few minutes of counter-strike the computer would promptly freeze. This does fit in with your hardware argument, but I'd rather use a system that doesn't require so much extra resources just for an OS.
The sex scandal example is pretty silly. Firstly the guy sent out the email himself (what a braggart). If people want to get the word out, they could treat the whole thing like a copyrighted work and still quote enormous portions of the e-mail, say people can send their annotated version around the world, and you still get the same problem.
Secondly, how is this law going to be enforced? We could a) have the government read all e-mails and check to see all the notices (as if we love Carnivore enough as is) or b) have somebody sue the person. I think most people will end up ignoring the law (and also not sue their relatives/friends if they are that close).
Thirdly, copyright law is designed to protect the works of people so they can earn money from it/get credited with the original ideas. It simply states that revenue will be made from each copy or acknowledgement is given. You can't make too many copies of stuff because it theoretically takes away from the benefits given to the author. Of course, how does forwarding one's e-mail give anything (unless its some spammer). Frankly, this just seems like part of the paranoia surrounding cases like Napster. If anything, it should be a privacy law, not copyright law.
If the government is so concerned, they should enact a law that says your implied permission to do anything with an e-mail is given by simply recieving the e-mail. It should be made a crime for violating a condition set forth in the e-mail. People don't need to see more legal phrases and contracts everywhere.
As I was saying, they wouldnt need to get the whole file, just a portion, and maybe just blacklist the person's file. As for different bitrates etc, yes there will be variation, but enough that it can be determined. "Impossible" in such programming really means "too lazy to do it, we'll compromise instead". Even song length would be sufficient enough for a while, long enough to develop that other system.
Sure, it's a helluva lot more work, but it certainly beats renaming files completely.
The article does talk about how Blizzard owns Diablo the game and is suing over the use of the word Diablo. However, despite all the talk about how Diablo is such a popular game series, Blizzard is only trying to make a movie.
In the complaint, Blizzard said it intends to produce a film called Diablo and based on the game. The suit notes Blizzard owns a trademark, filed in April 1996 and approved in July 2000, for that Diablo movie mark, which the suit also notes is currently being contested by New Line. Further, Blizzard also has a pending application for a movie called Diablo II: Salvation, filed in February 1997 and approved in July 2000.
Obviously, Blizzard not only owns the trademark to the game, but to the movie as well. If they can prove that they were indeed going to make such a movie, and that no previous ownership of the name existed, then Blizzard has the right to make the movie. The game doesn't matter when only a movie trademark is contested here. This is an blatant flamebait article that focuses too much on the popularity of the game.
By changing the mp3 file format, then we dont have an mp3, we have a Napster file. Such a file would have to be protected by encryption or some key, else Napster wouldn't be able to control what happened to a file unless they learn how to puppet Windows completely. What does this mean?
We get a monopoly on the file format. If Napster is determined to prevent its users from using their files elsewhere, then it won't give out the encryption to decode it and remove the protection. The only truly secure choice is to use a DVD style monopoly on media players. So much for quality. Heck, if they wanted to charge to use the files anywhere else besides the Napster client, money will flow to them one way or the other.
Just as in DeCSS, somebody will probably want their own DVD/mp3 player, and thus crack the encryption. All we're getting into here is the same old debate on whether it is legitimate to modify the files because it was distributed to you accordingly.
$30,000 isn't *that* much. The teams are actually making a pitch to parents and companies in a week to start fundraising.