The suit isn't being filed against the television watcher requiring them to watch the ads. Nor is it being filed against the purchasers of the Replay units. It is being filed against the manufactures. As you make it more and more convenient for customers to avoid advertisements more viewers will avoid them. The sugestion of this suit is that there is a point where it becomes so easy to avoid commercials that the average man will start avoiding them and it is at this point that the networks have an issue. The question of the suit is whether an actual law has been broken here. I think this is a legitimate question (I don't beleive a law has been broken) and should discussed in the courts. One thing the law is frequently interested in is not whether a 2nd party is simply allowing a 3rd party to infringe on a first parties rights but is this 2nd party leading the average man into this infringment. The average man test is one of degrees not of black and white.
I was already to give XOSL a test spin when I noticed it doesn't support usb mouses. That's when it occured to me that I don't really want a boot loader that needs its own set up device drivers.
grub has the ability to read file systems (ext 2 definitly... I'm not sure about ntfs or fat32) so you don't have to setup a.conf if you don't want to. You can just search around your tree until you find your kernel image and just boot off that. Or you can just point it to a partition and it will use what ever boot loader is there (windows boot loader or lilo or whatever). Saves you a little time when you change your kernel. Plus grub on a floppy can be used to get virutually any linux system going; unlike a lilo rescue disk which either needs its own kernel or to be specially made for the system. Plus grub is slightly more tolerant to allow the user to make stupid mistakes (like over writing the old kernel image and forgeting to re-install lilo... or so I hear)
I can't answer XOSL advantages for you unfortunatly... although it would allow you to set up a multiboot system without a keyboard. Although not useful for most systems I can see a specialty system where you might want to do this. On the most part I think it's just kinda cool to have a graphical boot screen.
Sure if apple had done things differently the company might have made more money but they wouldn't have been apple. In other words they wouldn't be in a position to be releasing the products they are releasing now and they wouldn't have as much control over their own product. As Jobs has said before no one says porsce is unsuccesful because under 5% of the market owns their cars (I might be misquoting; maybe it was ferrari).
Apple wants to be selling powerful intuitive computers to a market interested in multimedia. Apple basicly owns hollywood and most magazines are still layed out on macs (including ziff Davis if I remember correctly). Yes if in years past apple decided it was going to be more like it's money making competition there would now be a company named apple with more money but - as I said before - it wouldn't be apple.
And let's not forget Apple has a lot of money now... regardless of their policy.
All I can say is that this is yet more proof that software patents are just a bad idea.
I don't think proof is the appropropriate word - evidence perhaps. Yes you can site a hundred examples of large companies taking unfair advantage of patents. Probably more than a hundred.
But that's what large companies do. They take advantage of the law when ever possible; part of the reason they are large corporations is because they do this. If there were no software patents large corporations would use that to their advantage as well. The biggest guy out there would simply systimatically wedge all his oponents out of existence by selling there product at a lower price. Even if the product is just a concept. Even if they take a loss in the process if they have more capital they will survive. Just like a poker player who raises his opponents until they can no longer afford to play.
Ultimatly patents aren't about rightousness or equality. They are about (a) giving companies and individuals motivation to invest into research and (b) to lessen the gap between the haves and the have nots.
If you want to prove that patent law helps large corporations more than they hurt them you would have to run two parallel societies: one with patent law, one without. Until then we can only gather evidence. And try to continually weight that evidence against the invisible contrary evidence from the invisible alternative society.
Last time I set up my computer with a web interface to play mp3s (nothing fancy just a couple of cgi scripts) I got songs playing in my room at all hours of the early early morning - due to some of the guys that knew about the system.
I know there were ways I could have locked down the system but just all too lazy. Have to admit it was cool being able to use my wap enabled cel phone as a remote control.
I've read the article and I didn't see it touch on this. With the sharp unit will I be able to compile my favorite text editor or compiler or interpreter to work with on the unit... I don't know about anybody else but there are tons of times where it would be nice to sit back in a cafe and play with a ruby interpreter on a pda. For now I guess I'm stuck with scheme on my palm
It occurs to me that this desision also has the effect of pissing off microsoft. The order of microsoft's desires of features is as follows: they would prefer if only they had a certain useful feature but at times they can allow others to have such a feature but detest the idea of the feature being impossible to them. Not being able to play cds on windows media player is going to piss them off. My guess is once they start throwing their weight around some back door will be put in that allows new microsoft products to play these cds. Once such a back door is in place it will not be a serious challenge to reverse engineer it.
clinton gave a pretty good review of this situation in his interview with nbc today... I imagine you can find a transcript somewhere on their site... first time I've heard a defence of it and he covers it quite well.
although the us canadian border was closed it has been opened up again... at least the bc/washington was has been opened again. As for the rest I do not know. Traffic is moving slowly though due to stepped up customs inspections.
I think people misinterpret those whom say all speach should be free and instead believe they are saying they think all speach is good. Everyone knows there is such a thing as bad speach: whether it be hateful or simply misinformed. But at the heart of free speach is the notion of private and public responces and denounciations of others statements.
The word 'should' is what is mostly being misunderstood due to context. There is a difference in saying "you should not say that (ie linux without gnu)" and saying "you should not be able to say that. One is addressing the speaker and the second is addressing justice itself (although the speaker is still the subject). How smug must one be to believe that they alone should have justice's ear; the pious address those concerned and let justice come out in the wash.
If it stopped spreading on the 21st and didn't start again until the 3rd how could the worm have still been around to spread. That means someone must have had longer than a 10 day uptime on a win2k box... I don't buy it.
their stocks may have been performing poorly for the past couple quarters but they aren't in that bad of shape as far as capital goes. They have absolutly no debt (probably thanks to big daddy coms) and have something like a $1 per share in capital (not equity.)
As far as AOL last I heard they were Blackberries from Research in Motion and slapping their own name on them. But that was a few months ago and I've never actually one in somebodies hands.
You're right there are always negitive aspects to an IPO but the big plus is the sudden rise of capital. The question is what does Mandrake have planned that they suddenly need a huge amount of capital and are will to make sacrifices to get it. Althought it seems like it most companies do not IPO because it sounds like fun.
then who is responsible to press the charges. Wouldn't these sort of charges be at the states discresion (and in their perrogative) and not the offended party? Or does the offended party have to file some form of official complaint? For example in Washington state what would be the procedure (since we seem to have an expert - or at least an informed individual - on washington state law.
There are reason's why Microsoft should be punished severly but this is not it. Microsoft getting hit damaging the NASDAQ has nothing to do with it's monopolistic practices and everything to do with it being a very profitable company and investors feeling comfortable having their money invested in microsoft shares.
First many people have microsoft on margin; why not it's a pretty safe bet (profit and history wise at least.) But if msft goes does and those investments get called all these investors suddenly need to sell other investments to cover their debt - creating a buyers market in what ever they own. And microsoft owners tend to own tech stock.
Secondly share are often used as collateral against loans. With that collateral diminished suddenly other companies can't get their loans for capital. And with no capital no returns.
So yes the success of microsoft is a pretty major influence on the economy but it is natural in market capitalist economics for the market to be affected by the market leaders. If microsoft wasn't the market leader of tech stocks then somebody else would be. How they got there may be questioned but someone has to be there.
Of course this wouldn't be an issue if companies belonged to the labor and all property belonged to the republic (I think that's a different argument for another time.)
It seems to me when publishing companies came into being and later formed the RIAA they were doing what any good entrepreneur does: finds a need a filling it, there by helping both society and themselves. But is it in the same entrepreneurial spirit to protect their original model. It seems equivalent to a horse and buggy company suing car manufactures for putting them out of business.
Problem is the change will be painful. Yes there will always be those who voluntarily pay for media but those numbers will begin to dwindle. And as those numbers dwindle less artists will produce their art because they simply won't be able to afford to. Only then will people be open to a new business model because the public will want art and be willing to pay for it and there will be those out there willing to create it if there were only some mechanism for them to be paid for it. But I honestly think things have to get pretty bad before such a mechanism can mature. I tell ya... it's all about the existance value.
for a passport you don't need age, gender, or even a name. they just ask for email, country, zip/postal code. Mind you with a postal code they can narrow down to exactly what block you live on which might not be over the top.
I wouldn't say no way right away. Although our civil law system isn't quite as lucritive up here as it is in the states I wouldn't dismiss this right away. Our civil court system, and especially our ontario system, tends to be a little liberal and it is not unheard of that the court favours the individual over big bussiness; even if legally there is no bases for the suit.
are you guys saying that it is possible to install programs that aren't in a red carpet channel? Well that's where your problems are coming from. As long as I stay safely in my little redcarpet room everything is find - plus I get apple sauce twice a week.
Slashdot Mirror
The suit isn't being filed against the television watcher requiring them to watch the ads. Nor is it being filed against the purchasers of the Replay units. It is being filed against the manufactures. As you make it more and more convenient for customers to avoid advertisements more viewers will avoid them. The sugestion of this suit is that there is a point where it becomes so easy to avoid commercials that the average man will start avoiding them and it is at this point that the networks have an issue. The question of the suit is whether an actual law has been broken here. I think this is a legitimate question (I don't beleive a law has been broken) and should discussed in the courts. One thing the law is frequently interested in is not whether a 2nd party is simply allowing a 3rd party to infringe on a first parties rights but is this 2nd party leading the average man into this infringment. The average man test is one of degrees not of black and white.
here with videos on the 5th or 6th page.
I was already to give XOSL a test spin when I noticed it doesn't support usb mouses. That's when it occured to me that I don't really want a boot loader that needs its own set up device drivers.
grub has the ability to read file systems (ext 2 definitly... I'm not sure about ntfs or fat32) so you don't have to setup a .conf if you don't want to. You can just search around your tree until you find your kernel image and just boot off that. Or you can just point it to a partition and it will use what ever boot loader is there (windows boot loader or lilo or whatever). Saves you a little time when you change your kernel. Plus grub on a floppy can be used to get virutually any linux system going; unlike a lilo rescue disk which either needs its own kernel or to be specially made for the system. Plus grub is slightly more tolerant to allow the user to make stupid mistakes (like over writing the old kernel image and forgeting to re-install lilo... or so I hear)
I can't answer XOSL advantages for you unfortunatly... although it would allow you to set up a multiboot system without a keyboard. Although not useful for most systems I can see a specialty system where you might want to do this. On the most part I think it's just kinda cool to have a graphical boot screen.
Sure if apple had done things differently the company might have made more money but they wouldn't have been apple. In other words they wouldn't be in a position to be releasing the products they are releasing now and they wouldn't have as much control over their own product. As Jobs has said before no one says porsce is unsuccesful because under 5% of the market owns their cars (I might be misquoting; maybe it was ferrari).
Apple wants to be selling powerful intuitive computers to a market interested in multimedia. Apple basicly owns hollywood and most magazines are still layed out on macs (including ziff Davis if I remember correctly). Yes if in years past apple decided it was going to be more like it's money making competition there would now be a company named apple with more money but - as I said before - it wouldn't be apple.
And let's not forget Apple has a lot of money now... regardless of their policy.
All I can say is that this is yet more proof that software patents are just a bad idea.
I don't think proof is the appropropriate word - evidence perhaps. Yes you can site a hundred examples of large companies taking unfair advantage of patents. Probably more than a hundred.
But that's what large companies do. They take advantage of the law when ever possible; part of the reason they are large corporations is because they do this. If there were no software patents large corporations would use that to their advantage as well. The biggest guy out there would simply systimatically wedge all his oponents out of existence by selling there product at a lower price. Even if the product is just a concept. Even if they take a loss in the process if they have more capital they will survive. Just like a poker player who raises his opponents until they can no longer afford to play.
Ultimatly patents aren't about rightousness or equality. They are about (a) giving companies and individuals motivation to invest into research and (b) to lessen the gap between the haves and the have nots.
If you want to prove that patent law helps large corporations more than they hurt them you would have to run two parallel societies: one with patent law, one without. Until then we can only gather evidence. And try to continually weight that evidence against the invisible contrary evidence from the invisible alternative society.
Last time I set up my computer with a web interface to play mp3s (nothing fancy just a couple of cgi scripts) I got songs playing in my room at all hours of the early early morning - due to some of the guys that knew about the system.
I know there were ways I could have locked down the system but just all too lazy. Have to admit it was cool being able to use my wap enabled cel phone as a remote control.
I've read the article and I didn't see it touch on this. With the sharp unit will I be able to compile my favorite text editor or compiler or interpreter to work with on the unit... I don't know about anybody else but there are tons of times where it would be nice to sit back in a cafe and play with a ruby interpreter on a pda. For now I guess I'm stuck with scheme on my palm
It occurs to me that this desision also has the effect of pissing off microsoft. The order of microsoft's desires of features is as follows: they would prefer if only they had a certain useful feature but at times they can allow others to have such a feature but detest the idea of the feature being impossible to them. Not being able to play cds on windows media player is going to piss them off. My guess is once they start throwing their weight around some back door will be put in that allows new microsoft products to play these cds. Once such a back door is in place it will not be a serious challenge to reverse engineer it.
clinton gave a pretty good review of this situation in his interview with nbc today... I imagine you can find a transcript somewhere on their site... first time I've heard a defence of it and he covers it quite well.
doesn't anybody remember the constructicon devastator... the first polybot
although the us canadian border was closed it has been opened up again... at least the bc/washington was has been opened again. As for the rest I do not know. Traffic is moving slowly though due to stepped up customs inspections.
I think people misinterpret those whom say all speach should be free and instead believe they are saying they think all speach is good. Everyone knows there is such a thing as bad speach: whether it be hateful or simply misinformed. But at the heart of free speach is the notion of private and public responces and denounciations of others statements.
The word 'should' is what is mostly being misunderstood due to context. There is a difference in saying "you should not say that (ie linux without gnu)" and saying "you should not be able to say that. One is addressing the speaker and the second is addressing justice itself (although the speaker is still the subject). How smug must one be to believe that they alone should have justice's ear; the pious address those concerned and let justice come out in the wash.
I thought everyone was using their handspring as their keys.
If it stopped spreading on the 21st and didn't start again until the 3rd how could the worm have still been around to spread. That means someone must have had longer than a 10 day uptime on a win2k box... I don't buy it.
their stocks may have been performing poorly for the past couple quarters but they aren't in that bad of shape as far as capital goes. They have absolutly no debt (probably thanks to big daddy coms) and have something like a $1 per share in capital (not equity.)
As far as AOL last I heard they were Blackberries from Research in Motion and slapping their own name on them. But that was a few months ago and I've never actually one in somebodies hands.
-----
You're right there are always negitive aspects to an IPO but the big plus is the sudden rise of capital. The question is what does Mandrake have planned that they suddenly need a huge amount of capital and are will to make sacrifices to get it. Althought it seems like it most companies do not IPO because it sounds like fun.
then who is responsible to press the charges. Wouldn't these sort of charges be at the states discresion (and in their perrogative) and not the offended party? Or does the offended party have to file some form of official complaint? For example in Washington state what would be the procedure (since we seem to have an expert - or at least an informed individual - on washington state law.
There are reason's why Microsoft should be punished severly but this is not it. Microsoft getting hit damaging the NASDAQ has nothing to do with it's monopolistic practices and everything to do with it being a very profitable company and investors feeling comfortable having their money invested in microsoft shares.
First many people have microsoft on margin; why not it's a pretty safe bet (profit and history wise at least.) But if msft goes does and those investments get called all these investors suddenly need to sell other investments to cover their debt - creating a buyers market in what ever they own. And microsoft owners tend to own tech stock.
Secondly share are often used as collateral against loans. With that collateral diminished suddenly other companies can't get their loans for capital. And with no capital no returns.
So yes the success of microsoft is a pretty major influence on the economy but it is natural in market capitalist economics for the market to be affected by the market leaders. If microsoft wasn't the market leader of tech stocks then somebody else would be. How they got there may be questioned but someone has to be there.
Of course this wouldn't be an issue if companies belonged to the labor and all property belonged to the republic (I think that's a different argument for another time.)
It seems to me when publishing companies came into being and later formed the RIAA they were doing what any good entrepreneur does: finds a need a filling it, there by helping both society and themselves. But is it in the same entrepreneurial spirit to protect their original model. It seems equivalent to a horse and buggy company suing car manufactures for putting them out of business.
Problem is the change will be painful. Yes there will always be those who voluntarily pay for media but those numbers will begin to dwindle. And as those numbers dwindle less artists will produce their art because they simply won't be able to afford to. Only then will people be open to a new business model because the public will want art and be willing to pay for it and there will be those out there willing to create it if there were only some mechanism for them to be paid for it. But I honestly think things have to get pretty bad before such a mechanism can mature. I tell ya... it's all about the existance value.
Will safeway start treating certain customers preferentially once it their spending habits show them to be "favored customers."
"Right this way Mrs. Arnold - we have a free room for you right behind the meat department"
for a passport you don't need age, gender, or even a name. they just ask for email, country, zip/postal code. Mind you with a postal code they can narrow down to exactly what block you live on which might not be over the top.
I wouldn't say no way right away. Although our civil law system isn't quite as lucritive up here as it is in the states I wouldn't dismiss this right away. Our civil court system, and especially our ontario system, tends to be a little liberal and it is not unheard of that the court favours the individual over big bussiness; even if legally there is no bases for the suit.
are you guys saying that it is possible to install programs that aren't in a red carpet channel? Well that's where your problems are coming from. As long as I stay safely in my little redcarpet room everything is find - plus I get apple sauce twice a week.
Or perhaps more accurately, "getting off rich audiophiles" :P
Not more accurate; just less redundant.