Fear of netizens harranguing their Congresscritters with complaints of "If they want to take the RIAA stance on IP they should get out of my wallet" is the cause of this.
That is the closest thing to the fear of God they have over there.
DE FUND NPR! If the listeners want it, they will pay for it. If there aren't enough listners who will, it should die, period. I don't have Clear Channel, another company that spreads automated, NON LOCAL radio stations all over the landscape taking money directly from my meger paycheck each week. NPR does.
Our local NPR station, WOUL, Ironton is a 50,000 watt, 100% simulcast of another NPR station 50 miles away. How is THAT serving the community?
As bad as our local Clear Channel corporate radio is, at least they aren't staffing whole 50,000 watt stations with computers and satellite receivers to repeat a station from outside the market...
De fund the bastards, and maybe someone LOCAL will take over that station and actually SERVE Ironton, Ohio with it. What a concept!
Re:Commercialism is Not a Legal Requirment
on
Blogspace vs. NPR
·
· Score: 2
" Just as the United States Post Office can sue over abuse of its logo, and just as you can sue over someone taking an article you wrote out of context, NPR has the right to protect its work. If you review The Copyright and Amendments Act, you'll notice that "any party that produces an original work" is allowed to protect their work."
I disagree with that interpretation... If the government is "any party" then it's the people, the collective citizenry of the USA. Which means that ANY citizen should share equally in the copyright.
Not saying that this is how the courts interpret it (the courts are naturally pro government biased, seeing as they are part of it), but by the wording of that statement taken literally that is what it means.
The government isn't a private entity. It's a PUBLIC entity, "invested" in and owned by taxpayers.
I don't see how the White House and the Washington Monument can be called "public" property, but the NPR website and the USPS logo called "private", and thus entitled to shielding from the "public" in terms of invoking copyright.
"Actually (I used to work for NPR, too), not all that much of their funding comes from the gov't. The majority of their money comes from contributions and the "funded-by" bites. The gov't still contributes a noticable chunk, but it's about 10-20%, IIRC, not the majority.
Of course, I worked at the central office in DC...I don't know what the funding situation was like for individual stations."
Great. If it's so little then why do they need it? I've heard that the direct susidy is closer to 30-40%, BTW.
Why should people have to subsidize programming they don't want? I despise NPR and their always anti civil liberty slant.
I also despise Clear Channel. But unlike NPR, I can not listen to their stations, not hear their ads, and thus, cost them some money (or at the least not give them any).
If I were to refuse to pay that percentage of my taxes that goes to NPR or PBS, no matter how miniscule, eventually armed agents of the government will show up to take me away. So clearly I have no choice but to subsidize them.
You also fail to take into account the augmentation of that funding by the fact that in all things, NPR and member stations are TAX EXEMPT. That means that even at the state and local level, everyone pays a little more in sales and property taxes, city fees, etc, because they don't pay anything.
With all the private broadcasters out there willing to run stations at NO COST to the taxpayer, and indeed, even CONTRIBUTE taxes for the priviledge, I see no need for taxpayer funded broadcasting.
" Assuming you are a tax paying citizen, you should be informed that even if you pay $1000 (including withheld on the W2), less than half of a penny goes into supporting both public radio and television, and even including state taxes, you still haven't paid a full cent. The funneling of tax goes to stations in need of self-support on a case by case basis, everything else, from your favourite programmes to your favourite hosts are funded by people that pledge a donation during drives. You're probably not even paying enough for the cost of electricity to parse through the database and send a copy of the article to you."
Really? It's that little? Then they won't notice it if we took it away, right?
What you forget is the INDIRECT subsidy of NPR. NPR and member stations own property.
Tax exempt.
They have assets
Tax exempt.
They collect money.
Tax exempt.
They pay no FCC fees.
Tax exempt.
They buy things
Tax exempt.
Who pays what NPR doesn't pay in those taxes? You guessed it, anyone who lives anywhere there is a NPR operation.
If NPR wants to behave like a private company, and even have an ARGUMENT against deep linking their website, they need to get off welfare first.
As a taxpayer, I OWN part of NPR
on
Blogspace vs. NPR
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
When you consider that they receive as much as 1/3rd of their funding from DIRECT taxpayer subsidy, and even more than that from inderect subsidy (the increased taxes all others bear because of their tax exempt status), to say that I don't have any right to link to any damn part of their website I want to is ludicrous.
Get out of my back pocket, NPR, and REALLY become a private company, with private property, and get back to me.
DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! Evil, tyrannical governments like China exist only because of the consent, or the cowardice, of the people.
Ubfortunately, more people than most of us would like to think WANT such governments. Ergo, the inevitable slide of the USA, as accelerated by the "Drug War" and now the Patriot Act, towards a socialist dictatorship.
It would not suprprise me that the fire was some sort of covert act. The ChiCom government has been wanting to shut down ALL unrestricted net access, and being able to do so in the guise of "safety" will allow them to fool enough of the people.
Simply put, China is the enemy #1 of ALL who desire free flow of ideas and information.
"Great. Dump Microsoft but patronize Wal-Mart. Which is worse?"
Well, as yet, Wal-Mart is just a retailer. They do things I don't like, to be sure. They don't make things, they just sell them. And they sell many things below cost to drive out competition. Hmm... A lot like MS.
BUT.. You can sell someone a tire, or a TV, or a fan, that is NOT from Wal-Mart that is just as identically functional and compatible.
You can't do that with non-MS OS's, thanks to the Windows monopoly. Lindows is attemtping to change this. For that alone, they have my support.
"Just seems like an avenue with precedent that MS could begin pursuing, especially since Lindows is an unabashed copy and now professional competition...but of course, I'm pretty darn ignorant and Walmart does have a whole bunch of lawyers keeping an eye out on this stuff... "I ain't got no flyin' shoes.""
They already tried it on trademark grounds and lost. Not only did they lose, but the judge seemed inclined to STRIP them of the Windows trademark, because of it being a common word, and too generic as applied to "windowing operating system" which even MS has referred to it as.
To go after them on other grounds wouldn't do MS much good right now. The antitrust suit isn't yet completely dead, and to go after as yet embryonic competition in this way would more or less prove all allegations against MS true...
I believe that is the only reason why they went after Lindows on trademark, instead of on reverse engineering, or look and feel grounds.
BTW, Apple, the king of the look and feel lawsuit, hasn't exactly had a record of success litigating it. Seems to me they only succeed in shutting down hobbyists/free software people who lack the money to defend themselves in court. Not companies like MS, who, IMO, ripped a LOT off of Aqua (in terms of functionality) in the new XP desktop...
"I'd love to know the following: Has M$ sent the BSA to Wal-Mart headquarters to audit licenses?"
If they haven't... They will... But Wal-Mart is big enough to chew up and spit out even Microsoft, so that may be a place they don't want to go.
Other than the BSA stormtroopers, MS really has nothing they can do to Wal-Mart... They can't prohibit them from selling Windows, etc, because all they sell are THIRD PARTY PC's (not their own), and retail box copies of Windows on the shelf.
MS wouldn't even dream of taking their products off Wal-Mart shelves, it would cost them millions.
Microsoft doesn't LIKE this, to be sure, but I dont' see a helluva lot they can do about it. The BSA is the most likely option, because they are a "third party"
Yeah, right, that's like saying the RIAA is a third party, and not the stormtroopers of the big 5 record labels. As the BSA is of the largest software labels.
".. impresses the hell out of me. It's a nice touch, and solves a problem many windows users will find as they transition. Also, their Click-And-Run program (cheesy name, good idea) is another nice touch: one of the best things about Linux is the huge amount of free software to get you started, minimizing transition costs. But how to get to it? Click'n'run is apt for non-geeks."
In theroy, it looks like a great idea... I've loved the "urpmi" function in Mandrake, but this is even better. Indeed, Mandrake will have to raise their own level to meet Lindows's challenge of their spot as the top desktop Linux... Competition is good.
It's about time someone decided to integrate Wine. It's not perfect, but it enables some apps to be run.
"Sometimes I think they've taken the Windows clone approach too far. It can (apparently) run IE/Notes and Word, which is impressive, but there will be things, especially games, that it'll barf on. Also the fact that it runs as root all the time is just a cop-out, they could have used something like kdesu to make that unnecessary. Ah well.... a good attempt though, I'm glad somebodies doing it."
If Linux is to suceed on the desktop, it has to grow outside Geekdom. Those are negative points, to be sure. But, remember, underneath it all, it's Unix. Which means a tinkerer has far more lattitude with a Lindows machine, which has a REAL Unix CLI underneath, than they can with XP.
"Are you going to install Lindows based PCs in your Fortune 500 enterprise when Wal-Mart sells them? Probably not."
If your argument is valid, then the opposite is equally valid:
Are you going to install Windows based PC's in your Fortune 500 enterprise when Wal-Mart sells them?
The elitism in this thread is really bothering me. I love and belive in Linux. I want it to grow beyond being a server OS and a geek desktop OS, because more use and development benefits us ALL...
"Looks like windows, kinda feels like windows, stable, UNIX based, runs most of the big important Windows programs...
We're talking Mac's with OS X, right?"
And what a missed opportunity for Apple. If Apple sold an equivalent OSX based Mac for $500, they'd make inroads into the home PC market.
But they don't. Because Apple, by and large, IMHO, has the same elitist viewpoint some in this thread are exhibiting.
I wish they would sell something decent for even $800-1,000. I really would LIKE to have a G4 based Mac with OSX. But when I can build a far faster PC based on an Athlon for half that, where is the incentive?
"I think some of you are expressing concern because you don't want the mass public using anything but Windows. When everyone starts moving in on your elite OS, it no longer is the cool thing to use, so you must find something else to move on to...."
VERY well said!!
I see it this way... A corporation that I have long despised (there isn't a lot to like about Wal-Mart) is advancing something I truly believe in.
Why?
Because it's in their best interest. Wal-Mart can sell a FULLY functional PC based on a xNix OS for $299. There is NO WAY any MS machine can sell with the same hardware for the same price, unless MS starts giving away XP Home (and with how shitty it is, compared to XP Pro, which is actually decent, maybe they SHOULD), is not going to happen.
MS could get squeezed out in the middle. Linux is encroaching on the server market. This is partly because Linux has Unix roots, while MS approaches servers with a desktop mentality.
But, even for sake of argument, you call Linux and.NET server equals in quality and functionality, they are NOT equal in price.
Especially when you factor in the possibility that MS's private army, the BSA, will pick YOUR company for a stormtrooper raid.
Same thing on the low end. All the pundits tell us that the desktop PC as we know it today is an endangered species, as far as being a mass market item.
What will replace them? Something that more resembles a network/gaming thin client. In other words, a cheap, simplified, integrated PC.
Linux has the advantage that it cares not whether it runs on a 15 year old 386, or a brand new Itanium.
On such cheap machines, price of any component becomes a premium.
Linux: Cheap. Free or nearly free. Windows: Adds at least $100 to the cost of the machine.
While price isnt' everything, it IS a compelling advantage for any product on the marketplace. IF these things sell, I wonder how long before IBM, Dell, HPaQ, Gateway, et all are FORCED to enter this market?
Windows, no matter WHAT price MS sells it for will always make a PC more expensive than to put Lindows or any other Linux on it.
So, what I see happening, is the possibility that Linux on the server plus Linux on the thin client MIGHT squeeze MS into a shrinking middle market.
" it would seem to me that satallite radio will kill local radio by its very nature. If its popular in LA, you bet your ass it will be all over satallite radio. Of course, Radio isn't worth 10 bucks a month to me anyway so I probably don't count. I'd rather take 10 bucks a month and toss it into a guitar case of some person doing a decent street performance then pay to hear satallite radio."
Actually, I see direct satellite radio as a consequence of what has happened since 1996 in broadcast radio...
Many of these new consolidated broadcasters have turned to voicetrack or satellite automation that leaves out local content and DJ personality to save money.
I see Sirius/XM as the satellite providers willing to dispense with the dishonesty of modern automated broadcast radio, cut out the middle man (and most or all the ads) and sell it direct to you.
Plus there is more variety. We don't even HAVE a Classic Rock or an 80's station (or any station that plays much 70's or 80's) in my area. Owners are too concerned about where they can shoehorn in another country station that will rank 15th in the market...
I run a radio discussion site covering West Virginia regional radio (also covering parts of KY, OH, MD, PA, and VA), and we've had many interesting discussions of Sirius/XM, voicetracking, satellite automation, and how Clear Channel is wrecking radio.
"The real problem with these things is the same problem with HDTV sets: They are way overpriced."
As with ALL new "shiny things", there is an early adopters tax. The price of XM receivers has already fallen, however.
There will be a lot of these things in new cars, which will help hide the cost (you are really paying for it in the price of the car), which will help out some.
Wait 6 months to a year or so. The price of a receiver will fall significantly. You will be able to pick up a used receiver. Let the Beemer and Lexus crowd pick up the early adopter cost.
" XM has about 33 commercial-free channels, the rest have an average of 4 minutes of commercials an hour. Not bad."
Which is fewer than originally promised that would be commercial free. Also no guarantee that the spot load won't increase. Remember, Clear Channel has programming influence here. They are the home of the 9 minute commercial stopset. One of our local CC stations here sometimes has 10 minute or LONGER commercial stopsets.
Better to go with Sirius, which is being more honest with you, charging from the outset more what it costs them to provide you with commercial free music.
If you are convinced you are going to go with a satellite radio, what is $24 more a year to have ALL commercial free music channels?
I've read that in as little as 2-3 years they will have to start shutting down channels. And I can't see them being able to replace the satellites so soon.
Cash wise, Sirius has more money available, while XM has been close to going broke for the past year.
XM's ties to Clear Channel also bother me. CC has ruined local radio in many a market, mine included.
For $2 more a month, Sirius has NO commercials at all on ANY of the music channels. THAT, to me, is worth it, and the ONLY reason why I'd go with one of these.
Isn't the whole point of getting one of these things to get greater diversity of programming, and get away from having penis enhancment and hair restoration snake oil, plus annoying car dealer ads blasted at you for 6-10 minutes at a time between song sets?
I don't like the idea of paying for music radio, that I can get for "free", when it's also going to have ads. And given XM's financial condition (and ties to Clear Channel) there is no guarantee that the length of the stopsets won't increase to resemble typical commercial FM radio.
"Germany has already reduced emmissions by 19% - is its economy on it's knees because of it?"
It's economy isn't exactly rosy, is it? Keep in mind one pertinent fact about Germany. They can AFFORD to spend money on such things, for one reason, they don't have to defend themselves.
Off topic? Now I HAVE to say something about how the moderating is going on this story... What IN my above post was NOT about the Kyoto treaty, which is the SUBJECT of the story?
But then, to the "true believers" of the "green" movement, ANY ARGUMET against them is "off topic".
I also note that anyone not bashing the USA for NOT ratifying Kyoto are having their posts modded down. If this is the attitude of/., then perhaps I should quit contributing.
The facts are facts. Kyoto would have caused SERIOUS damage to the US economy. Which means fewer jobs. Which is why the Senate voted 95-0 to send a message to Clinton not to bother sending the thing up for ratification.
Now, we will see that they were right to do so. IF the EU actually impliments this thing, not just symbolically, we will get to see how right or wrong it is for economic development.
BTW, Kyoto exempts countries like China and India, and other "developing" countries who collectively pollute more than the US/EU ever dreamed of.
" I think we have a new addendum to Godwin's Law now. I mean, come on. Even relating the BSA to a terrorist organization should be enough to nullify your argument, yet you continue on to be more trollish."
How is the BSA's tactics of using fear,intimidation, and extortion not terrorism?
Non profit group?! You gotta be kidding... The BSA was started and is CONTROLLED by the MOST profitable software companies in the world! That is as fascetious as calling the RIAA and MPAA NON PROFIT groups!
Do the BSA use weapons to accomplish their ends? Sure they do! The bad IP law that they help create has effects that FLOW from the barrel of a gun.
The most offensive thing about this story, is that a fatawah is just that... A "holy war" has just been declared on copyright infringers.
Now are they not only morally equivalent to those who hijack ships (pirates), but they are the moral equals in the eyes of Islam as pagans, Christians, and Jews. Even as low as Britney Spears (which is what strict Islamic countries are REALLY afraid of about America).
Can't you see how ABSURD this is? And I find it extremely offensive. Muslim clerics declaring "Holy War" is what DIRECTLY LED TO those planes crashing into those buildings. Somewhere, there is some nutjob with a loose screw who will take this SERIOUSLY and go for his 70 virgins by doing something abominable.
This will give American companies an economic advantage. The Kyoto restrictions, if implimented, would bring any industrialized nation's economy to it's knees. Does anyone have any CLUE as to how expensive it will be to reduce all emissions 8%?
Not just in terms of dollars, but in the cost of JOBS, economic growth, and trade?
You see, the money to do all that will come from somewhere. Largely from money that would have been used to build and grow companies, and thus, employ more people...
This is not intended as a flame, but as an observation... At a time when the USA is threatened with "holy war" by organized Middle Eastern Islamic terrorists, the BSA induces Sunnite clergy to declare the same thing on copyright infringement?
But then, I consider the BSA a terrorist organization. Terror IS their weapon.
What's next, planes crashing into the homes of people who run LimeWire?
I'm sorry, but this to me is rather like Stalin giving Hitler's genocide policy an endorsement. These same Islamic clergy refuse to unequivocaly condemn the actions of Bin Laden.
While I don't favor turning the sharks loose on software companies, it is obvious there NEEDS to be some sort of liability and responsibility for bugs.
Some sort of "lemon law" that would REQUIRE the publisher to either correct bugs, and distribute patches for free, or else refund the purchase price IS needed.
What needs to stop is companies like MS being able to leave gaping holes in their products, then correct some of them, and releasing them as "upgrades", ala Windows 98 SE and ME... Those were not really "new" OS's, they were service releases that increased the stability of `98...
In all honesty, the commercial software publishers have brought this on themselves. Sure, MS distributes patches for free for the worst holes (ala, the ones that make Code Red, Nimda, and Klez work), but the fact is, they let their products LEAVE the house with those bugs in the first place.
I see bad consequences for free software out of this, created for it by the closed source companies. Perhaps there can be an exception written in for companies that release source, and in effect, have industry wide peer review of their code.
Eventually, if such a law isn't passed, sooner or later the sharks are going to class action sue and crack away ALL such limitations in the EULA's.
There is too much money and lost productivity happening right now due to software defects.
What we need is a defined list of responsibilities, passed into law, that can't be EULA'ed away.
Slashdot Mirror
Fear of netizens harranguing their Congresscritters with complaints of "If they want to take the RIAA stance on IP they should get out of my wallet" is the cause of this.
That is the closest thing to the fear of God they have over there.
DE FUND NPR! If the listeners want it, they will pay for it. If there aren't enough listners who will, it should die, period. I don't have Clear Channel, another company that spreads automated, NON LOCAL radio stations all over the landscape taking money directly from my meger paycheck each week. NPR does.
Our local NPR station, WOUL, Ironton is a 50,000 watt, 100% simulcast of another NPR station 50 miles away. How is THAT serving the community?
As bad as our local Clear Channel corporate radio is, at least they aren't staffing whole 50,000 watt stations with computers and satellite receivers to repeat a station from outside the market...
De fund the bastards, and maybe someone LOCAL will take over that station and actually SERVE Ironton, Ohio with it. What a concept!
" Just as the United States Post Office can sue over abuse of its logo, and just as you can sue over someone taking an article you wrote out of context, NPR has the right to protect its work. If you review The Copyright and Amendments Act, you'll notice that "any party that produces an original work" is allowed to protect their work."
I disagree with that interpretation... If the government is "any party" then it's the people, the collective citizenry of the USA. Which means that ANY citizen should share equally in the copyright.
Not saying that this is how the courts interpret it (the courts are naturally pro government biased, seeing as they are part of it), but by the wording of that statement taken literally that is what it means.
The government isn't a private entity. It's a PUBLIC entity, "invested" in and owned by taxpayers.
I don't see how the White House and the Washington Monument can be called "public" property, but the NPR website and the USPS logo called "private", and thus entitled to shielding from the "public" in terms of invoking copyright.
"Actually (I used to work for NPR, too), not all that much of their funding comes from the gov't. The majority of their money comes from contributions and the "funded-by" bites. The gov't still contributes a noticable chunk, but it's about 10-20%, IIRC, not the majority.
Of course, I worked at the central office in DC...I don't know what the funding situation was like for individual stations."
Great. If it's so little then why do they need it? I've heard that the direct susidy is closer to 30-40%, BTW.
Why should people have to subsidize programming they don't want? I despise NPR and their always anti civil liberty slant.
I also despise Clear Channel. But unlike NPR, I can not listen to their stations, not hear their ads, and thus, cost them some money (or at the least not give them any).
If I were to refuse to pay that percentage of my taxes that goes to NPR or PBS, no matter how miniscule, eventually armed agents of the government will show up to take me away. So clearly I have no choice but to subsidize them.
You also fail to take into account the augmentation of that funding by the fact that in all things, NPR and member stations are TAX EXEMPT. That means that even at the state and local level, everyone pays a little more in sales and property taxes, city fees, etc, because they don't pay anything.
With all the private broadcasters out there willing to run stations at NO COST to the taxpayer, and indeed, even CONTRIBUTE taxes for the priviledge, I see no need for taxpayer funded broadcasting.
" Assuming you are a tax paying citizen, you should be informed that even if you pay $1000 (including withheld on the W2), less than half of a penny goes into supporting both public radio and television, and even including state taxes, you still haven't paid a full cent. The funneling of tax goes to stations in need of self-support on a case by case basis, everything else, from your favourite programmes to your favourite hosts are funded by people that pledge a donation during drives. You're probably not even paying enough for the cost of electricity to parse through the database and send a copy of the article to you."
Really? It's that little? Then they won't notice it if we took it away, right?
What you forget is the INDIRECT subsidy of NPR. NPR and member stations own property.
Tax exempt.
They have assets
Tax exempt.
They collect money.
Tax exempt.
They pay no FCC fees.
Tax exempt.
They buy things
Tax exempt.
Who pays what NPR doesn't pay in those taxes? You guessed it, anyone who lives anywhere there is a NPR operation.
If NPR wants to behave like a private company, and even have an ARGUMENT against deep linking their website, they need to get off welfare first.
When you consider that they receive as much as 1/3rd of their funding from DIRECT taxpayer subsidy, and even more than that from inderect subsidy (the increased taxes all others bear because of their tax exempt status), to say that I don't have any right to link to any damn part of their website I want to is ludicrous.
Get out of my back pocket, NPR, and REALLY become a private company, with private property, and get back to me.
DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! Evil, tyrannical governments like China exist only because of the consent, or the cowardice, of the people.
Ubfortunately, more people than most of us would like to think WANT such governments. Ergo, the inevitable slide of the USA, as accelerated by the "Drug War" and now the Patriot Act, towards a socialist dictatorship.
It would not suprprise me that the fire was some sort of covert act. The ChiCom government has been wanting to shut down ALL unrestricted net access, and being able to do so in the guise of "safety" will allow them to fool enough of the people.
Simply put, China is the enemy #1 of ALL who desire free flow of ideas and information.
"Great. Dump Microsoft but patronize Wal-Mart. Which is worse?"
Well, as yet, Wal-Mart is just a retailer. They do things I don't like, to be sure. They don't make things, they just sell them. And they sell many things below cost to drive out competition. Hmm... A lot like MS.
BUT.. You can sell someone a tire, or a TV, or a fan, that is NOT from Wal-Mart that is just as identically functional and compatible.
You can't do that with non-MS OS's, thanks to the Windows monopoly. Lindows is attemtping to change this. For that alone, they have my support.
"Just seems like an avenue with precedent that MS could begin pursuing, especially since Lindows is an unabashed copy and now professional competition...but of course, I'm pretty darn ignorant and Walmart does have a whole bunch of lawyers keeping an eye out on this stuff...
"I ain't got no flyin' shoes.""
They already tried it on trademark grounds and lost. Not only did they lose, but the judge seemed inclined to STRIP them of the Windows trademark, because of it being a common word, and too generic as applied to "windowing operating system" which even MS has referred to it as.
To go after them on other grounds wouldn't do MS much good right now. The antitrust suit isn't yet completely dead, and to go after as yet embryonic competition in this way would more or less prove all allegations against MS true...
I believe that is the only reason why they went after Lindows on trademark, instead of on reverse engineering, or look and feel grounds.
BTW, Apple, the king of the look and feel lawsuit, hasn't exactly had a record of success litigating it. Seems to me they only succeed in shutting down hobbyists/free software people who lack the money to defend themselves in court. Not companies like MS, who, IMO, ripped a LOT off of Aqua (in terms of functionality) in the new XP desktop...
"I'd love to know the following:
Has M$ sent the BSA to Wal-Mart headquarters to audit licenses?"
If they haven't... They will... But Wal-Mart is big enough to chew up and spit out even Microsoft, so that may be a place they don't want to go.
Other than the BSA stormtroopers, MS really has nothing they can do to Wal-Mart... They can't prohibit them from selling Windows, etc, because all they sell are THIRD PARTY PC's (not their own), and retail box copies of Windows on the shelf.
MS wouldn't even dream of taking their products off Wal-Mart shelves, it would cost them millions.
Microsoft doesn't LIKE this, to be sure, but I dont' see a helluva lot they can do about it. The BSA is the most likely option, because they are a "third party"
Yeah, right, that's like saying the RIAA is a third party, and not the stormtroopers of the big 5 record labels. As the BSA is of the largest software labels.
".. impresses the hell out of me. It's a nice touch, and solves a problem many windows users will find as they transition. Also, their Click-And-Run program (cheesy name, good idea) is another nice touch: one of the best things about Linux is the huge amount of free software to get you started, minimizing transition costs. But how to get to it? Click'n'run is apt for non-geeks."
In theroy, it looks like a great idea... I've loved the "urpmi" function in Mandrake, but this is even better. Indeed, Mandrake will have to raise their own level to meet Lindows's challenge of their spot as the top desktop Linux... Competition is good.
It's about time someone decided to integrate Wine. It's not perfect, but it enables some apps to be run.
"Sometimes I think they've taken the Windows clone approach too far. It can (apparently) run IE/Notes and Word, which is impressive, but there will be things, especially games, that it'll barf on. Also the fact that it runs as root all the time is just a cop-out, they could have used something like kdesu to make that unnecessary. Ah well.... a good attempt though, I'm glad somebodies doing it."
If Linux is to suceed on the desktop, it has to grow outside Geekdom. Those are negative points, to be sure. But, remember, underneath it all, it's Unix. Which means a tinkerer has far more lattitude with a Lindows machine, which has a REAL Unix CLI underneath, than they can with XP.
"To think of the legions of rednecks who could now possibly be running Lindows instead of Windows...
:)
This redneck uses Debian and has done so for a long time. Thank you very much!"
This redneck from Kentucky runs Red Hat. What else?
"Are you going to install Lindows based PCs in your Fortune 500 enterprise when Wal-Mart sells them? Probably not."
If your argument is valid, then the opposite is equally valid:
Are you going to install Windows based PC's in your Fortune 500 enterprise when Wal-Mart sells them?
The elitism in this thread is really bothering me. I love and belive in Linux. I want it to grow beyond being a server OS and a geek desktop OS, because more use and development benefits us ALL...
"Looks like windows, kinda feels like windows, stable, UNIX based, runs most of the big important Windows programs...
We're talking Mac's with OS X, right?"
And what a missed opportunity for Apple. If Apple sold an equivalent OSX based Mac for $500, they'd make inroads into the home PC market.
But they don't. Because Apple, by and large, IMHO, has the same elitist viewpoint some in this thread are exhibiting.
I wish they would sell something decent for even $800-1,000. I really would LIKE to have a G4 based Mac with OSX. But when I can build a far faster PC based on an Athlon for half that, where is the incentive?
"I think some of you are expressing concern because you don't want the mass public using anything but Windows. When everyone starts moving in on your elite OS, it no longer is the cool thing to use, so you must find something else to move on to...."
.NET server equals in quality and functionality, they are NOT equal in price.
VERY well said!!
I see it this way... A corporation that I have long despised (there isn't a lot to like about Wal-Mart) is advancing something I truly believe in.
Why?
Because it's in their best interest. Wal-Mart can sell a FULLY functional PC based on a xNix OS for $299. There is NO WAY any MS machine can sell with the same hardware for the same price, unless MS starts giving away XP Home (and with how shitty it is, compared to XP Pro, which is actually decent, maybe they SHOULD), is not going to happen.
MS could get squeezed out in the middle. Linux is encroaching on the server market. This is partly because Linux has Unix roots, while MS approaches servers with a desktop mentality.
But, even for sake of argument, you call Linux and
Especially when you factor in the possibility that MS's private army, the BSA, will pick YOUR company for a stormtrooper raid.
Same thing on the low end. All the pundits tell us that the desktop PC as we know it today is an endangered species, as far as being a mass market item.
What will replace them? Something that more resembles a network/gaming thin client. In other words, a cheap, simplified, integrated PC.
Linux has the advantage that it cares not whether it runs on a 15 year old 386, or a brand new Itanium.
On such cheap machines, price of any component becomes a premium.
Linux: Cheap. Free or nearly free.
Windows: Adds at least $100 to the cost of the machine.
While price isnt' everything, it IS a compelling advantage for any product on the marketplace. IF these things sell, I wonder how long before IBM, Dell, HPaQ, Gateway, et all are FORCED to enter this market?
Windows, no matter WHAT price MS sells it for will always make a PC more expensive than to put Lindows or any other Linux on it.
So, what I see happening, is the possibility that Linux on the server plus Linux on the thin client MIGHT squeeze MS into a shrinking middle market.
" it would seem to me that satallite radio will kill local radio by its very nature.
If its popular in LA, you bet your ass it will be all over satallite radio.
Of course, Radio isn't worth 10 bucks a month to me anyway so I probably don't count.
I'd rather take 10 bucks a month and toss it into a guitar case of some person doing a decent street performance then pay to hear satallite radio."
Actually, I see direct satellite radio as a consequence of what has happened since 1996 in broadcast radio...
Many of these new consolidated broadcasters have turned to voicetrack or satellite automation that leaves out local content and DJ personality to save money.
I see Sirius/XM as the satellite providers willing to dispense with the dishonesty of modern automated broadcast radio, cut out the middle man (and most or all the ads) and sell it direct to you.
Plus there is more variety. We don't even HAVE a Classic Rock or an 80's station (or any station that plays much 70's or 80's) in my area. Owners are too concerned about where they can shoehorn in another country station that will rank 15th in the market...
I run a radio discussion site covering West Virginia regional radio (also covering parts of KY, OH, MD, PA, and VA), and we've had many interesting discussions of Sirius/XM, voicetracking, satellite automation, and how Clear Channel is wrecking radio.
http://www.wvradio.net if you are interested.
"The real problem with these things is the same problem with HDTV sets: They are way overpriced."
As with ALL new "shiny things", there is an early adopters tax. The price of XM receivers has already fallen, however.
There will be a lot of these things in new cars, which will help hide the cost (you are really paying for it in the price of the car), which will help out some.
Wait 6 months to a year or so. The price of a receiver will fall significantly. You will be able to pick up a used receiver. Let the Beemer and Lexus crowd pick up the early adopter cost.
" XM has about 33 commercial-free channels, the rest have an average of 4 minutes of commercials an hour. Not bad."
Which is fewer than originally promised that would be commercial free. Also no guarantee that the spot load won't increase. Remember, Clear Channel has programming influence here. They are the home of the 9 minute commercial stopset. One of our local CC stations here sometimes has 10 minute or LONGER commercial stopsets.
Better to go with Sirius, which is being more honest with you, charging from the outset more what it costs them to provide you with commercial free music.
If you are convinced you are going to go with a satellite radio, what is $24 more a year to have ALL commercial free music channels?
Don't forget that XM has defective Boeing satellites, ones that have rapid degeneration of the solar array.
3 71 1
http://dc.internet.com/news/article.php/2101_89
I've read that in as little as 2-3 years they will have to start shutting down channels. And I can't see them being able to replace the satellites so soon.
Cash wise, Sirius has more money available, while XM has been close to going broke for the past year.
XM's ties to Clear Channel also bother me. CC has ruined local radio in many a market, mine included.
For $2 more a month, Sirius has NO commercials at all on ANY of the music channels. THAT, to me, is worth it, and the ONLY reason why I'd go with one of these.
Isn't the whole point of getting one of these things to get greater diversity of programming, and get away from having penis enhancment and hair restoration snake oil, plus annoying car dealer ads blasted at you for 6-10 minutes at a time between song sets?
I don't like the idea of paying for music radio, that I can get for "free", when it's also going to have ads. And given XM's financial condition (and ties to Clear Channel) there is no guarantee that the length of the stopsets won't increase to resemble typical commercial FM radio.
"Germany has already reduced emmissions by 19% - is its economy on it's knees because of it?"
It's economy isn't exactly rosy, is it? Keep in mind one pertinent fact about Germany. They can AFFORD to spend money on such things, for one reason, they don't have to defend themselves.
Guess who provides it for free to them? The USA.
Off topic? Now I HAVE to say something about how the moderating is going on this story... What IN my above post was NOT about the Kyoto treaty, which is the SUBJECT of the story?
/., then perhaps I should quit contributing.
But then, to the "true believers" of the "green" movement, ANY ARGUMET against them is "off topic".
I also note that anyone not bashing the USA for NOT ratifying Kyoto are having their posts modded down. If this is the attitude of
The facts are facts. Kyoto would have caused SERIOUS damage to the US economy. Which means fewer jobs. Which is why the Senate voted 95-0 to send a message to Clinton not to bother sending the thing up for ratification.
Now, we will see that they were right to do so. IF the EU actually impliments this thing, not just symbolically, we will get to see how right or wrong it is for economic development.
BTW, Kyoto exempts countries like China and India, and other "developing" countries who collectively pollute more than the US/EU ever dreamed of.
" I think we have a new addendum to Godwin's Law now. I mean, come on. Even relating the BSA to a terrorist organization should be enough to nullify your argument, yet you continue on to be more trollish."
How is the BSA's tactics of using fear,intimidation, and extortion not terrorism?
Non profit group?! You gotta be kidding... The BSA was started and is CONTROLLED by the MOST profitable software companies in the world! That is as fascetious as calling the RIAA and MPAA NON PROFIT groups!
Do the BSA use weapons to accomplish their ends? Sure they do! The bad IP law that they help create has effects that FLOW from the barrel of a gun.
The most offensive thing about this story, is that a fatawah is just that... A "holy war" has just been declared on copyright infringers.
Now are they not only morally equivalent to those who hijack ships (pirates), but they are the moral equals in the eyes of Islam as pagans, Christians, and Jews. Even as low as Britney Spears (which is what strict Islamic countries are REALLY afraid of about America).
Can't you see how ABSURD this is? And I find it extremely offensive. Muslim clerics declaring "Holy War" is what DIRECTLY LED TO those planes crashing into those buildings. Somewhere, there is some nutjob with a loose screw who will take this SERIOUSLY and go for his 70 virgins by doing something abominable.
This will give American companies an economic advantage. The Kyoto restrictions, if implimented, would bring any industrialized nation's economy to it's knees. Does anyone have any CLUE as to how expensive it will be to reduce all emissions 8%?
Not just in terms of dollars, but in the cost of JOBS, economic growth, and trade?
You see, the money to do all that will come from somewhere. Largely from money that would have been used to build and grow companies, and thus, employ more people...
This is not intended as a flame, but as an observation... At a time when the USA is threatened with "holy war" by organized Middle Eastern Islamic terrorists, the BSA induces Sunnite clergy to declare the same thing on copyright infringement?
But then, I consider the BSA a terrorist organization. Terror IS their weapon.
What's next, planes crashing into the homes of people who run LimeWire?
I'm sorry, but this to me is rather like Stalin giving Hitler's genocide policy an endorsement. These same Islamic clergy refuse to unequivocaly condemn the actions of Bin Laden.
While I don't favor turning the sharks loose on software companies, it is obvious there NEEDS to be some sort of liability and responsibility for bugs.
Some sort of "lemon law" that would REQUIRE the publisher to either correct bugs, and distribute patches for free, or else refund the purchase price IS needed.
What needs to stop is companies like MS being able to leave gaping holes in their products, then correct some of them, and releasing them as "upgrades", ala Windows 98 SE and ME... Those were not really "new" OS's, they were service releases that increased the stability of `98...
In all honesty, the commercial software publishers have brought this on themselves. Sure, MS distributes patches for free for the worst holes (ala, the ones that make Code Red, Nimda, and Klez work), but the fact is, they let their products LEAVE the house with those bugs in the first place.
I see bad consequences for free software out of this, created for it by the closed source companies. Perhaps there can be an exception written in for companies that release source, and in effect, have industry wide peer review of their code.
Eventually, if such a law isn't passed, sooner or later the sharks are going to class action sue and crack away ALL such limitations in the EULA's.
There is too much money and lost productivity happening right now due to software defects.
What we need is a defined list of responsibilities, passed into law, that can't be EULA'ed away.
"software makers NEED liability
The problem is, they would just argue "hey, the patch is available, why didn't you apply it?"
To which I reply, "Why did you release it (and take my money) before you patched that?"