Actually, it's rather easy. In one case you are being granted rights that you otherwise wouldn't have. That's the GPL. It's like saying I'll give you free reign in my house if you promise to clean up after yourself. You come in and don't clean I have the right to bitch.
The other case has companies trying to artificially remove rights that you already have under current law, that being the right to use something you've purchased however you see fit. That includes breaking out the soldier and a flash-rom you bought and having fun.
To summerise - I give you extra rights with some conditions and you break them == justified bitching. You try to take away rights I already have == justified bitching.
The point isn't that music gives a particular taxi a competitive advantage, but that the taxis are benefitting from the fact that music is being played. It's a big difference. Having music in the cabs theoretically makes the cab ride more enjoyable, possibly discouraging people from other forms of transportation.
Still completely beside the point. The radio station already paid for the broadcasting of the music. I would also strongly argue that 2 people being able to hear the music is not a public performance.
In other words, they remember they got into music for the money?
You missed the point. They will remember that they make music for people to hear it. Getting a letter from someone tells you that this person, this exact person not some hypothetical number in a mass but Mr. John Doe heard your music. And not only did he hear it he liked it. He liked enough to go out and find your address, put a pen to paper, and put five bucks from his pocket to yours. There is a huge difference both emotionally and spiritally between that and another few dollars at the bottom of an accounting statement.
US Copyright law limits the duration for corporations to 96 years from date of creation. Had Mr. Bloom done a little bit of research he would have discovered this tidbit of info.
I'm sure he is aware of this. Note that the whole article is regarding the retroactive aspects of the Bono copyright act. The 'perpetual' bit is there because if congress can extend the copyright on works that were already created then it is possible (and given the past 100 years of copyright law obviously probable) that it would continue to be extended retroactivley into the forseable future.
It shouldn't be a conservative ideal to worship corporations. If you give corps too much power, it's just like having a government with too much power.
Not exactly.
It's worse, much worse. Corps are not bound by many of the rules that our government is regarding what it can and cannot do.
Don't make the mistake of assuming that the time in which you live is somehow fundamentally different from the time that came before. It hasn't been true yet in all of human history
Umm.. yes it has. I can name one time right off the top of my head - the creation of written language.
what makes you think it's true now?
I don't know if I would argue it in the general sense, but with regards to copyrights there is one big change that has happened with the advent of computer and the internet. Almost anyone can publish and distribute works at essentially zero cost per unit. In the 1950s very few people cared about old works passing into the public domain or not (at least largly) because even if the work was free to use it would cost thousands of dollars to produce a physical book to distribute in the name of keeping the work alive. Now it can be done for pennies, if that.
I think I would debate even this. The Monkees were about as manufactured as you can get back in the day and yet their music is still better than N'sync and their ilk. Why? Because at least back then the music Execs were in the business because they liked music. After the massive consolidations and managment changes involved therein the people running the show are now only concerned with making money. It doesn't matter to them if it's washing machines, chopped liver, or music that the company is selling so long as the bottom line is black.
I have been reading the documentation available, like here [microsoft.com] where Microsoft says:
Only the user decides what "Palladium" applications get to run. Anyone can write an application to take advantage of "Palladium" APIs without notifying Microsoft (or anyone else) or getting its (or anyone else's) approval.
I have also been reading enough to know that most of the information out there about Palladium is untrue.
Even assuming this is true (which I don't) this only applies to the application level. Yeah, so you can run any app you want. Whoopie. Apps are useless without data to manipulate and Palladium takes away my control of what I do with the data on my machine.
If I can manipulate and distribute music/movies/text that I created there is, by definition, a way to do it with music/movies/text someone else made. Maybe not trivially, but there is a way. The system is useless either way. If I cannot distribute data a computer is worthless. If I can than the protections it supposedly gives do not perform as advertised.
I am currently using 36 inch long ATA/133 rounded cables, which I bought from Cable and Connector Technologies [callcct.com] for $5 each. Yes, rounded cables to hurt the performace a *tiny* bit, but what drives run at 100% of their peak capable performance anyway? It is more than worth the extra length/reduced hassle that the rounded cables provide.
Having used rounded cables before (not currently, but before) and having messed with the SATA connectors on a product demo I can say that SATA beats them hands down, no contest. Did we really need a new standard for this? Nope. But they did it anyway. Would I pay extra for it? Maybe a few bucks.. say like the 5 or so the rounded cables would cost me.
Can i say.... Waah? I've been working on these things for 9 years and it sounds to me like you're just whining.
I've been working on them for 12.. but anyway. It's hardly 'whining'. Those cables are a true pain and if I can get rid of them at no extra cost, why not? It's not like I'm blindly bitching about the current standard just to hear myself complain. Just voicing a positive (the best one, imho) of a new standard that's about to become available.
Personally, I could give a rats butt about the speed. I don't want SATA so my drives go faster. I want it so I'm not having to spend twenty minutes doing finger gymnastics everytime I need to do _anything_ in my case.
Is it worth upgrading for? No, probably not. But id damn sure is worth waiting an extra few months for that next machine to save the hassel of those f'ing ribbon cables.
(i do understand why they want to keep sources secret, but in the end why should they get a privilege like that?)
Because often the source would lose his livelyhood and possibly his life if his identity were revealed. Remember, telling the truth about someone with power/money/influence can often be a dangerous thing. There are many ways to prove the validity of information without revealing the messanger.
It's not from the intangible "ideas" that authors are granted their right to life, it's the profit from the books that they write them down in--which is exactly what giving away free digital books would deprive the authors of.
Unless the free digital books are out of copyright and have already givin their authors any financial benefit they should see. Which should happen in something to the tune of 30-40 years, imho.
What about my freedom to control what happens to the things I produce?
Sorry, Ideas by their very nature cannot be controlled once they are released. This is why copyright is a granted power. If you want complete control over ideas you generate you have only the option of keeping them to yourself, period.
IMO, the whole "Microsoft == monopoly" notion doesn't hold all that much water. The variety of easily-obtained alternatives should be all that you need to dispel that idea. A "monopoly" is defined as being exclusive control, which Microsoft simply does not have by any stretch of the imagination.
Make all the new MS software unable to talk to the old stuff ("not secure, not "trusted"). Slowly, over a few years of course. Thus when you want to upgrade to Word2005 so you can read documents you created at work, you have to have Win2005 to do it. Win2005 does not function without palladium hardware. People have to buy new windows, new office, and new hardware.. everyone is happy. Oh, everyone except those pesky customers.
I strongly suggest that the OP read the Palladium docs that are available to familiarize himself with the system before he goes to this lecture.
Not going, thousands of miles away. As of yet I have not had much time to investigate the newer postings regarding the system, thanks for the info.
You can get the OS to securely report a hash of your software to third parties, cryptographically signed by a key which is locked in the Palladium hardware.
This still leaves mostly the same question, if my machine is offline. Of course, that really could be a question in and of itself.. how does the system function with a non-networked computer?
The stuff Apple has is great. Also check out the high-end Samsungs. As it is, your opinion is both dated and uninformed.
Dated perhaps, not uniformed as I didn't try to extrapolate my one experience to all LCDs. Just posting my personal experience which is why I was careful to mention the brand, although it was a 17 inch which I should have mentioned.
Once you get used to looking at an LCD on a regular basis, the flaws in CRTs really start to become more apparant.
I used one at work for a few months, ever did like it all that much. The delay in switching colors on and off lead to nasty ghosting effects on the viewsonic we had. Everytime I used pageup/down on a page of high contrast (like say, text.. particularly white on black text) it would see some blurring for half a second. Not too bad most of the time, but enough to give me a headache if I read pure text for more than an hour or so.
Blind people can lead rich, full lives. - in environments that don't require a dependancy on EYESIGHT. The net IS one of those environments.
I usually don't speak this strongly but from someone who is married to a blind person:
You are an idiot.
Computers and the digitization/electronic distrobution of knowledge could, if done properly, be the single greatest boon towards overcoming the obsticles the handicapped face that mankind has ever invented. With a very small amount of work almost any real information in a computer can be processed and fed out of a computer such that anyone has access to it. The net is not dependant upon eyesight unless lazy developers make it that way. At worst you design a bare-bones text only version. At best you simply add a few tags while you're in the design stage. These relativley simple accomidations open up the entire world worth of information to a segment of the population that previously had very little access to it.
The whole point of a society is to have the whole act such that the individual gains benefit. Your attitude is bad for society and bad for humanity.
Dude, read my post before you flame me. I am not supporting Microsoft at all. I am just saying that Microsoft hates modchips for good reason. If I were Microsoft, I would hate modchips too. But I am not Microsoft, and no, I don't think Microsoft should be able to shut down a company for doing something it doesn't like.
Not a flame, just an observation for the sake of discussion. That last bit wasn't clear from the original post. We all know why MS hates the mod chippers. MS (and most other software/media companies) want the world to use their products in exactly the way they say you can and nothing else. It doesn't matter to them if it's hardware, software, or media. See any EULA for proof there. What isn't obvious (at least thus far) in a legal sense is how much right they have to enforce this idea onto their actual customers.
If Linux can be made to run reliably enough on the XBox, the XBox suddenly becomes a great source of decent computing power for a really cheap price. The result: lots of people buy XBoxen but they don't buy games. Microsoft gets screwed big time.
So you would rather support Microsoft's flawed business plan (selling standard/close to standard PC hardware at a loss) than actually uphold 200 years of first sale doctrine?
I bought the box at the price they wanted to sell it. What I do with/to it from there is my business. And no, the mods chips did [i]not[/i] contain any copyrighted code. You have to program them yourself. It is the end users problem to do so without breaking copyright. The mod chippers were 100% in the right.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, it's rather easy. In one case you are being granted rights that you otherwise wouldn't have. That's the GPL. It's like saying I'll give you free reign in my house if you promise to clean up after yourself. You come in and don't clean I have the right to bitch.
The other case has companies trying to artificially remove rights that you already have under current law, that being the right to use something you've purchased however you see fit. That includes breaking out the soldier and a flash-rom you bought and having fun.
To summerise - I give you extra rights with some conditions and you break them == justified bitching. You try to take away rights I already have == justified bitching.
The point isn't that music gives a particular taxi a competitive advantage, but that the taxis are benefitting from the fact that music is being played. It's a big difference. Having music in the cabs theoretically makes the cab ride more enjoyable, possibly discouraging people from other forms of transportation.
Still completely beside the point. The radio station already paid for the broadcasting of the music. I would also strongly argue that 2 people being able to hear the music is not a public performance.
In other words, they remember they got into music for the money?
You missed the point. They will remember that they make music for people to hear it. Getting a letter from someone tells you that this person, this exact person not some hypothetical number in a mass but Mr. John Doe heard your music. And not only did he hear it he liked it. He liked enough to go out and find your address, put a pen to paper, and put five bucks from his pocket to yours. There is a huge difference both emotionally and spiritally between that and another few dollars at the bottom of an accounting statement.
US Copyright law limits the duration for corporations to 96 years from date of creation. Had Mr. Bloom done a little bit of research he would have discovered this tidbit of info.
I'm sure he is aware of this. Note that the whole article is regarding the retroactive aspects of the Bono copyright act. The 'perpetual' bit is there because if congress can extend the copyright on works that were already created then it is possible (and given the past 100 years of copyright law obviously probable) that it would continue to be extended retroactivley into the forseable future.
It shouldn't be a conservative ideal to worship corporations. If you give corps too much power, it's just like having a government with too much power.
Not exactly.
It's worse, much worse. Corps are not bound by many of the rules that our government is regarding what it can and cannot do.
Don't make the mistake of assuming that the time in which you live is somehow fundamentally different from the time that came before. It hasn't been true yet in all of human history
Umm.. yes it has. I can name one time right off the top of my head - the creation of written language.
what makes you think it's true now?
I don't know if I would argue it in the general sense, but with regards to copyrights there is one big change that has happened with the advent of computer and the internet. Almost anyone can publish and distribute works at essentially zero cost per unit. In the 1950s very few people cared about old works passing into the public domain or not (at least largly) because even if the work was free to use it would cost thousands of dollars to produce a physical book to distribute in the name of keeping the work alive. Now it can be done for pennies, if that.
... and the total subversion of the free market principles which lie at its core.
The consumer's opinion means nothing now.
Actually.. the 'opinion' part ceases to matter when everyone is convinced we are consumers instead of customers.
Mfg'ed bands suck as much as always
I think I would debate even this. The Monkees were about as manufactured as you can get back in the day and yet their music is still better than N'sync and their ilk. Why? Because at least back then the music Execs were in the business because they liked music. After the massive consolidations and managment changes involved therein the people running the show are now only concerned with making money. It doesn't matter to them if it's washing machines, chopped liver, or music that the company is selling so long as the bottom line is black.
I have been reading the documentation available, like here [microsoft.com] where Microsoft says:
Only the user decides what "Palladium" applications get to run. Anyone can write an application to take advantage of "Palladium" APIs without notifying Microsoft (or anyone else) or getting its (or anyone else's) approval.
I have also been reading enough to know that most of the information out there about Palladium is untrue.
Even assuming this is true (which I don't) this only applies to the application level. Yeah, so you can run any app you want. Whoopie. Apps are useless without data to manipulate and Palladium takes away my control of what I do with the data on my machine.
If I can manipulate and distribute music/movies/text that I created there is, by definition, a way to do it with music/movies/text someone else made. Maybe not trivially, but there is a way. The system is useless either way. If I cannot distribute data a computer is worthless. If I can than the protections it supposedly gives do not perform as advertised.
I am currently using 36 inch long ATA/133 rounded cables, which I bought from Cable and Connector Technologies [callcct.com] for $5 each. Yes, rounded cables to hurt the performace a *tiny* bit, but what drives run at 100% of their peak capable performance anyway? It is more than worth the extra length/reduced hassle that the rounded cables provide.
Having used rounded cables before (not currently, but before) and having messed with the SATA connectors on a product demo I can say that SATA beats them hands down, no contest. Did we really need a new standard for this? Nope. But they did it anyway. Would I pay extra for it? Maybe a few bucks.. say like the 5 or so the rounded cables would cost me.
Can i say.... Waah? I've been working on these things for 9 years and it sounds to me like you're just whining.
I've been working on them for 12.. but anyway. It's hardly 'whining'. Those cables are a true pain and if I can get rid of them at no extra cost, why not? It's not like I'm blindly bitching about the current standard just to hear myself complain. Just voicing a positive (the best one, imho) of a new standard that's about to become available.
Personally, I could give a rats butt about the speed. I don't want SATA so my drives go faster. I want it so I'm not having to spend twenty minutes doing finger gymnastics everytime I need to do _anything_ in my case.
Is it worth upgrading for? No, probably not. But id damn sure is worth waiting an extra few months for that next machine to save the hassel of those f'ing ribbon cables.
(i do understand why they want to keep sources secret, but in the end why should they get a privilege like that?)
Because often the source would lose his livelyhood and possibly his life if his identity were revealed. Remember, telling the truth about someone with power/money/influence can often be a dangerous thing. There are many ways to prove the validity of information without revealing the messanger.
It's not from the intangible "ideas" that authors are granted their right to life, it's the profit from the books that they write them down in--which is exactly what giving away free digital books would deprive the authors of.
Unless the free digital books are out of copyright and have already givin their authors any financial benefit they should see. Which should happen in something to the tune of 30-40 years, imho.
What about my freedom to control what happens to the things I produce?
Sorry, Ideas by their very nature cannot be controlled once they are released. This is why copyright is a granted power. If you want complete control over ideas you generate you have only the option of keeping them to yourself, period.
IMO, the whole "Microsoft == monopoly" notion doesn't hold all that much water. The variety of easily-obtained alternatives should be all that you need to dispel that idea. A "monopoly" is defined as being exclusive control, which Microsoft simply does not have by any stretch of the imagination.
Well.. sorry, but the US legal system disagrees.
1 word - Monopoly.
Make all the new MS software unable to talk to the old stuff ("not secure, not "trusted"). Slowly, over a few years of course. Thus when you want to upgrade to Word2005 so you can read documents you created at work, you have to have Win2005 to do it. Win2005 does not function without palladium hardware. People have to buy new windows, new office, and new hardware.. everyone is happy. Oh, everyone except those pesky customers.
I strongly suggest that the OP read the Palladium docs that are available to familiarize himself with the system before he goes to this lecture.
Not going, thousands of miles away. As of yet I have not had much time to investigate the newer postings regarding the system, thanks for the info.
You can get the OS to securely report a hash of your software to third parties, cryptographically signed by a key which is locked in the Palladium hardware.
This still leaves mostly the same question, if my machine is offline. Of course, that really could be a question in and of itself.. how does the system function with a non-networked computer?
The stuff Apple has is great. Also check out the high-end Samsungs. As it is, your opinion is both dated and uninformed.
Dated perhaps, not uniformed as I didn't try to extrapolate my one experience to all LCDs. Just posting my personal experience which is why I was careful to mention the brand, although it was a 17 inch which I should have mentioned.
Can open source software and Palladium coexist?
Go even more general than this, so you don't even have to bring up competition:
How can user written software run on a 'trusted' system?
Once you get used to looking at an LCD on a regular basis, the flaws in CRTs really start to become more apparant.
I used one at work for a few months, ever did like it all that much. The delay in switching colors on and off lead to nasty ghosting effects on the viewsonic we had. Everytime I used pageup/down on a page of high contrast (like say, text.. particularly white on black text) it would see some blurring for half a second. Not too bad most of the time, but enough to give me a headache if I read pure text for more than an hour or so.
Blind people can lead rich, full lives. - in environments that don't require a dependancy on EYESIGHT. The net IS one of those environments.
I usually don't speak this strongly but from someone who is married to a blind person:
You are an idiot.
Computers and the digitization/electronic distrobution of knowledge could, if done properly, be the single greatest boon towards overcoming the obsticles the handicapped face that mankind has ever invented. With a very small amount of work almost any real information in a computer can be processed and fed out of a computer such that anyone has access to it. The net is not dependant upon eyesight unless lazy developers make it that way. At worst you design a bare-bones text only version. At best you simply add a few tags while you're in the design stage. These relativley simple accomidations open up the entire world worth of information to a segment of the population that previously had very little access to it.
The whole point of a society is to have the whole act such that the individual gains benefit. Your attitude is bad for society and bad for humanity.
Dude, read my post before you flame me. I am not supporting Microsoft at all. I am just saying that Microsoft hates modchips for good reason. If I were Microsoft, I would hate modchips too. But I am not Microsoft, and no, I don't think Microsoft should be able to shut down a company for doing something it doesn't like.
Not a flame, just an observation for the sake of discussion. That last bit wasn't clear from the original post. We all know why MS hates the mod chippers. MS (and most other software/media companies) want the world to use their products in exactly the way they say you can and nothing else. It doesn't matter to them if it's hardware, software, or media. See any EULA for proof there. What isn't obvious (at least thus far) in a legal sense is how much right they have to enforce this idea onto their actual customers.
Point taken, but if you don't use the newly modified device, its not a mod. At least thats the legal definition.
;)
You are using your modded device. You have a fresh capacitor you modded to get rid of all that extraneous TV crap.
If Linux can be made to run reliably enough on the XBox, the XBox suddenly becomes a great source of decent computing power for a really cheap price. The result: lots of people buy XBoxen but they don't buy games. Microsoft gets screwed big time.
So you would rather support Microsoft's flawed business plan (selling standard/close to standard PC hardware at a loss) than actually uphold 200 years of first sale doctrine?
I bought the box at the price they wanted to sell it. What I do with/to it from there is my business. And no, the mods chips did [i]not[/i] contain any copyrighted code. You have to program them yourself. It is the end users problem to do so without breaking copyright. The mod chippers were 100% in the right.