I think what you are trying to say is that Yahoo has made a deal with the RIAA for (re)distribution rights.
It's not copyright that we are talking about, it's distribution. Copyright tells me that I can't take your song, in it's exact form, in any part, and use it commercially. When it comes to giving it away, you are violating the (almost) exclusive distribution rights given to certain parties.
You can't just start selling music and sending checks to the RIAA. I belive a few P2P networks tried this (Kazaa?). You must first get the rights to distribute the music.
A lawyer told me once that albums shouldn't say "Unauthorized copying is a violation of copyright laws" because it really isn't. Copying is fine, it's the distribution that gets one in trouble. That is why, until recently, CD's had warnings that included the name of the authorized distributor. This is also why it is so hard for the RIAA to go after decentralized P2P services; no one is making money and no one groupd is responsible for sharing the music.
Imagine you are sitting there craving some Jazz. You fire up iTunes play some Armstrong, but suddenly you want Ella Fitzgerald. Problem is Ella is only selling her music through Yahoo! because that is the deal Yahoo! made with the record companies. Now you've got to fire up Yahoo!'s player.
After a few songs you realize that it isn't Jazz you were interested in, it was Punk Rock all along. Of course you've got to fire up Real Player because you've purchased it through them. After a few Racid songs you want to listen to some Motörhead... back to iTunes. Wait! After firing up iTunes you realize that it was Yahoo! that sold you the Motörhead tracks.
Or... was it Napster? After waiting for that to load, and then searching you find it. Finally Motörhead is coming through the speakers.
The problem above is caused by a few things. First, you can't buy every type of music in any one store. Some albums, usually soundtracks, don't have all the songs available on your favorite music store. The soundtrack for "A Bronx Tale" is a good example on iTunes. Last I checked, there was only two songs available for purchase because of licensing issues. (Which encouraged me to "steal" the song I wanted instead of buying it) The second problem is that different services offer different prices and have different promotions. What is 99 cents on iTunes may be 88 cents on Rhapsody. It may just make sense to get some songs from iTunes and some from Napster and some from Yahoo! and even some from Wal-Mart. Now, this is usually a good thing, competition and all. But it's making the industry too fragmented.
If we are going to purchase music there needs to be a way to export/import to other DRM schemes. I'm all for online music stores but it seems that being locked into one choice isn't going to work for most people. These companies need to get together and work on one standard - or risk losing everyone to piracy again.
Then again, you can just burn the music to a CD and then rip it to mp3 (or ogg et. al.). But that is what got everyone in this mess in the first place, isn't it?
Really, why is the headline "Does Google Censor Chinese News?"
Shouldn't it read: "Does Google Censor Chinese Searches?"
Really, I don't think Google is censoring anything. If you want to find the articles, look elsewhere, use another search engine. Think about it, Google isn't a news organization. They aren't running around with a black marker.
And who cares? Sure democracies need free speech to work, but last I checked China wasn't. The fact that their government encourages censorship of this type says a lot about who is really to blame.
More needs to be done there. Should the headline read instead: "Is Google the Fucking U.N.?"
(And I actually liked a lot of AOL's features, seems to have bundled plenty of pay/'plus' services available on the Internet for their customers... oh well.)
A good idea would be to add articles to Pages needing attention if they are really needed (pages on authors for example). If they are biographies then add the bio stub to the end of the page. People often browse stubs looking for stuff to do.
(Author information can be found in most of their books too.)
But what I think will be interesting is the way the Bush campaign is going to shift ahead of the debates. Both Edwards and Kerry are quick with the tounge and smart men, it will be fun to watch the strategy shift in the GOP.
Seriously, and I'm not 'baiting here. Bush and Cheney have twisted a lot of what these two have said. Take the $87bln for Iraq. Their big line at the convention was that Kerry said he voted for it before he voted against it. Now, think about it. Isn't that how the congress works? You introduce a bill that I don't like, I say "nay" and we move on to something that we can hopefully agree on. Kerry was in favor of a bill that rolled back some tax cuts to fund the troops. Now, if everyone else had voted for his favored version it wouldn't be an issue. But it has become an issue and no one in the mainstream press has pointed out that many Republicans actually voted against the $87 billion before they voted for it.
These type of 'lies' or 'mistruths' aren't going to work when thrown in the face of Kerry and Edwards. It's easy to say this stuff behind their backs, hundreds of miles away but when all are on stage together we'll see what is really going to happen. I'll admit that I'm a Kerry supporter, but I've yet to see him tell a lie about Cheney and Bush. It doesn't have to be done, their records paint a bad enough picture.
But then again Cheney's lying takes the cake. Remember he said that Iraq had reconstituted their nuclear program on Meet the Press? Then when confronted about this he said that he never said that. The interviewer was shocked (and awed) at this, and IIRC, she had nothing to say in response.
For the things I'm interested in, Wikipedia tends to be the best thing to use.
This is where I agree and disagree.
Sure, Wikipedia can get you information on the stuff you're interested in.
The coolest thing is (IMHO) that you can find out about topics you never knew you had interests in. This is the cool thing about any wiki. The ability to link pages that have nothing to do with each other can open the reader's eyes to new topics.
I find myself browsing Wikipedia all day sometimes reading about things I care nothing about because it's cool to at least check it out.
Titbits imparted from this rap are that you should buy a copy of some software for every PC you use (fat fucking chance) and that every time you so much as think of warezing anything you are in fact going over to the programmer's house, kicking him repeatedly in the face, fucking his wife, drinking his beer, draining his bank account, keying his car and then burning his house down all for one floppy disk.
I don't be having the best grammar, or anything, but a simple edit here and there can really help.
Take for example a article about the city where I live. For most (or all) cities there are lists of famous people from that city. I noticed some obscure, but a few notable, people were left out. All I had to do was stick them in there with a few brackets around their names and Viola!
An easy way to get started is to look for stub articles and go from there. Many times the stub articles have related information already on Wikipedia. And many times the information can be gathered from the Internet and texts you already own. Grab a book of the shelf and write about the topic in your own words. See, you don't have to be the expert - people have already written volumes on most subjects.
Another way to get started with stub pages is to find a stub that has an official website. This article is a good example. Even biography stubs are good candidates for this considering most actors (for example) have their own web sites today. Earlier I noticed that Lou Rawls was a stub page. I simply put his official page as an "External Link" and listed it on "pages needing attention" with a note and link telling everyone that he has an official bio. While the page isn't beautiful at this point it is starting out.
One last way to start out is just by surfing around reading things your interested in. If you notice that "Star Wars" links to "Luke Skywalker" but not the other way around then you can fix that. If you notice a sentence misworded or a word spelled wrong you can fix that too.
I'd recommend creating a user name because this allows you to later on claim certain articles as your own. By this I mean; even though you aren't the expert now, you could be someday. Imagine adding that to your resume. "I've created 150 articles for the Internet's free encyclopedia project" or something to that effect. It can help explain what you've been doing between jobs. Looks like charity work almost.
Even input on Wikipedia's discussion pages can help. There are several articles that seemed weird or unclear to me and all I did was suggest another route. It's worked in a few cases. Sometimes editors just need another point of view.
Why would you want IE developers? Because they are some of the originals, oh wait.
From IE 6's about box:
Based on NCSA Mosaic. NCSA Mosaic(TM); was developed at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Distributed under a licensing agreement with Spyglass, Inc. Contains security software licensed from RSA Data Security Inc. Portions of this software are based in part on the work of the Independent JPEG Group. Multimedia software components, including Indeo(R); video, Indeo(R) audio, and Web Design Effects are provided by Intel Corp. Unix version contains software licensed from Mainsoft Corporation. Copyright (c) 1998-1999 Mainsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Mainsoft is a trademark of Mainsoft Corporation
Looks like Microsoft owes more to the other developers than themselves. Just like MS-DOS, (MS) BASIC, Windows NT (think VMS), HoTMaiL....
Seems that Microsoft is good at buying companies and taking their code (Bungie?) or licensing it from someone and putting them out of the business of developing it on their own. Sure, getting a royalty check is fun, but your baby belongs to Bill now.
I got a gmail account, and didn't use it for a while, thinking it was just another webmail service. After using it for a few things, I quickly found that they made some very useful innovations. If they make the rest of thier products as useful as gmail, I'll use everything thats branded by Google.
True, true. Gmail does have many things that other "web mail" services do not, but one thing shocked me... their search isn't great.
The interface works like a charm (despite not being able to open mail in another tab!) but the search has failed me a few times. For example, I had an e-mail that had a few names in it. Searching one of the peoples names gave me 0 results. When I searched for "John" (another name) I actually saw the message with the other names. I tested it with capitalized names, without caps, and even shorter spellings. No results, and I'm looking at one of the messages with the persons name in the from column in my Inbox.
Beyond that it's great. Labels are good, the (Windows) notifier is awsome, stars are cool, quick replies, all good.
Another problem I have is, the page never stops loading. And even though my account is at 50 MB, I still see "0% used". Great job math geniuses!
(BTW: What Google should do is create a desktop/web spell checker. In Firefox it's so easy to CTRL+T, TAB, Type/Paste a word that I almost spell every word right now!)
Slashdot Mirror
I think what you are trying to say is that Yahoo has made a deal with the RIAA for (re)distribution rights.
It's not copyright that we are talking about, it's distribution. Copyright tells me that I can't take your song, in it's exact form, in any part, and use it commercially. When it comes to giving it away, you are violating the (almost) exclusive distribution rights given to certain parties.
You can't just start selling music and sending checks to the RIAA. I belive a few P2P networks tried this (Kazaa?). You must first get the rights to distribute the music.
A lawyer told me once that albums shouldn't say "Unauthorized copying is a violation of copyright laws" because it really isn't. Copying is fine, it's the distribution that gets one in trouble. That is why, until recently, CD's had warnings that included the name of the authorized distributor. This is also why it is so hard for the RIAA to go after decentralized P2P services; no one is making money and no one groupd is responsible for sharing the music.
I could be wrong, I usually am at 8:30 AM.
You've got a good point.
Imagine you are sitting there craving some Jazz. You fire up iTunes play some Armstrong, but suddenly you want Ella Fitzgerald. Problem is Ella is only selling her music through Yahoo! because that is the deal Yahoo! made with the record companies. Now you've got to fire up Yahoo!'s player.
After a few songs you realize that it isn't Jazz you were interested in, it was Punk Rock all along. Of course you've got to fire up Real Player because you've purchased it through them. After a few Racid songs you want to listen to some Motörhead... back to iTunes. Wait! After firing up iTunes you realize that it was Yahoo! that sold you the Motörhead tracks.
Or... was it Napster? After waiting for that to load, and then searching you find it. Finally Motörhead is coming through the speakers.
The problem above is caused by a few things. First, you can't buy every type of music in any one store. Some albums, usually soundtracks, don't have all the songs available on your favorite music store. The soundtrack for "A Bronx Tale" is a good example on iTunes. Last I checked, there was only two songs available for purchase because of licensing issues. (Which encouraged me to "steal" the song I wanted instead of buying it) The second problem is that different services offer different prices and have different promotions. What is 99 cents on iTunes may be 88 cents on Rhapsody. It may just make sense to get some songs from iTunes and some from Napster and some from Yahoo! and even some from Wal-Mart. Now, this is usually a good thing, competition and all. But it's making the industry too fragmented.
If we are going to purchase music there needs to be a way to export/import to other DRM schemes. I'm all for online music stores but it seems that being locked into one choice isn't going to work for most people. These companies need to get together and work on one standard - or risk losing everyone to piracy again.
Then again, you can just burn the music to a CD and then rip it to mp3 (or ogg et. al.). But that is what got everyone in this mess in the first place, isn't it?
Its just regional variations. In the Middle East you get links to Al Jazeera, you'll never see that searching on gnews from the USA.
Not true.
I live in the USA and many times I get stories from Al Jazeera in my Google news searches.
Now that you bring it up, I also get a lot of Chinese (Xinhua for example) results from time to time as well.
Really, why is the headline "Does Google Censor Chinese News?"
Shouldn't it read: "Does Google Censor Chinese Searches?"
Really, I don't think Google is censoring anything. If you want to find the articles, look elsewhere, use another search engine. Think about it, Google isn't a news organization. They aren't running around with a black marker.
And who cares? Sure democracies need free speech to work, but last I checked China wasn't. The fact that their government encourages censorship of this type says a lot about who is really to blame.
More needs to be done there. Should the headline read instead: "Is Google the Fucking U.N.?"
What do you do in your spare time?
Masterbation contributes to no one but yourself.
Hey, I was actually being serious.
(And I actually liked a lot of AOL's features, seems to have bundled plenty of pay/'plus' services available on the Internet for their customers... oh well.)
What happens if I lose my SecurID?
Seriously. If I set my password to "password" and someone picks this up then I'm screwed, right?
To get a free iPod of course!
No joke, a free AOL trial has got me one step closer.
From the article:
(sadly, Greedo still shoots first on the DVD of "A New Hope")
Damn you Slashdot!
My hopes were up for nothing, why should I buy this now?
A good idea would be to add articles to Pages needing attention if they are really needed (pages on authors for example). If they are biographies then add the bio stub to the end of the page. People often browse stubs looking for stuff to do.
(Author information can be found in most of their books too.)
In my dreams and prayers he'll be a normal citizen and have to watch from the sidelines.
Not really trolling, just saying that there is a chance that he (Bush) won't be in office when this happens
You forgot: Osama Bin Ladin (mujahideen) fighting the Soviets with money granted to him by George H. W. Bush.
Because this is Slashdot! No one reads the article!
I thought that Slashdot was here so I didn't have to read the articles....
Sure, I'm aware that Gmail is in 'bata' stage but their success is based on their awsome algorithms, right?
But with the pages always loading, it's new and I don't mind.
You've got some good points.
But what I think will be interesting is the way the Bush campaign is going to shift ahead of the debates. Both Edwards and Kerry are quick with the tounge and smart men, it will be fun to watch the strategy shift in the GOP.
Seriously, and I'm not 'baiting here. Bush and Cheney have twisted a lot of what these two have said. Take the $87bln for Iraq. Their big line at the convention was that Kerry said he voted for it before he voted against it. Now, think about it. Isn't that how the congress works? You introduce a bill that I don't like, I say "nay" and we move on to something that we can hopefully agree on. Kerry was in favor of a bill that rolled back some tax cuts to fund the troops. Now, if everyone else had voted for his favored version it wouldn't be an issue. But it has become an issue and no one in the mainstream press has pointed out that many Republicans actually voted against the $87 billion before they voted for it.
These type of 'lies' or 'mistruths' aren't going to work when thrown in the face of Kerry and Edwards. It's easy to say this stuff behind their backs, hundreds of miles away but when all are on stage together we'll see what is really going to happen. I'll admit that I'm a Kerry supporter, but I've yet to see him tell a lie about Cheney and Bush. It doesn't have to be done, their records paint a bad enough picture.
But then again Cheney's lying takes the cake. Remember he said that Iraq had reconstituted their nuclear program on Meet the Press? Then when confronted about this he said that he never said that. The interviewer was shocked (and awed) at this, and IIRC, she had nothing to say in response.
This is where I agree and disagree.
Sure, Wikipedia can get you information on the stuff you're interested in.
The coolest thing is (IMHO) that you can find out about topics you never knew you had interests in. This is the cool thing about any wiki. The ability to link pages that have nothing to do with each other can open the reader's eyes to new topics.
I find myself browsing Wikipedia all day sometimes reading about things I care nothing about because it's cool to at least check it out.
Don't you mean Bush is misunderestimated ?
I've got a huge project to finish so that I can graduate from college so it'll be sparse for now. Basically, a liberal blog (imagine that).
I've read Keyboard and Sickle, and I'm almost sure I've linked to it... although I don't know when.
My favorite post is the one "Don't Copy That Floppy". Best part:
I've contributed, but it's easy.
I don't be having the best grammar, or anything, but a simple edit here and there can really help.
Take for example a article about the city where I live. For most (or all) cities there are lists of famous people from that city. I noticed some obscure, but a few notable, people were left out. All I had to do was stick them in there with a few brackets around their names and Viola!
An easy way to get started is to look for stub articles and go from there. Many times the stub articles have related information already on Wikipedia. And many times the information can be gathered from the Internet and texts you already own. Grab a book of the shelf and write about the topic in your own words. See, you don't have to be the expert - people have already written volumes on most subjects.
Another way to get started with stub pages is to find a stub that has an official website. This article is a good example. Even biography stubs are good candidates for this considering most actors (for example) have their own web sites today. Earlier I noticed that Lou Rawls was a stub page. I simply put his official page as an "External Link" and listed it on "pages needing attention" with a note and link telling everyone that he has an official bio. While the page isn't beautiful at this point it is starting out.
One last way to start out is just by surfing around reading things your interested in. If you notice that "Star Wars" links to "Luke Skywalker" but not the other way around then you can fix that. If you notice a sentence misworded or a word spelled wrong you can fix that too.
I'd recommend creating a user name because this allows you to later on claim certain articles as your own. By this I mean; even though you aren't the expert now, you could be someday. Imagine adding that to your resume. "I've created 150 articles for the Internet's free encyclopedia project" or something to that effect. It can help explain what you've been doing between jobs. Looks like charity work almost.
Even input on Wikipedia's discussion pages can help. There are several articles that seemed weird or unclear to me and all I did was suggest another route. It's worked in a few cases. Sometimes editors just need another point of view.
What is the millionth article?
Doesn't matter, it's a stub.
(Seriously though, I tried finding this myself... the only thing I could find was New pages on wikipedia)
Will it use pigeons to display web content?
I'm using something similar right now to get on the Internet, it's not that bad.
From IE 6's about box:Looks like Microsoft owes more to the other developers than themselves. Just like MS-DOS, (MS) BASIC, Windows NT (think VMS), HoTMaiL....
Seems that Microsoft is good at buying companies and taking their code (Bungie?) or licensing it from someone and putting them out of the business of developing it on their own. Sure, getting a royalty check is fun, but your baby belongs to Bill now.
Because a search for "Browser" will result in:
Gbrowser - Home of the Google Web Browser...
advanced searchGmail client, Google News, and...
www.gbrowser.com/ - 1k - Cached - Similar pages
adbar for Firefox: Opera's least popular feature comes to Firefox!
The authors page no less.
Funniest part of the page:
I got a gmail account, and didn't use it for a while, thinking it was just another webmail service. After using it for a few things, I quickly found that they made some very useful innovations. If they make the rest of thier products as useful as gmail, I'll use everything thats branded by Google.
True, true. Gmail does have many things that other "web mail" services do not, but one thing shocked me... their search isn't great.
The interface works like a charm (despite not being able to open mail in another tab!) but the search has failed me a few times. For example, I had an e-mail that had a few names in it. Searching one of the peoples names gave me 0 results. When I searched for "John" (another name) I actually saw the message with the other names. I tested it with capitalized names, without caps, and even shorter spellings. No results, and I'm looking at one of the messages with the persons name in the from column in my Inbox.
Beyond that it's great. Labels are good, the (Windows) notifier is awsome, stars are cool, quick replies, all good.
Another problem I have is, the page never stops loading. And even though my account is at 50 MB, I still see "0% used". Great job math geniuses!
(BTW: What Google should do is create a desktop/web spell checker. In Firefox it's so easy to CTRL+T, TAB, Type/Paste a word that I almost spell every word right now!)