interesting.... maybe a honeypot for riaa? my voice, recorded over and over again, saying "What the fuck do you think your doing?" and published to the web as actual songs... then when they send me letters over and over again, I sue for harassment and undue mental stress... then change the server ip/name and start all over again...
It's not the same... good attempt, but not the same...
Let's say your website information gets cached from an authorized users request... and I access the cache. I didn't go into your house to get the data, what do you have to say then? What if google cache's your content? I grabbed it off of google, what do you have then?
Fact is, your house you can shut the door, your house you can lock the door, the correct analogy would be on your server you could password protect your stuff... sure, people can get around the password, as people can open your door or pick your locks, but you had a reasonable sense of protecting your privacy, belongings, and information... when you leave it out there for anyone, you don't reasonably try to protect it... if you don't reasonably try to protect your privacy, your stuff, then you can't reasonably expect others to consider it private and protected, can you?
Well, you haven't blunted my argument so much as recognize a major industry shortcoming. I'm old enough -- barely -- to remember when albums weren't filler. Granted, there would be songs that were better than others but the record wasn't a carrier for one song. I don't, therefore, see buying a custom CD with 12 good songs as being any more than "par for the course."
I fail to see how the diversity of the music on an album by an artist could have changed over time. As far as I can remember, artists have, and will, put music to their liking along with their required popular music... atleast if they want the album to sell.
There are albums that recently came out that I would say are "no filler"... one or two popular songs but I liked the whole CD, and their are CD's that come out that I think are one good song and rest filler, but the girl next door would not agree, she loves the whole CD. The filler, therefore, is not so much something that the record company intentionally puts out as it is a result of what the consumer likes... Again, filler to me may not be filler to the neighbor.
So, back to your argument, I would say you're tastes haven't changed over time, and therefore your seeing more and more "filler". In any case, are you still purchasing those old "no-filler" albums that you like? If so, those might be a bargain purchasing as a published album.
You're right -- that doesn't sound too bad, it sounds terrible! The music industry has just eliminated all shipping, storage, storefronts and sales personnel and the price is still $12 for a 12-song CD?
The difference between one of these CD's and one you purchase in a store is that the one you assemble would presumably not have any filler that you don't like. You would get 12 songs that you enjoy for $12 rather than having to buy approximately 6 discs at $12/each to get two good tracks off of each one... which is the better deal?
The radio companies aren't stupid... they know they put out filler. Most people don't do the math and figure they just paid $12 for a CD for that ONE song that they liked... thus paying $12 for that ONE song...
I can purchase songs at 30c/each AND
Again, your pricing off the filler... think about just getting the "quality" songs that you personally enjoy... none of the B.S.... the songs are worth more then, no?
the ability to get a partial refund -- say, 90% -- for songs that I download but don't enjoy. So lets say that I download 200 songs in a given month and I decide a third of those (65) of those are worth keeping. I'd pay $19.50 for the ones I keep and another $4.95 for the ones I "returned." Frankly, I'm not going to bother spending 10 minutes of my life tracking down that song I just returned to them on Kazzaa to save 30c.
Go to amazon or any one of the millions of sites out there that offers previews... just preview the song there. And if you're going to argue that point, why pay ANYTHING for a song you don't want?
Yes, I figure that it is free, and so do the millions of people that have bought a Dell, Compaq, HP over the past few years. Like it or not, MS Windows is a given when you buy.
Windows is a given, *included*, when you buy. Ignorance to the fact that you are paying for it still doesn't make it free. Those $199 Walmart PC's with linux are that cheap in part because you're not paying for windows.
I think that is pretty presumptious statement. I am not making any claims as to what I or anyone else does
Not presumptious, If you copy it off your buddy, then you're a thief. And you did make the claim that other people got their MS OS, in part, by copying from a buddy when you said "People got the OS because It is either packed into the PC they bought or they got it from a buddy whose PC came packed in with it (copy protection was non-existant before Windows XP)."
can you really say with a straight face that Microsoft did not benefit from the fact that it was so damn easy to take a buddy's CD and install Windows onto your machine? It allowed them to penetrate into the market and get the OS on as many desktops as possible.
I'm not arguing their tactic, I'm arguing against your claim that MS Windows is *free*, and your position that stealing it makes it free, like linux. Or that it's *free* because it comes with your PC and you don't see the price. If you had the choice, if MS didn't wrangle the market, you would see two pricing options, with and without an MS OS... then you will no longer say it's free.
But you are not free to install the thousands of appplications out there, because NOBODY runs Linux, and very little commercial software is written for it because of this fact.
It's a cycle. However, what do you do day to day that you can't do on Linux? Omit all the examples of particular software packages that you learned specifically on the MS platform because that was the platform you learned on, and tell me what you can't do on Linux?
If my grandma bought her EMachine with Linux installed complete with an Linux version of AOL, she would be using that instead.
Sure, your grandma buys an eMachine, it has windows, that's what she uses. If it has linux, that's what she uses. You're argument, then, isn't that MS is dominant because it's free, but rather because it's preinstalled, and that I agree with. However, among the people that know of linux, among the people that have been informed of all Linux's glorious attributes, most of them will switch back to Windows because Linux is not user friendly. Not that windows is, but it's more known, and anyone can point and click their way into percieved productivity. That's where linux is losing the battle.
Once we win on that front (as far as the desktop market is concerned) then demand will drive the market, and companies like Dell and HP will have to react, in the fury of MS, and provide Linux PC's, side by side with their MS PC's, with the difference in pricing clearly shown.
People don't realize that MS Windows has been "free" for years. I am sure that MS did this intentionally, but how many people have actually gone to the store and paid for a copy of any flavor of Windows since Windows 98 came out? People got the OS because It is either packed into the PC they bought or they got it from a buddy whose PC came packed in with it (copy protection was non-existant before Windows XP).
If you got the OS packed with the PC you purchased, the cost was well figured in... you didn't see the exact price so you figure it's free, huh?
If you got it off a buddy, you're a thief... you don't see the cost that is being passed onto people who actually pay for their software because of theives.
When you buy a new Dell, WinXP Home is a default option that adds little to the final price to the PC. This is why Linux is facing an uphill battle. It has nothing to do with Interfaces, command lines , or GUIs.
It's not a *little* cost, and it's not an *option*... you pay for it, whether you take the OS or not. With linux, you don't have to pay for it, you have an *option* and you are *free* to compute how you feel.
Linux is facing an uphill battle because it's not as easy for the average joe to operate. If you think for a second that people are selecting Windows willingly because it costs more and is harder to use, but hey, it's included, I think you'll find you're mistaken.
>> I can see it now "Honey, why is a naked picture of Anna Kournikova set as the screensaver?"
Uh, those damn hackers! They musta hacked our phone! Who would do such a thing? I only have eye's for you honey... yeah... that's it!
Re:Price is too high, I can build one cheaper!
on
Linux Based IP Videophone
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
A cheaper video phone that comes in a crate? Who the hell wants one of those sitting on their desk next to their computer??
>> I guess this product is for non technical people.
and those with small desks, and those with a sense of design flow, and those who don't need a desktop PC as their MP3 player, and those who don't need a desktop PC for a wallclock, and those who don't need a desktop PC for their DVD player, and those...
... me bringing the gameboy back into the meeting room. After last time, I don't think the fact that it can do PDA functions is going to keep him from flying off the handle.
I'll just have to stick with playing games on my PDA... he think's I'm sooo productive then.
I encrypt all my important save files, then rename them into modern pop culture hit songs.
I distribute them onto Kazaa... my taxes are floating around as "Oops, I did it again - Britney Spears - 3:28", that big report I did for work, floating around as "Lose Yourself - Eminem - 8 Mile Soundtrack - 01"... It's not hard to recover them, as people all over the place have copies of my "songs" up there on their servers right next to the RIAA hacked version of Limp Bizkit's latest...
Then I just keep a sheet about what name equals what file/version...
LOL... kinda makes me wonder about our 'war on drugs'... look how many people we're putting out of work! Can we afford to do that in this time of economic uncertainty?
Its not that we don't have any other way of playing music, but rather that iTunes is a very mature, very usable MP3 catalog/player. It does everything that most of us need and then some. And, like the rest of the iFamily, it comes free with OS X.
Re:"or more often during heavy traffic"
on
Cryptome Log Subpoenaed
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
If you've been served with a subpoena for documents, you can't destroy them, even if your policy is to dispose of them (I have another post around here that doesn't make that clear, so there you have it). So, yes, you are legally liable for obstruction of justice if you don't stop the cronjob.
What would be the stance if they didn't actually generate the logs at all? Say, hypo, they redirected all logs to/dev/null initially. Then get served with the subpoena for the logs.. would they be obligated to start collecting logs? Or would the fact that they just don't collect them render the subpoena useless?
Note the difference between "collecting and deleting" vs. "not collecting at all"...
Slashdot Mirror
yeh, i'll just denote it somewhere on the file, by a special method or something...
in any case, i don't condone music theft, so what do i care if people waste time in my war? minor collatoral damage.
really? don't player hate?
interesting.... maybe a honeypot for riaa? my voice, recorded over and over again, saying "What the fuck do you think your doing?" and published to the web as actual songs... then when they send me letters over and over again, I sue for harassment and undue mental stress... then change the server ip/name and start all over again...
It's so brilliant.
er... and oh yeah:
(3) profit.
Don't player hate... someone out there making some money off an industry/company with lots of it? Jelous?
I'm a code monkey... there's just no way around it...
It's not the same... good attempt, but not the same...
Let's say your website information gets cached from an authorized users request... and I access the cache. I didn't go into your house to get the data, what do you have to say then? What if google cache's your content? I grabbed it off of google, what do you have then?
Fact is, your house you can shut the door, your house you can lock the door, the correct analogy would be on your server you could password protect your stuff... sure, people can get around the password, as people can open your door or pick your locks, but you had a reasonable sense of protecting your privacy, belongings, and information... when you leave it out there for anyone, you don't reasonably try to protect it... if you don't reasonably try to protect your privacy, your stuff, then you can't reasonably expect others to consider it private and protected, can you?
That's why it's public...
As bacteria break the manure down, they give off gas -- mostly methane, which collects under the tank cover.
What happens when they smoke out by the ez-bake shit oven? I can see the headlines now...
Well, you haven't blunted my argument so much as recognize a major industry shortcoming. I'm old enough -- barely -- to remember when albums weren't filler. Granted, there would be songs that were better than others but the record wasn't a carrier for one song. I don't, therefore, see buying a custom CD with 12 good songs as being any more than "par for the course."
I fail to see how the diversity of the music on an album by an artist could have changed over time. As far as I can remember, artists have, and will, put music to their liking along with their required popular music... atleast if they want the album to sell.
There are albums that recently came out that I would say are "no filler"... one or two popular songs but I liked the whole CD, and their are CD's that come out that I think are one good song and rest filler, but the girl next door would not agree, she loves the whole CD. The filler, therefore, is not so much something that the record company intentionally puts out as it is a result of what the consumer likes... Again, filler to me may not be filler to the neighbor.
So, back to your argument, I would say you're tastes haven't changed over time, and therefore your seeing more and more "filler". In any case, are you still purchasing those old "no-filler" albums that you like? If so, those might be a bargain purchasing as a published album.
Those idiots bombed with the iPod and now they'll repeat that disaster.
"bombed with the ipod"... you're kidding right?
You're right -- that doesn't sound too bad, it sounds terrible! The music industry has just eliminated all shipping, storage, storefronts and sales personnel and the price is still $12 for a 12-song CD?
The difference between one of these CD's and one you purchase in a store is that the one you assemble would presumably not have any filler that you don't like. You would get 12 songs that you enjoy for $12 rather than having to buy approximately 6 discs at $12/each to get two good tracks off of each one... which is the better deal?
The radio companies aren't stupid... they know they put out filler. Most people don't do the math and figure they just paid $12 for a CD for that ONE song that they liked... thus paying $12 for that ONE song...
I can purchase songs at 30c/each AND
Again, your pricing off the filler... think about just getting the "quality" songs that you personally enjoy... none of the B.S.... the songs are worth more then, no?
the ability to get a partial refund -- say, 90% -- for songs that I download but don't enjoy. So lets say that I download 200 songs in a given month and I decide a third of those (65) of those are worth keeping. I'd pay $19.50 for the ones I keep and another $4.95 for the ones I "returned." Frankly, I'm not going to bother spending 10 minutes of my life tracking down that song I just returned to them on Kazzaa to save 30c.
Go to amazon or any one of the millions of sites out there that offers previews... just preview the song there. And if you're going to argue that point, why pay ANYTHING for a song you don't want?
What? Is .99 a song not paying for it?
Should universities be responsible for tracking down illegal sharing on their networks? Will ISPs be next?
Self policing, what a policy... turn the people on themselves... "Everyone's responsible to report and turn in the Jews^H^H^H^HCriminals!"
This is the kind of shit that scares me about the DMCA...
about this internet thingy... now...
1> Start a site, call it slashdot, post repetitive stories about the same thing over and over again... people will bitch, but they'll keep coming back
2> Start another site, call it yahoo, offer a bunch of stuff for free, and have a huge index of all the other cool sites that you thought of first...
3> register business.com
4> buy aol stock... that little bbs out of virginia has something with those fancy graphics and all...
5> Don't marry that first chick...
...he pissed off Gore in the last election... he could use some input from the inventor of the internet.
Hit em with all we've got... these fat pipes we have... then they unplug their internet connection...
In the real world, this would be the equivelant of all their troops, tanks, and missles just 'disappearing' off the face of the earth...
Doesn't sound all that great to me...
Yes, I figure that it is free, and so do the millions of people that have bought a Dell, Compaq, HP over the past few years. Like it or not, MS Windows is a given when you buy.
Windows is a given, *included*, when you buy. Ignorance to the fact that you are paying for it still doesn't make it free. Those $199 Walmart PC's with linux are that cheap in part because you're not paying for windows.
I think that is pretty presumptious statement. I am not making any claims as to what I or anyone else does
Not presumptious, If you copy it off your buddy, then you're a thief. And you did make the claim that other people got their MS OS, in part, by copying from a buddy when you said "People got the OS because It is either packed into the PC they bought or they got it from a buddy whose PC came packed in with it (copy protection was non-existant before Windows XP)."
can you really say with a straight face that Microsoft did not benefit from the fact that it was so damn easy to take a buddy's CD and install Windows onto your machine? It allowed them to penetrate into the market and get the OS on as many desktops as possible.
I'm not arguing their tactic, I'm arguing against your claim that MS Windows is *free*, and your position that stealing it makes it free, like linux. Or that it's *free* because it comes with your PC and you don't see the price. If you had the choice, if MS didn't wrangle the market, you would see two pricing options, with and without an MS OS... then you will no longer say it's free.
But you are not free to install the thousands of appplications out there, because NOBODY runs Linux, and very little commercial software is written for it because of this fact.
It's a cycle. However, what do you do day to day that you can't do on Linux? Omit all the examples of particular software packages that you learned specifically on the MS platform because that was the platform you learned on, and tell me what you can't do on Linux?
If my grandma bought her EMachine with Linux installed complete with an Linux version of AOL, she would be using that instead.
Sure, your grandma buys an eMachine, it has windows, that's what she uses. If it has linux, that's what she uses. You're argument, then, isn't that MS is dominant because it's free, but rather because it's preinstalled, and that I agree with. However, among the people that know of linux, among the people that have been informed of all Linux's glorious attributes, most of them will switch back to Windows because Linux is not user friendly. Not that windows is, but it's more known, and anyone can point and click their way into percieved productivity. That's where linux is losing the battle.
Once we win on that front (as far as the desktop market is concerned) then demand will drive the market, and companies like Dell and HP will have to react, in the fury of MS, and provide Linux PC's, side by side with their MS PC's, with the difference in pricing clearly shown.
People don't realize that MS Windows has been "free" for years. I am sure that MS did this intentionally, but how many people have actually gone to the store and paid for a copy of any flavor of Windows since Windows 98 came out? People got the OS because It is either packed into the PC they bought or they got it from a buddy whose PC came packed in with it (copy protection was non-existant before Windows XP).
If you got the OS packed with the PC you purchased, the cost was well figured in... you didn't see the exact price so you figure it's free, huh?
If you got it off a buddy, you're a thief... you don't see the cost that is being passed onto people who actually pay for their software because of theives.
When you buy a new Dell, WinXP Home is a default option that adds little to the final price to the PC. This is why Linux is facing an uphill battle. It has nothing to do with Interfaces, command lines , or GUIs.
It's not a *little* cost, and it's not an *option*... you pay for it, whether you take the OS or not. With linux, you don't have to pay for it, you have an *option* and you are *free* to compute how you feel.
Linux is facing an uphill battle because it's not as easy for the average joe to operate. If you think for a second that people are selecting Windows willingly because it costs more and is harder to use, but hey, it's included, I think you'll find you're mistaken.
>> I can see it now "Honey, why is a naked picture of Anna Kournikova set as the screensaver?"
Uh, those damn hackers! They musta hacked our phone! Who would do such a thing? I only have eye's for you honey... yeah... that's it!
A cheaper video phone that comes in a crate? Who the hell wants one of those sitting on their desk next to their computer??
>> I guess this product is for non technical people.
and those with small desks, and those with a sense of design flow, and those who don't need a desktop PC as their MP3 player, and those who don't need a desktop PC for a wallclock, and those who don't need a desktop PC for their DVD player, and those...
... me bringing the gameboy back into the meeting room. After last time, I don't think the fact that it can do PDA functions is going to keep him from flying off the handle.
I'll just have to stick with playing games on my PDA... he think's I'm sooo productive then.
I encrypt all my important save files, then rename them into modern pop culture hit songs.
I distribute them onto Kazaa... my taxes are floating around as "Oops, I did it again - Britney Spears - 3:28", that big report I did for work, floating around as "Lose Yourself - Eminem - 8 Mile Soundtrack - 01"... It's not hard to recover them, as people all over the place have copies of my "songs" up there on their servers right next to the RIAA hacked version of Limp Bizkit's latest...
Then I just keep a sheet about what name equals what file/version...
LOL... kinda makes me wonder about our 'war on drugs'... look how many people we're putting out of work! Can we afford to do that in this time of economic uncertainty?
Its not that we don't have any other way of playing music, but rather that iTunes is a very mature, very usable MP3 catalog/player. It does everything that most of us need and then some. And, like the rest of the iFamily, it comes free with OS X.
If you've been served with a subpoena for documents, you can't destroy them, even if your policy is to dispose of them (I have another post around here that doesn't make that clear, so there you have it). So, yes, you are legally liable for obstruction of justice if you don't stop the cronjob.
/dev/null initially. Then get served with the subpoena for the logs.. would they be obligated to start collecting logs? Or would the fact that they just don't collect them render the subpoena useless?
What would be the stance if they didn't actually generate the logs at all? Say, hypo, they redirected all logs to
Note the difference between "collecting and deleting" vs. "not collecting at all"...
interesting...