I'm sorry, man, but that's just a load of shit. I have stopped counting the times that I've had to reboot my Jaguar workstation in the school's art lab after it failed to handle some bizarre error in Classic environment. It just gets worse with every release; you'd think that they'd want to provide something decent, considering that major apps like Quark still don't exist as OS X-native code.
I'm sorry, man, but that's just a load of shit... too. Apple has been very clear about the future of Classic - there will be very little improvement of the environment. Now, Quark is a special case (and I think you know that), but most apps work reasonably well under Classic. I used Photoshop 5.5 in Classic until 7 was released, and although it's not ideal (startup of Classic was an exercise in patience), it works. That was the typical experience I had with Classic apps.
The only time I ever have to reboot my Jag boxen is after a software update that requires reboot. (Dare I say it here?) My Macs are every bit as stable as my Linux boxen. Based on comments I've seen here and elsewhere, I doubt that that my experience with Jag is unique. It's a helluva bit more than a 'marginal gain in stability'.
I think it's horribly unfair to characterize that fact that Quark isn't native yet as somehow being Apple's fault. Quark are dragging their feet and are, in my opinion, solely responsible for the fact that they're not expected to have X native code any time soon. There was a bit of discussion about Quark over on macosx.com a little while back. The interesting thing is that "In a Macworld Online readers poll, 91 per cent of respondees said they are either considering an alternative to QuarkXPress or have already switched." The feeling I get from all of this is that the only reason that Quark hasn't switched to native is that they feel they don't have to. Their market position in DTP seems similar to Microsoft's in Desktop OS.
No. The electricity used is not the issue within a company. The machines are on 24x7 anyway; the business has alreay accepted that cost of doing business.
What many businesses do not accept is the security and liability implications of running outside, unapproved code on their machines, expecially production boxen. "Who supports it when it crashes?", "What assurance do we have that it's not a trojan, gathering data?", "Why should we pay for their IT needs?" - these are just a few of the questions that a reasonably intellegent IT manager should/would be asking.
Of course, after all that, there's still the argument that "They're our machines, not yours. That's why." There's no easy way to answer that one and win.
Maybe. I'm pretty sure the NiCad will suffer damage after a number of those kinds of cycles. Shorting the contacts, in particular, will do awful things to most battery technologies. For real high drain, though, lead-acid is the way to go. That's part of the reason they're used in cars. The starter motor in a car presents a huge, short, high drain every time the car is started. Even NiMH and Lion can deal with moderatly high drains, making their use in laptops, cameras, and other similar applications preferable to NiCad.
At any rate, the issue was with optical cordless mice. I don't count those to be nearly as high-drain as, say, a laptop, but they do seem to require certain voltage characteristics, and NiCad seemed an odd and inappropriate choice for that. A flashlight, maybe, but a mouse requires something more.
And you can't use rechargables, because these bad boys need the full 1.7 volts from those Alkaline cells -- the 1.3 from NiCd just won't cut it.
NiCad? What is this, 1982?? Try high-output NiMH instead. I've got a couple of sets for my digicam (which will destroy a set of alkalines faster than it takes to fill a CF card), and they're great. See Steve's digicams for a rundown of what's out there.
Personally, I find.pdf files a pain - they are memory intensive and usually the machine I am working on doesn't have Acrobat loaded on it (already noted here).
Of course they're memory-intensive. Or, at least, they can be. But, so what? I've never encountered an issue with that, even on relatively aneamic machines. That's what virtual memory is for.
And, just because you're too lazy to download the free viewer (no registration required!), doesn't make Adobe bad for not making it easier for you.
If MS can make this a simpler and more ubiquitous process, then so be it.... Adobe has a hell of lot more going for it than Acrobat - why didn't they just sell it to MS for a profit and be done with it? Adobe makes money and their Acrobat becomes a defacto standard.
Sorry, but I fail to see the lack of simplicity and ubiquity that you cite here. The only major desktop platform that doesn't include a way to view PDFs out of the box is Windows. MacOSX ships with both the Acrobat Reader and an applet called Preview that renders PDFs just fine too. Many of the Linux distro's ship with either XPdf, Acrobat Reader, or other tools to manage PDFs as well. For Windows, and every other platform out there, from PalmOS to Solaris, there's the free download of the client.
Adobe would be insane to sell Acrobat to MS or anyone else at this point. The've got a pretty solid document and image management suite (although it's not bundled that way). Loosing Acrobat would weaken that. If MS was at the helm, the only way to create PDFs would be to purchase the entire Office suite. And I guarantee that there would not be a Linux or PalmOS reader for the docs.
Besides, in case you hadn't noticed, PDF is already a defacto standard.
FWIW, I did see massive problems. I had done a Google search for mountain bikes, and only 1 in 5 sites would resolve. I popped open a terminal window to cross-check some of the failing queries against a different nameserver, and nslookup/dig would hang or timeout on the ones that Mozilla had a problem with. Very annoying, to say the least.
Twenty minutes later, though, everything seemed fine, and the sites that wouldn't resolve earlier finally did. I wondered if something... erm.. unusual was going on, and it looks like there was...
Maybe not fragmentation, but certainly we're seeing the same kind of thing you describe. We're just now seeing a migration onto Win2K for our Wintel servers, but the desktops are largely still NT4 -- with no immediate plans to upgrade... to anything. I've got XPpro on my work desktop, 'cos if I gotta run Windows, I might as well (Volume license edition doesn't require activation, BTW)... We still have quite a few Solaris 2.6 machines, even a couple of 2.51 boxen. There is a bit of pressure to get these to 2.8, but then, of course, Solaris 9 is shipping.
I don't think this kind of upgrade lag is at all unusual.
Mine is missing as well. Any lawyers here know whether or not we can call shenanigans on this? If mine (and others) have already been noted as missing, how many others are missing that nobody has noticed? I know, it may be impossible to work that out. And I know that none of this seems to make one bit of difference to the DOJ. But I find it more than slightly disturbing that even though I sent my comments in plenty of time (>48 hours before cutoff), my voice will not be counted among the thousands that did make it through.
My only hope is that it is part of the official record that the judge (or her lackeys) will be using, and that the version published to the web is incomplete. But my hopes are not real high right now...
Some are still in theatrical exhibition when they are illegitimately recorded, mostly by those who use state-of-the-art university broadband systems.
So, somehow, my PC has got to distinguish between video that I shot myself of something that I'm "allowed" to shoot and a film in the cinema that I'm not allowed to shoot (to make a screener to distribute)?? Not gonna happen. What's more likely is that the MPAA will push to throttle all media creation on a consumer-grade machine without express permission from them. Or, at least cripple any such media creation as to make it worthless (ripping MP3's with the stock WMP springs to mind).
Of course, there's quite a few comments here that claim that Linux is the solution to our woes, but I wonder... what is the Linux equivelent of iMovie? or iPhoto? But even more than that, is Linux even legal if the PC's are meant to incorporate these controls at the hardware level? How many minutes would it take for the MPAA to declare Linux a circumvention mechanism under the DMCA and wipe it off the face of the earth (or at least the US market)?
My heart is filled with dread at the thought of what happens when the interests of the MPAA in controlling their content is at odds with my interest in making my own films/music with a modern (content-control-enabled) PC.
But you really can't have it both ways though, can you? I mean, you can't fast-track the outcome and provide any effective mechanism for dealing with Microsoft's actions at the same time.
The proposed settlement is an attempt to fast-track the entire case into oblivion, allowing Microsoft to continue relatively unscathed by the whole process. The only other way to fast-track to a resolution is to throw the book at 'em, break them up, whatever. Neither outcome is necessarily desirable or effective.
I don't want to see it drag on either, but I seem to remember someone (can't remember who - attributions, anyone?) once saying that the wheels of justice turn slowly. That's what we're seeing here.
You might have a look at MacOSX Unleashed (SAMS) by John & William C Ray. It's got a good deal of this type of information in it, including the many ways of enabling root and (yes!!) command-line config of the netinfo directory.
The original Replay hadn't the manufacturing contacts/resources.
Hmm... wasn't Panasonic building the boxes for a while?
I am actually glad Replay has the Patent. I used to fear that MS would "own" the "click a tv schedule and program your TV" market.
The patent doesn't prevent Microsoft doing this at all. Quite the opposite, really. Microsoft is about the only company playing in the PVR game right now that can afford to pay whatever it takes to ensure that their product remains on the market. The patent may very well shut out anyone except Microsoft from playing in this market. Here we go again...
"We created a user friendly way for viewers to record the shows they want to watch through a graphical on-screen program guide. The patent establishes that ReplayTV invented this core technology."
I think this kind of statement sort of implies that they may use it as a stick to beat down their competitors, including Tivo. Unfair, since ReplayTV actually disappeared from the market for a time, suddenly popping up as SonicBlue.
But what really bothers me is the destructive effect that this may have. Tivo has worked very hard to not only provide a unique and valuable product to their customers, they've also been very careful to "play nice" with the networks. They have, for instance, refused to put a 30-second-skip button on the remote. They've also, discouraged copying of programs from the harddrive (how effective that is, I don't know). And so on.
Meanwhile ReplayTV/SonicBlue have done the skip button, and with the latest incantations of their boxen, claim to be able send shows between units (a scheme that will undoubtably be cracked, if it hasn't already) which, of course, can't make the networks happy at all.
Terrific. So now are choices are a company that the networks like, but that is doomed by patent infringments (maybe), or a "bad-boy" that the networks will eventually crush because of their disregard for the networks' well-being... Ugh....
And somewhere, in the shadows, is Microsoft (UltimateTV) waiting to step in with their "Content owner-friendly" box....
Of course, with PADI Open Water Diver certification, there's a strong disincentive to considering one self an expert. I've never taken any classes for PADI, but I imagine it to be similar to learning to fly. If the instruction doesn't pound it into the initiate's head that they are not an expert, reality will rush up and remind the individual. Otherwise they may well find themselves booted right out of the gene pool.
Unfortunately, no such disincentive exists with MCSE, A+, N+, etc...
I think it's a good analogy to use, and I'll have to try to remember it the next time our PHBs get it in their heads that we (at work) should be all certified; it's a starting-point, where the individual meets the bare-minimum requirements. The rest takes time. Lots of time.
I'd have to disagree somewhat. The IKEA furniture for the "home office" is, as you indicate, not so great, but the commercial grade furniture is very nice stuff.
I picked up several sections of the EFFEKTIV line, and I couldn't be happier with it. It's constructed with dense pressboard (at least as strong as hardwood) that's very heavy and strong, and its all bolted (yes, bolts, not screws or camlocks) together on a heavy steel (think I-beams) framework. I got 3 sections, and the entire thing weighs nearly 300lbs (135kg), and can support my weight with no trouble. There's room enough for at least 3 19" monitors, and even more displays if I was using flat-panels.
Yes, it can be expensive (I paid just shy of US$800), but for me, it was worth every penny. A word of advice - if anyone's considering getting this stuff, go with the T-legs - the desk is every bit as stable and strong as the old 'door on filing cabinets' solution.
If there's a single trait most people who read Slashdot share -- maybe the only one besides an addiction to software -- it's a love of popular culture.
Is it just me, or does this puzzle anyone else? When I hear/read the term 'popular culture', it is the AOL/TW/MS/NBC/ABC/CBS version of 'culture' that is meant.
I can loan a book of mine to a friend without 1-loaning him my entire library ('cos my ebooks are all tied to the reader) or 2-worrying that something might happen to my ebook reader while in my friend's possesion (see other damage/destruction arguments). The bonus here is that it is perfectly legal and legitimate for me to loan a dead-tree book to a friend, but I wonder if ebook publishers have addressed that issue - even if I do loan my friend the entire reader.
If they haven't, I suspect we all know what the answer to that question is...
The wonderful high-tech mesh fabric acts like sandpaper and wears holes in my pants.
I can honestly say that this is not been a problem I've ever had with my Aeron. I just don't think I want to know what you're doing with the chair to cause that.
I love my Aeron, but only when it's properly adjusted - which is pretty much most of the time, unless someone else uses it, and messes it all up. Same thing happens every time someone drives my car, and it takes me 2 days to get the seat ajustments 'just right' again.
But how does AOL know that I don't have proper authorization and clearance to use that icon?
Because in the eyes of AOL/TW/RIAA/MPAA/Microsoft/etc you are a consumer of media, not a producer. You therefore have no right nor need to even be able to publish content - even if it's just an icon of a reconizable character. Unless you have a multi-billion dollar contract with them, you're nobody. Oh, and fair use doesn't count for anything any more.
So, here's my prediction: The Greens/Democrats... will introduce legislation preventing techies from building their own machines at feasible prices within the next 5 years.
Such a bill, if written with that express purpose, would be stillborn. And even if it's couched in some other 'lets be friendly to the environment' thing, it's so plainly anticompetitive as to have the same result.
Also, I don't ever see the likes of Apple, Dell, HP, Compaq, et al, ever lobbying for such a bill. Mostly because of the anticompetitive desires that would be revealed, resulting in PR 'issues' (it's one thing to want to rule the world, it's another altogether to actually come out and say so), but also because such activity would threaten the bottom lines of their own suppliers (how much, I don't know. What is the percentage of harddrives sold individually compared to sales to OEMS, for example?). Such a thing would probably cause the costs of the components in these pre-built systems to go up beyond an amount that could be disguised in volume.
Microsoft's Tony Goodhew, project manager for Share Source CLI, said Microsoft is moving in the same direction as open source code advocates, but wishes to continue to protect its intellectual property from commercial exploitation by others.
Doesn't he realize that you can't have it both ways. Although Open Source Software does lend itself to use within business, it does tend to cause the 'control' of intellectual property to weaken (the GPL very explicitly does this). Of course Microsoft doesn't like this. They have always suffered from the "not invented here" syndrome - if they can't buy a technology, they tend towards "embrace and replace" tactics.
What seems to escape them is that the loosened 'control' of IP is exactly the thing that allows OSS to flourish.
He said the company's Shared Source initiative goes so far as to allow developers to examine the example of C# and CLI code, and then build similar structures on the platforms of their choice.
Kinda reminds me of the old Henry Ford anecdote. You can buy a Model T in any colour you like as long as it's black.
Somehow, I think that the first time someone tries to bring C# to Linux, they'll be sued out of existence....
How is it not 'theft' (recognizing the inherent inaccuracy of the word. Perhaps it should be 'misappropriation'? But I digress..) just because he happens to be in Canada?
The guy is intentionally bypassing a valid content access mechanism, and sharing the tools (although it's perhaps telling that the code is in binary form only - no source) so that any script-kiddie-wannabe can plug a few cables together and get 'free' TV. And, what, he's some kind of hero?? Give me a break.
Like Napster, this whole DTV cracking subculture tries to put on a "it's only for testing.. dude" face, claiming fair use or intellectual curiosity, but like the old Monty Python bit, it always seems to be accompanied by a big "wink wink nugde nudge, know what I mean?". Ridiculous. The simple truth is that all those "test" cards are out being used to watch TV that the holder has NO LEGAL RIGHT to watch. This hack, while ingenious, is no different. It's very simple, really. DTV offers a service. That service is offered in exchange for something of value (namely, money). If one does not/can not/refuses to participate in one part of the exchange, they should not be taking advantage of the other. No pay, no play.
The Canadian nature of his citizenship will not shield him from the corporate entertainment empires. Just ask Jon Johansen - and he was on the other side of the pond. They will be howling for Mr. nerg343's blood, and they'll likely get it too, along with anyone silly enough to think they could get away with this once it went public.
And, lest we forget that this does nothing to refute Mundie/Ballmer/Gates assertion that everything Linux is evil, cancerous and unamerican. MBG have not, so far, allowed facts to impede their gospel, and this DTV hack will probably fuel that even more. "See? Didn't we tell you? Next thing you know, they'll be taking apart (gasp!) an UltimateTV box and threatening our innovative intellectual properties! The horror!"
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry, man, but that's just a load of shit... too. Apple has been very clear about the future of Classic - there will be very little improvement of the environment. Now, Quark is a special case (and I think you know that), but most apps work reasonably well under Classic. I used Photoshop 5.5 in Classic until 7 was released, and although it's not ideal (startup of Classic was an exercise in patience), it works. That was the typical experience I had with Classic apps.
The only time I ever have to reboot my Jag boxen is after a software update that requires reboot. (Dare I say it here?) My Macs are every bit as stable as my Linux boxen. Based on comments I've seen here and elsewhere, I doubt that that my experience with Jag is unique. It's a helluva bit more than a 'marginal gain in stability'.
I think it's horribly unfair to characterize that fact that Quark isn't native yet as somehow being Apple's fault. Quark are dragging their feet and are, in my opinion, solely responsible for the fact that they're not expected to have X native code any time soon. There was a bit of discussion about Quark over on macosx.com a little while back. The interesting thing is that "In a Macworld Online readers poll, 91 per cent of respondees said they are either considering an alternative to QuarkXPress or have already switched." The feeling I get from all of this is that the only reason that Quark hasn't switched to native is that they feel they don't have to. Their market position in DTP seems similar to Microsoft's in Desktop OS.
Have you looked at InDesign?
What many businesses do not accept is the security and liability implications of running outside, unapproved code on their machines, expecially production boxen. "Who supports it when it crashes?", "What assurance do we have that it's not a trojan, gathering data?", "Why should we pay for their IT needs?" - these are just a few of the questions that a reasonably intellegent IT manager should/would be asking.
Of course, after all that, there's still the argument that "They're our machines, not yours. That's why." There's no easy way to answer that one and win.
At any rate, the issue was with optical cordless mice. I don't count those to be nearly as high-drain as, say, a laptop, but they do seem to require certain voltage characteristics, and NiCad seemed an odd and inappropriate choice for that. A flashlight, maybe, but a mouse requires something more.
NiCad? What is this, 1982?? Try high-output NiMH instead. I've got a couple of sets for my digicam (which will destroy a set of alkalines faster than it takes to fill a CF card), and they're great. See Steve's digicams for a rundown of what's out there.
Of course they're memory-intensive. Or, at least, they can be. But, so what? I've never encountered an issue with that, even on relatively aneamic machines. That's what virtual memory is for.
And, just because you're too lazy to download the free viewer (no registration required!), doesn't make Adobe bad for not making it easier for you.
Sorry, but I fail to see the lack of simplicity and ubiquity that you cite here. The only major desktop platform that doesn't include a way to view PDFs out of the box is Windows. MacOSX ships with both the Acrobat Reader and an applet called Preview that renders PDFs just fine too. Many of the Linux distro's ship with either XPdf, Acrobat Reader, or other tools to manage PDFs as well. For Windows, and every other platform out there, from PalmOS to Solaris, there's the free download of the client.
Adobe would be insane to sell Acrobat to MS or anyone else at this point. The've got a pretty solid document and image management suite (although it's not bundled that way). Loosing Acrobat would weaken that. If MS was at the helm, the only way to create PDFs would be to purchase the entire Office suite. And I guarantee that there would not be a Linux or PalmOS reader for the docs.
Besides, in case you hadn't noticed, PDF is already a defacto standard.
FWIW, I did see massive problems. I had done a Google search for mountain bikes, and only 1 in 5 sites would resolve. I popped open a terminal window to cross-check some of the failing queries against a different nameserver, and nslookup/dig would hang or timeout on the ones that Mozilla had a problem with. Very annoying, to say the least.
Twenty minutes later, though, everything seemed fine, and the sites that wouldn't resolve earlier finally did. I wondered if something... erm.. unusual was going on, and it looks like there was...
As always, your mileage will undoubtedly vary...
I don't think this kind of upgrade lag is at all unusual.
Mine is missing as well. Any lawyers here know whether or not we can call shenanigans on this? If mine (and others) have already been noted as missing, how many others are missing that nobody has noticed? I know, it may be impossible to work that out. And I know that none of this seems to make one bit of difference to the DOJ. But I find it more than slightly disturbing that even though I sent my comments in plenty of time (>48 hours before cutoff), my voice will not be counted among the thousands that did make it through.
My only hope is that it is part of the official record that the judge (or her lackeys) will be using, and that the version published to the web is incomplete. But my hopes are not real high right now...
So, somehow, my PC has got to distinguish between video that I shot myself of something that I'm "allowed" to shoot and a film in the cinema that I'm not allowed to shoot (to make a screener to distribute)?? Not gonna happen. What's more likely is that the MPAA will push to throttle all media creation on a consumer-grade machine without express permission from them. Or, at least cripple any such media creation as to make it worthless (ripping MP3's with the stock WMP springs to mind).
Of course, there's quite a few comments here that claim that Linux is the solution to our woes, but I wonder... what is the Linux equivelent of iMovie? or iPhoto? But even more than that, is Linux even legal if the PC's are meant to incorporate these controls at the hardware level? How many minutes would it take for the MPAA to declare Linux a circumvention mechanism under the DMCA and wipe it off the face of the earth (or at least the US market)?
My heart is filled with dread at the thought of what happens when the interests of the MPAA in controlling their content is at odds with my interest in making my own films/music with a modern (content-control-enabled) PC.
Not yet, anyway...
But you really can't have it both ways though, can you? I mean, you can't fast-track the outcome and provide any effective mechanism for dealing with Microsoft's actions at the same time.
The proposed settlement is an attempt to fast-track the entire case into oblivion, allowing Microsoft to continue relatively unscathed by the whole process. The only other way to fast-track to a resolution is to throw the book at 'em, break them up, whatever. Neither outcome is necessarily desirable or effective.
I don't want to see it drag on either, but I seem to remember someone (can't remember who - attributions, anyone?) once saying that the wheels of justice turn slowly. That's what we're seeing here.
You might have a look at MacOSX Unleashed (SAMS) by John & William C Ray. It's got a good deal of this type of information in it, including the many ways of enabling root and (yes!!) command-line config of the netinfo directory.
ISBN 0672322293
Hmm... wasn't Panasonic building the boxes for a while?
I am actually glad Replay has the Patent. I used to fear that MS would "own" the "click a tv schedule and program your TV" market.
The patent doesn't prevent Microsoft doing this at all. Quite the opposite, really. Microsoft is about the only company playing in the PVR game right now that can afford to pay whatever it takes to ensure that their product remains on the market. The patent may very well shut out anyone except Microsoft from playing in this market. Here we go again...
I think this kind of statement sort of implies that they may use it as a stick to beat down their competitors, including Tivo. Unfair, since ReplayTV actually disappeared from the market for a time, suddenly popping up as SonicBlue.
But what really bothers me is the destructive effect that this may have. Tivo has worked very hard to not only provide a unique and valuable product to their customers, they've also been very careful to "play nice" with the networks. They have, for instance, refused to put a 30-second-skip button on the remote. They've also, discouraged copying of programs from the harddrive (how effective that is, I don't know). And so on.
Meanwhile ReplayTV/SonicBlue have done the skip button, and with the latest incantations of their boxen, claim to be able send shows between units (a scheme that will undoubtably be cracked, if it hasn't already) which, of course, can't make the networks happy at all.
Terrific. So now are choices are a company that the networks like, but that is doomed by patent infringments (maybe), or a "bad-boy" that the networks will eventually crush because of their disregard for the networks' well-being... Ugh....
And somewhere, in the shadows, is Microsoft (UltimateTV) waiting to step in with their "Content owner-friendly" box....
Anyone want to buy a TV-set? Cheap?
Unfortunately, no such disincentive exists with MCSE, A+, N+, etc...
I think it's a good analogy to use, and I'll have to try to remember it the next time our PHBs get it in their heads that we (at work) should be all certified; it's a starting-point, where the individual meets the bare-minimum requirements. The rest takes time. Lots of time.
I picked up several sections of the EFFEKTIV line, and I couldn't be happier with it. It's constructed with dense pressboard (at least as strong as hardwood) that's very heavy and strong, and its all bolted (yes, bolts, not screws or camlocks) together on a heavy steel (think I-beams) framework. I got 3 sections, and the entire thing weighs nearly 300lbs (135kg), and can support my weight with no trouble. There's room enough for at least 3 19" monitors, and even more displays if I was using flat-panels.
Yes, it can be expensive (I paid just shy of US$800), but for me, it was worth every penny. A word of advice - if anyone's considering getting this stuff, go with the T-legs - the desk is every bit as stable and strong as the old 'door on filing cabinets' solution.
Is it just me, or does this puzzle anyone else? When I hear/read the term 'popular culture', it is the AOL/TW/MS/NBC/ABC/CBS version of 'culture' that is meant.
???
I can loan a book of mine to a friend without 1-loaning him my entire library ('cos my ebooks are all tied to the reader) or 2-worrying that something might happen to my ebook reader while in my friend's possesion (see other damage/destruction arguments). The bonus here is that it is perfectly legal and legitimate for me to loan a dead-tree book to a friend, but I wonder if ebook publishers have addressed that issue - even if I do loan my friend the entire reader.
If they haven't, I suspect we all know what the answer to that question is...
I can honestly say that this is not been a problem I've ever had with my Aeron. I just don't think I want to know what you're doing with the chair to cause that.
I love my Aeron, but only when it's properly adjusted - which is pretty much most of the time, unless someone else uses it, and messes it all up. Same thing happens every time someone drives my car, and it takes me 2 days to get the seat ajustments 'just right' again.
Because in the eyes of AOL/TW/RIAA/MPAA/Microsoft/etc you are a consumer of media, not a producer. You therefore have no right nor need to even be able to publish content - even if it's just an icon of a reconizable character. Unless you have a multi-billion dollar contract with them, you're nobody. Oh, and fair use doesn't count for anything any more.
Such a bill, if written with that express purpose, would be stillborn. And even if it's couched in some other 'lets be friendly to the environment' thing, it's so plainly anticompetitive as to have the same result.
Also, I don't ever see the likes of Apple, Dell, HP, Compaq, et al, ever lobbying for such a bill. Mostly because of the anticompetitive desires that would be revealed, resulting in PR 'issues' (it's one thing to want to rule the world, it's another altogether to actually come out and say so), but also because such activity would threaten the bottom lines of their own suppliers (how much, I don't know. What is the percentage of harddrives sold individually compared to sales to OEMS, for example?). Such a thing would probably cause the costs of the components in these pre-built systems to go up beyond an amount that could be disguised in volume.
Doesn't he realize that you can't have it both ways. Although Open Source Software does lend itself to use within business, it does tend to cause the 'control' of intellectual property to weaken (the GPL very explicitly does this). Of course Microsoft doesn't like this. They have always suffered from the "not invented here" syndrome - if they can't buy a technology, they tend towards "embrace and replace" tactics.
What seems to escape them is that the loosened 'control' of IP is exactly the thing that allows OSS to flourish.
Kinda reminds me of the old Henry Ford anecdote. You can buy a Model T in any colour you like as long as it's black.
Somehow, I think that the first time someone tries to bring C# to Linux, they'll be sued out of existence....
The guy is intentionally bypassing a valid content access mechanism, and sharing the tools (although it's perhaps telling that the code is in binary form only - no source) so that any script-kiddie-wannabe can plug a few cables together and get 'free' TV. And, what, he's some kind of hero?? Give me a break.
Like Napster, this whole DTV cracking subculture tries to put on a "it's only for testing.. dude" face, claiming fair use or intellectual curiosity, but like the old Monty Python bit, it always seems to be accompanied by a big "wink wink nugde nudge, know what I mean?". Ridiculous. The simple truth is that all those "test" cards are out being used to watch TV that the holder has NO LEGAL RIGHT to watch. This hack, while ingenious, is no different. It's very simple, really. DTV offers a service. That service is offered in exchange for something of value (namely, money). If one does not/can not/refuses to participate in one part of the exchange, they should not be taking advantage of the other. No pay, no play.
The Canadian nature of his citizenship will not shield him from the corporate entertainment empires. Just ask Jon Johansen - and he was on the other side of the pond. They will be howling for Mr. nerg343's blood, and they'll likely get it too, along with anyone silly enough to think they could get away with this once it went public.
And, lest we forget that this does nothing to refute Mundie/Ballmer/Gates assertion that everything Linux is evil, cancerous and unamerican. MBG have not, so far, allowed facts to impede their gospel, and this DTV hack will probably fuel that even more. "See? Didn't we tell you? Next thing you know, they'll be taking apart (gasp!) an UltimateTV box and threatening our innovative intellectual properties! The horror!"
Just remember 2 rules:
1. Never see a movie that is based on a video game.
2. Never play a video game that is based on a movie.
I now live in fear.