...worthless for schools with a large mac investment (like the one i work for).
i know mac os 7.6 through mac os 9 aren't easy ports, but we have macs around that will never run os x, yet will still be in active use 5-10 years from now. it's just the way things have to be for cash-strapped schools.
right now, m$ office and appleworks are the only viable choices. appleworks is out because it's not cross-platform. an oss alternative for all our old, crusty macs would be great.
I think Gracenote's sueing Roxio to give their public offering a bad start. Whether their lawsuit has merit or not doesn't matter; Roxio will forever be tainted as "that company that had legal problems," and will be worse off in the end.
The "big three" TLDs are congested anyway. Why don't they create similar requirements for.com (you must be a legal for-profit organization) and.net (you must be an ISP, registrar, or some entity that manages, maintains, or distributes the Internet or its infrastructure [no flames...best I could do in one phrase]). Then, we lobby for additional TLDs (or create rogue ones...we don't need no steenking ICANN anyway), and create similar restrictions for those.
The point would be to restrict who is allowed to register their name where. There could be an elected soverign body that enforces those restrictions and makes sure to create enough TLDs to satisfy everyone (of course, they would have to be general enough so we don't end up with a billion of them, but then we'd actually use the hierarchial "features" of DNS). There could even be a.alt as a catch-all free-for-all TLD with no restrictions whatsoever.
Introducing policy now is better than having policy forced in later (it always will be...you can't get around it). We avoid all sorts of headaches surrounding who has rights to what domain names, trademark infringements, squatting, etc. Madonna can have madonna.artists.music, and her fans can have madonna.fansites.fluff.
Rather than blocking someone from posting by matching their IP number, why not match their processor ID?
Oh yeah...too many people had a knee-jerk reaction to them, and Intel was forced to remove them from the chips.
I realize that the solution is not as simple as this, but it does irritate me that when a potentially valid reason for having a technology around comes up, it's already been bludgeoned to death by people who are either uninformed or jump to conclusions too quickly.
"...The exclusive right of the owner of copyright in a sound recording under clause (2) of section 106 is limited to the right to prepare a derivative work in which the actual sounds fixed in the sound recording are rearranged, remixed, or otherwise altered in sequence or quality...."
which means that the RIAA is correct.
HOWEVER...
I think it's safe to say that an mp3 falls under "otherwise altered in... quality", due to the lossy compression. Therefore, I think it's legal to have digital duplicates as long as they are mp3s or some other format involving lossy compression (this would also apply to digital copies that were played and re-digitized, like if you were to play a CD in your CDROM drive and record it back to a WAV).
my definition of an operating system is software that exports an API to allow applications to access the computer hardware atop an abstraction layer.
my definition, in the case of linux, would include the kernel and the shared libraries. in the case of win95/98, it would include the dos kernel and the windows drivers/dlls.
to me, the interface is seperate from the operating system. applications can run without an interface (in the case of servers, especially)...you just won't be able to interact with the applications much.
this definition gains more acceptance when you take into account embedded devices. a stereo receiver (although it doesn't need to run an operating system, but assume it does) doesn't have a software-driven interface. you interface with your stereo using the buttons on its face. the interface, therefore, is not part of the operating system, because you could rip the face off and your stereo would continue to play music when you applied power.
IEEE 1394 will still have the advantage over USB 2.0 in that USB is a computer-centric bus; that is, it requires that a PC or workstation be on the bus. With firewire, you can connect devices together and have them communicate directly, no PC required.
If the world is going towards the obliteration of that big box on your desk and the adoption of embedded devices (it's imminent...don't think that it's not happening), Intel's USB 2.0 doesn't make sense.
Firewire has also been spec'd out to 1.2Gb/s. It's only a matter of time before implementable technology catches up...
Slashdot Mirror
...worthless for schools with a large mac investment (like the one i work for).
i know mac os 7.6 through mac os 9 aren't easy ports, but we have macs around that will never run os x, yet will still be in active use 5-10 years from now. it's just the way things have to be for cash-strapped schools.
right now, m$ office and appleworks are the only viable choices. appleworks is out because it's not cross-platform. an oss alternative for all our old, crusty macs would be great.
I think Gracenote's sueing Roxio to give their public offering a bad start. Whether their lawsuit has merit or not doesn't matter; Roxio will forever be tainted as "that company that had legal problems," and will be worse off in the end.
The "big three" TLDs are congested anyway. Why don't they create similar requirements for .com (you must be a legal for-profit organization) and .net (you must be an ISP, registrar, or some entity that manages, maintains, or distributes the Internet or its infrastructure [no flames...best I could do in one phrase]). Then, we lobby for additional TLDs (or create rogue ones...we don't need no steenking ICANN anyway), and create similar restrictions for those.
.alt as a catch-all free-for-all TLD with no restrictions whatsoever.
The point would be to restrict who is allowed to register their name where. There could be an elected soverign body that enforces those restrictions and makes sure to create enough TLDs to satisfy everyone (of course, they would have to be general enough so we don't end up with a billion of them, but then we'd actually use the hierarchial "features" of DNS). There could even be a
Introducing policy now is better than having policy forced in later (it always will be...you can't get around it). We avoid all sorts of headaches surrounding who has rights to what domain names, trademark infringements, squatting, etc. Madonna can have madonna.artists.music, and her fans can have madonna.fansites.fluff.
I think we should hold a fund-raiser in which people would pay $20 to be able to see this thing in the flesh. $100 if you want to actually touch it.
:)
I'd be first in line
Rather than blocking someone from posting by matching their IP number, why not match their processor ID?
Oh yeah...too many people had a knee-jerk reaction to them, and Intel was forced to remove them from the chips.
I realize that the solution is not as simple as this, but it does irritate me that when a potentially valid reason for having a technology around comes up, it's already been bludgeoned to death by people who are either uninformed or jump to conclusions too quickly.
"...The exclusive right of the owner of copyright in a sound recording under clause (2) of section 106 is limited to the right to prepare a derivative work in which the actual sounds fixed in the sound recording are rearranged, remixed, or otherwise altered in sequence or quality...."
which means that the RIAA is correct.
HOWEVER...
I think it's safe to say that an mp3 falls under "otherwise altered in ... quality", due to the lossy compression. Therefore, I think it's legal to have digital duplicates as long as they are mp3s or some other format involving lossy compression (this would also apply to digital copies that were played and re-digitized, like if you were to play a CD in your CDROM drive and record it back to a WAV).
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. I might be wrong :)
just to add to the confusion:
my definition of an operating system is software that exports an API to allow applications to access the computer hardware atop an abstraction layer.
my definition, in the case of linux, would include the kernel and the shared libraries. in the case of win95/98, it would include the dos kernel and the windows drivers/dlls.
to me, the interface is seperate from the operating system. applications can run without an interface (in the case of servers, especially)...you just won't be able to interact with the applications much.
this definition gains more acceptance when you take into account embedded devices. a stereo receiver (although it doesn't need to run an operating system, but assume it does) doesn't have a software-driven interface. you interface with your stereo using the buttons on its face. the interface, therefore, is not part of the operating system, because you could rip the face off and your stereo would continue to play music when you applied power.
IEEE 1394 will still have the advantage over USB 2.0 in that USB is a computer-centric bus; that is, it requires that a PC or workstation be on the bus. With firewire, you can connect devices together and have them communicate directly, no PC required.
If the world is going towards the obliteration of that big box on your desk and the adoption of embedded devices (it's imminent...don't think that it's not happening), Intel's USB 2.0 doesn't make sense.
Firewire has also been spec'd out to 1.2Gb/s. It's only a matter of time before implementable technology catches up...