you really have no reason to write more songs, other than you might enjoy it.
I'd say for the vast majority of songwriters/performers that they enjoy writing songs is the primary motivator, money is secondary.
Stephen King is a rich man several times over, but he still churns out books. I recall reading somewhere that Paul McCartney makes something like $10K a day on royalties, but he still writes music and tours occasionally. The guys in R.E.M. aren't hurting for money either, but they're still recording. Granted, the pace may have slowed somewhat -- but I don't think that in itself is a bad thing.
Hell, they paid Maria Carey something like $7 Million to dump her from her label and she's trying to get a new deal. (Note: I have no idea if she actually writes her own music, but work with me here...) From my perspective, it's a shame if she does record again, but the point is that money must not be her primary motivator to do music (if you can call it that...).
OTOH, the guys in XTC have never had a big hit, but they keep making records. Robyn Hitchcock isn't burning up the charts, but he still records and tours. Many people would probably have looked for "real" jobs after they'd realized that they weren't going to get rich, but writing music is obviously what they want to do. In the case of XTC, they'd probably have made a few more albums if they hadn't had money/label problems. So, cutting off the money supply isn't the answer here.
Expiring copyrights prior to the life of the artist is, IMHO, unfair. Even when you're talking about code -- if a person or company owns the code, they should choose what to do with it. Even if what they choose to do is selfish, it's their right.
Something else to consider, given the mentality of most record labels -- if copyrights expired after a shorter period, how many labels would just sit on material waiting for the rights to expire before exploiting it so they didn't have to share any royalties? I'd almost guarantee it'd become a common practice. Songwriters would be getting just above minimum wage while the labels cash in a few years later.
That's about $1700 (retail) of software that they're giving away.
At an actual cost of less than $20 per attendee, all of which will be written off as a promotional expense. Red Hat, SuSE, FreeBSD and the other Free Unix variants should take a cue from M$ and start calling ISO's "trial versions" or something and claim each download at the retail price as a business expense.
Too bad I'm not in Ohio, sounds like a fun event to pass out Debian CDs at...
Well, it's a little light on content -- but it's got a drastic advantage over sites that bash you over the head with proprietary crap like Flash. Any browser should reproduce that site more or less as it's designed.
Plain text and graphics only when necessary -- that kind of design works for me. It's good for anyone who is using a slow connection or broadband and you don't have to worry about it breaking the browser.
I second that. I think the original was better b/c it was easier to follow. I've shown the director's cut to people who'd never seen Blade Runner before, and they were slightly lost.
It's nice that a director can go back and "fix" a movie in a special edition set or something, but it should never replace the original theatrical release. Usually that's the experience that people want to relive through a video. It really pisses me off that I can't get a DVD of the original release.
For Wile E. Coyote, the Road Runner, Marvin Martian, Pepe Le Pew, the best of Bugs Bunny (he didn't create Bugs, but he directed the best Bugs Bunny shorts) and Gossamer. (The hair monster, for some reason Gossamer was always my favorite...)
Lest we forget, Chuck Jones also brought the Grinch to life, and Rikki-Tikki-Tavi.
As an animator, his timing was impeccible. He was the Mark Twain of animation. I never met the man, but his work has brought me countless hours of joy.
They don't prevent that because those software comply with Microsoft standards. They are using libraries from Microsoft.
What a load of crap. Plenty of crappy software is written for Windows that will crash your OS faster than you can say "blue screen of death."
but when something bad happens to Microsoft Windows it happens to be Microsoft problem.
No, it's often a user problem there too. Or third-party software/drivers. Of course, if they knew how to make a decent OS then a crappy program wouldn't crash the entire OS.
I said that because how LILO works, it doesn't comply with Microsoft Windows so I had problems.
Again, I think you're full of it. I've used Slackware with Windows on several computers -- both notebooks and desktop PCs from several different manufacturers -- and never experienced a problem. User error is my bet. Again, it's not up to M$ to try to prevent users or manufacturers from doing what they want with their computer -- and if there was a problem with having two OSes on a machine, it would be the manufacturer's problem -- not Microsoft's. Saying that M$'s concern about the effects of having multiple OSes on a computer is the flimsiest excuse I've ever heard.
Everybody defends its onw interests, even you.
There are limits, and there are differences. Yes, most people will look out for their own interests -- but if looking out for your own interest infringes on the rights of others, you lose. Microsoft isn't just looking out for themselves, they're actively doing everything they can to dominate a market to the detriment of their customers, their partners, the OEMs and their competitors. The only people who benefit from M$ are the executives with stock and their shareholders.
Are they the most evil in the world? No. I'm not about to put Billy-boy in the same category as Hitler, Osama bin Laden or the Backstreet Boys. Evil is evil, nonetheless, and the tactics that Microsoft uses are detrimental to almost anyone who comes into contact with them, just to ensure that they can continue to reap obscene profits. That is evil. End of story.
Indeed they can, and should. However, this is another example of big money riding roughshod over smaller businesses. The RIAA has basically employed a government agency to do its dirty work, and it will require a lot of money in lawyer's fees and quite a bit of time for any case to make its way through the courts. By the time the case is won, appealed, won again, appealed again and so forth the businesses who want to do online broadcasting are going to be dead or near dead while the RIAA has gotten their way.
I've dual-booted Linux and Windows 95, 98, NT and never had even the slightest problem on several machines. Several Linux companies have sold dual-boot hardware with no such problems.
Microsoft doesn't know what will happen when you load program X either -- but it doesn't prevent companies from selling Windows with software pre-installed. Gateway or Dell can sell Microsoft Windows XP with their own software installed for customer support or whatever -- they don't prevent that.
If you had problems with LILO it was more likely user error than anything.
I think this is the discrepancy the FCC is trying to remediate with these regulations.
The FCC isn't doing this. The Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel is doing it at the behest of the RIAA so they can put the screws to Internet broadcasters.
Go read the articles -- they're asking for more information than is easily available. Far more.
Well, if they aren't paying ASCAP and BMI, then the webcasters are obviously in violation of the copyrights of the record companies.
Yes, they should have to pay the same fees that radio stations do -- but to make them jump through hoops that radio broadcasters do not have to jump through -- including logging each user, every song/program and such is ridiculous.
It costs a hell of a lot more to put up radio towers and pay for a studio and hosts than it does to load up a couple of servers and stream data.
Yes, this is very true. Still, there's no excuse for the restrictions that they're trying to impose on Internet broadcasters.
Radio stations only have to provide playlist information a few days a year (used to mete out royalties collected by ASCAP and BMI to artists) -- they do not have to provide information about every single song they play and they are certainly not responsible for reporting who might be listening to the stations.
These guys are going to be some of the first up against the wall when the revolution comes...
Assume that, you have a company which sells PCs. Would you go with BeOs or Windows?
I would want to sell both, actually. This is something that Microsoft went out of its way to prevent, using their monopoly position. That is why they must be punished. Severely.
Are Microsoft's tactics alone responsible for Be's failure? Maybe not, but they're a strong contributor.
Your analogy has no merit. You really need to do some research before you speak up again.
But if you think that microsoft strongarming PC manufacturers is some sort of evil, you should open your eyes.
So...your argument is because other companies are evil, it somehow lessens Microsoft's evil? Or is this the old "everyone is doing it" argument? The topic of discussion here is a suit filed against M$. I wasn't by any means implying that I didn't think that other corporations are equally evil by not explicitly holding forth on them, so I don't believe that I'm being inconsistent.
Those who sell a product or make a product have the right to dictate on what terms they'll manufacture or sell it.
Not entirely true. Microsoft is a monopoly, there are restrictions on what a company with a monopoly in a given market can do to hold on to or extend that monopoly. Having a monopoly is not illegal, but many things that Microsoft has done are.
Even companies that do not have monopolies have restrictions on their business practices.
For instance, it's illegal to tell a reseller what price they can charge for an item. If I produce product X, and I want to set the price for it at $19.95 (retail) I can't stop you from selling it at your price if you choose to do so. I can choose not to sell you the product, but I can't keep you from selling it at cost or even at a loss if you choose to. There are limits to the restrictions and such that a manufacturer can require. I do not know all of the boundaries and laws governing dealing with retailers, but I know it's not "anything goes."
Sears Roebuck often threatens contractors and manufacturers if their prices aren't majorly reduced for Sears.
And so does Wal-Mart and just about any other large retailer. Any retailer wants the best margin that they can get, and larger retailers have the muscle to get larger discounts. That's not illegal. Sears is not a monopoly. Neither is Sony. Best Buy could stop carrying Sony products and still offer TVs. Maytag could stop selling to Sears and not go out of business -- though it might hurt their bottom line. On the other hand, Microsoft jacking up Windows licenses for Dell if they choose to also sell BeOS PCs or Linux PCs could very realistically force Dell to either not sell those OSes or put Dell out of business because the margin is so thin for PCs. Since Microsoft does have a monopoly in that market, it is supposed to be illegal for them to do this sort of thing.
Whining about BeOS not having a chance because of exposure is bullshit. Exposure is not and should not be free.
No one said exposure should be free -- but Microsoft should not be allowed to use its monopoly to prevent manufacturers from developing non-M$ products. Nor should a manufacturer have to pay the M$ tax for every machine, regardless of whether it has Windows loaded.
Bottom line, the "free market" is not unregulated and it's not truly free either. It is mired down with laws to protect individuals, government incentives to help out businesses and all kinds of other legislation and practices that make the so-called "free market" anything but.
And the age-old adage applies here too: Your rights end where mine begin. When a company like Microsoft tramples the rights of other companies by abusing its monopoly position it has crossed a line and it should be punished. It amazes me that so many people actively defend a company whose practices are so repugnant to common decency. If a four-year-old child acted in the same manner as M$ its parents would smack it on its bottom and tell it to behave. Apparently the decency we expect from a child is too much to ask from a multi-billion dollar corporation led by adults.
The fact of the matter is, only a small percentage of people even want to use these fringe products. Why punish Microsoft for that?
This would be compelling if it were truthful.
The reality is that people would like alternatives to using Microsoft, but Microsoft has done everything it can to prevent Dell, HP, Compaq and others from presenting options to their customers.
The other OSes aren't getting to play on a level playing field. BeOS was a very slick OS, it had all the features that most users would want and was very user-friendly. And it never had a chance, because people weren't exposed to it. They didn't have the marketing dollars to promote it to the average computer user and they couldn't get it on PCs made by the big PC manufacturers because Microsoft did everything they could to prevent it.
I'm sure that there are people who would still buy Windows if Dell offered BeOS computers -- but the number of people who would have chosen BeOS would probably surprise you -- had they ever been offered and promoted.
If you're technically apt enough to build your own computer, you can go with an alternative OS. But the customers who want to buy a premade computer from a major manufacturer don't get a choice. Many PC manufacturers have shown interest in having a product line that doesn't include Windows -- and they've been slapped down with exclusive licensing agreements and price dis-incentives from M$ for trying to offer non M$ products.
Like Anonymous IRC or BBS in the early 90s? What did he mean?
I think that means that you have online friends that are AI, but you're not sure which friends are AI and which ones are real people. In 2007 Slashdot will have AC and AI posters, and the AI posters will probably make better observations and definitely be more polite...
I think 99.9% of people would agree that breaking a misdemeanor traffic law is not sufficient to consider a person a "criminal." That's why there are traffic courts, and job applications specifically disregard traffic offenses as being convicted of a crime. Perhaps I should have said "felons" rather than "criminal" but any reasonable person would have understood the point without clarification.
If somone were to rearend you and die because of the broken tail light would you then not be a murderer?
No. Murder is when you kill someone with "malice aforethought." You have to intend to kill someone to murder them. If your unintentional actions cause the death of another person it would be negligent homicide or involuntary manslaughter. I doubt any court would even convict someone of manslaughter or negligent homicide because of a busted tail-light. You might make an argument that a drunk driver who kills someone is a murderer -- they should have foreseen that their actions were very likely to result in the death of another person or persons, but someone who has a burnt-out tail light is not in this category. Besides, you'd really have to have several lights burned out not just one.
You're also ignoring the remainder of my post. I don't fault traffic officers for pulling people over, I just stated that most people -- particularly when pulled over -- feel that the police force could be pursuing criminals, by which I meant people who actively participate in criminal behaviour such as dealing drugs, killing or raping others, burglary or other notorious behaviour. If the average person considered speeding to be criminal behaviour they would not engage in the practice, and we'd really not need the traffic officers in the first place. Or do you intend to argue that we're a society of criminals?
Anyway, BOT, the US is a Capatilistic society, if you want Communism go somewhere else.
Not sure who you're addressing here. I never mentioned anything about patents.
The US is also a society that is supposed to embrace free speech -- hardly an attitude that shows through an intolerant phrase like "if you don't like it go somewhere else!" If that's the best rhetoric you can summon to make a point, perhaps you should just think a little longer before piping up.
Also, patents were never devised to be used as they're used today. Patents aren't used to protect an idea -- they're used as legal gotchas by companies to attempt to discourage competition. I'm pretty sure the framers of the constitution would have been horrified by the idea of "region encoding" and other tools used to try to stifle fair use and free trade.
Why does someone always bring this sort of thing up?
Because people see "this sort of thing" as an annoyance -- and most people feel that law enforcement spends too much time enforcing things like traffic laws, and not enough time chasing down criminals. Admittedly, this feeling is usually heightened when you're the person being pulled over...
Are you the sort of person who tells a police officer giving you a traffic ticket that he should be out solving murders rather than worrying about your broken taillight?
I don't know about the original poster, but no -- I'm not. I might write a letter to the editor or to the chief of police if I felt strongly about it, but the guy doing the ticketing is usually not choosing to be on the traffic beat. They're assigned to it, and I don't feel they deserve any flack. I also have to say that most of the times I've been pulled over, I've been pleasantly surprised how polite the officer has been -- and most of the highway patrol guys genuinely do care about motorists and don't want to see people speeding -- probably because they've seen one too many accidents.
The same with the customs agents -- their boss says "impound x brand DVD players" then that's what they should do. We should be making noise with the legislators and the people who run the customs offices -- not the poor schlub barely making a living by checking imports all day.
It's not a zero sum game, they don't have to let an opium shipment go by to impound a DVD player.
Well, no...they don't have to -- but there is a limit to how much they can do and how much manpower the customs office has.
They should definitely impound DVD players with opium stored in them. I think we can all agree on that.:)
Any "average" or lower student wouldn't care about it enough to make the Socratic Method work.
And they'd respond to being lectured? I think you're failing to make a distinction between average intelligence and motivation. Students that aren't in high level classes can be motivated, but the average high school instructor isn't really up to the task. I stand by my original recommendation -- lecturing a class full of teenagers about the evils of censorship and so forth isn't going to make an impression. Certainly, you want a few examples to get started, but it's up to the students to make the connections. If you can't motivate them to care, you've failed either way.
Looking back at my high school and college years, the instructors who left lasting impressions and actually taught me something were the ones who didn't just expect students to take dictation for a few weeks and then regurgitate answers. They were the ones who challenged the class and brought out the best of their students. Some kids (and adults) didn't like them, and didn't respond -- but many more did. I suspect that the ones who didn't wouldn't have gotten much out of the class regardless of the teaching style.
This book is not beyond the "processing power" of persons of average intelligence, but most students need to be convinced that it makes a difference to them.
I know this much about high school students because I go to school with them.
Because you go to school with them, or because you are a high school student? I get the sense that you feel you are somehow above the people you attend school with. Your priorities are probably different, you might even be smarter, but don't assume you're better.
Why does the govenment feel the need, or even the Right to get involved in such things?
Probably because government is comprised of individual people. Most of those people get involved in running for political office or apply for government posts because they have opinions they want to be able to enforce. Ashcroft has even said publically that he believes morality can be legislated. I don't agree with the theory, but he's right -- many laws enforce a percentage of the population's moral issues. Not everyone's, mind you, but a percentage. Gambling or prostitution for example, and liquor laws. (Live in an area where you can't buy alcohol on Sunday? Congrats, some Baptist is enforcing their morals on you.)
For every reader on Slashdot who thinks that censorship is evil, there's a church-going, God-fearing old lady who thinks that there are things that are beyond the pale and should not be allowed. They offend her sensibility, so they must be destroyed -- and guess what? She's 10x as likely to get her old ass to the polls on election day than the average person who doesn't believe in censorship.
Government is involved because people want and allow them to be, or at least sit silently without protesting while the people in government get involved.
Don't like it? Speak up, get involved. Vote. Write. Protest. Support causes you believe in. Otherwise, you're as much a part of the problem as the elected officials doing things you don't like.
Make your students do a project tying the novel into something happening now. They'll likely come up with something you haven't though of, and it would be more instructive than just shoving a message down their throats.
Try the Socratic method -- lead them to the ideas you want them to discover by asking questions, not by preaching at them.
Well, it's legalese. It is hard to read, but legal terminology is somewhat specific -- I'm not sure if a plain language representation would hold up in court. In other words, it might be possible for someone to say that the plain language version and the legalese version were out of sync and to sue M$ over the discrepancy -- even if there wasn't an intentional discrepancy. IANAL, though, so I could be wrong.
So what if I don't like the license agreement? By the time I've seen it, I've already paid for the damn product.
Not only have you paid for it, but if you buy it at a typical store like Best Buy you're stuck with it even if you don't agree to the license -- as soon as you open the shrinkwrap, it's non-returnable. Conveniently, you can't even read the full EULA until you've opened the product. M$ should have to print the entire EULA and attach it to the outside of the box.
the attempt at humor made me read 2x the number of words I should have had to.
Oh the horror. Having to read, what? 200 pages? Sorry, I just have to flinch when someone complains about "having" to read...
Everyone is entitled to their preferences, but I'd rather read a technical book -- whether a beginner's book or an advanced book -- with some humor. Books where the author is afraid, or worse -- not allowed -- to make asides and commentary are far too dull to follow. The Camel Book has quite a bit of humor and personality, which is one of the things that makes it great.
Having said that, some people just aren't good at humor. So...maybe some authors shouldn't try to be funny, but don't pick up a "For Dummies" book and expect it to be "just the facts."
I had a tech reviewer on one project that made a comment about "if I wanted to read someone's opinion, I'd read a magazine." I would never have worked with him again, happily the publisher didn't want to work with him again either.
It's not just for the benefit of the reader, either -- writing a book about a technical subject is fairly tedious and thankless work much of the time. Asking the author to also strip out any personality is going too far.
Those are definitely the games that consume the bulk of my time right now. Q3A at the end of the day when I need to blow something up, but during the day a quick game of glTron (or twenty...games of glTron are short) or Klines every hour or so keeps me sane. Well, sane-ish, anyway...
Assembly line workers do the same thing for 8 hours a day plus.
Yup, and I've got a wicked case of CTS to show for the three and a half years that I worked in a factory. I did the same job for more than a year because I was faster at my job than any one else on the line and my supervisor didn't want to rotate me. So, I spent 8 hours a day doing the same job -- not just in the same factory, mind you, doing the same repetitive motion -- for more than 12 months. Eventually I couldn't even sleep for more than a few hours without waking up due to the pain in my wrists and hands.
Happily, I got out of there without having to have surgery or anything -- I know a few people who had surgery and never regained full strength in their hands. I did go through about a month of physical therapy and learned a few exercises to help relieve the strain. I can't use normal keyboards or laptop keyboards for any period of time without causing pain, though. I've stocked up on ergonomic keyboards just in case the models that I like go out of production. (The original M$ "Natural" keyboards rock. The new models suck -- one doesn't have normal arrow keys, the other is too clunky with all the extra function keys. The cordless Logitech ergo keyboards rock too...)
Anyway, factories are required by OSHA to allow workers to rotate jobs or try to make sure that their jobs aren't going to cause RSI. I'm not sure it's 100% possible -- the human body was not designed to do repetitive tasks for 8 hours a day for years on end. But they're supposed to make an effort to prevent it.
And kids, if your hands hurt because you've been playing video games too long then it's time to go read a f&*^%ing book. Pain is the first sign of RSI, and if you heed it you won't have serious problems. If you ignore it, you're in for a lot worse than hand cramps.
Slashdot Mirror
you really have no reason to write more songs, other than you might enjoy it.
I'd say for the vast majority of songwriters/performers that they enjoy writing songs is the primary motivator, money is secondary.
Stephen King is a rich man several times over, but he still churns out books. I recall reading somewhere that Paul McCartney makes something like $10K a day on royalties, but he still writes music and tours occasionally. The guys in R.E.M. aren't hurting for money either, but they're still recording. Granted, the pace may have slowed somewhat -- but I don't think that in itself is a bad thing.
Hell, they paid Maria Carey something like $7 Million to dump her from her label and she's trying to get a new deal. (Note: I have no idea if she actually writes her own music, but work with me here...) From my perspective, it's a shame if she does record again, but the point is that money must not be her primary motivator to do music (if you can call it that...).
OTOH, the guys in XTC have never had a big hit, but they keep making records. Robyn Hitchcock isn't burning up the charts, but he still records and tours. Many people would probably have looked for "real" jobs after they'd realized that they weren't going to get rich, but writing music is obviously what they want to do. In the case of XTC, they'd probably have made a few more albums if they hadn't had money/label problems. So, cutting off the money supply isn't the answer here.
Expiring copyrights prior to the life of the artist is, IMHO, unfair. Even when you're talking about code -- if a person or company owns the code, they should choose what to do with it. Even if what they choose to do is selfish, it's their right.
Something else to consider, given the mentality of most record labels -- if copyrights expired after a shorter period, how many labels would just sit on material waiting for the rights to expire before exploiting it so they didn't have to share any royalties? I'd almost guarantee it'd become a common practice. Songwriters would be getting just above minimum wage while the labels cash in a few years later.
That's about $1700 (retail) of software that they're giving away.
At an actual cost of less than $20 per attendee, all of which will be written off as a promotional expense. Red Hat, SuSE, FreeBSD and the other Free Unix variants should take a cue from M$ and start calling ISO's "trial versions" or something and claim each download at the retail price as a business expense.
Too bad I'm not in Ohio, sounds like a fun event to pass out Debian CDs at...
Well, it's a little light on content -- but it's got a drastic advantage over sites that bash you over the head with proprietary crap like Flash. Any browser should reproduce that site more or less as it's designed.
Plain text and graphics only when necessary -- that kind of design works for me. It's good for anyone who is using a slow connection or broadband and you don't have to worry about it breaking the browser.
I second that. I think the original was better b/c it was easier to follow. I've shown the director's cut to people who'd never seen Blade Runner before, and they were slightly lost.
It's nice that a director can go back and "fix" a movie in a special edition set or something, but it should never replace the original theatrical release. Usually that's the experience that people want to relive through a video. It really pisses me off that I can't get a DVD of the original release.
For Wile E. Coyote, the Road Runner, Marvin Martian, Pepe Le Pew, the best of Bugs Bunny (he didn't create Bugs, but he directed the best Bugs Bunny shorts) and Gossamer. (The hair monster, for some reason Gossamer was always my favorite...)
Lest we forget, Chuck Jones also brought the Grinch to life, and Rikki-Tikki-Tavi.
As an animator, his timing was impeccible. He was the Mark Twain of animation. I never met the man, but his work has brought me countless hours of joy.
They don't prevent that because those software comply with Microsoft standards. They are using libraries from Microsoft.
What a load of crap. Plenty of crappy software is written for Windows that will crash your OS faster than you can say "blue screen of death."
but when something bad happens to Microsoft Windows it happens to be Microsoft problem.
No, it's often a user problem there too. Or third-party software/drivers. Of course, if they knew how to make a decent OS then a crappy program wouldn't crash the entire OS.
I said that because how LILO works, it doesn't comply with Microsoft Windows so I had problems.
Again, I think you're full of it. I've used Slackware with Windows on several computers -- both notebooks and desktop PCs from several different manufacturers -- and never experienced a problem. User error is my bet. Again, it's not up to M$ to try to prevent users or manufacturers from doing what they want with their computer -- and if there was a problem with having two OSes on a machine, it would be the manufacturer's problem -- not Microsoft's. Saying that M$'s concern about the effects of having multiple OSes on a computer is the flimsiest excuse I've ever heard.
Everybody defends its onw interests, even you.
There are limits, and there are differences. Yes, most people will look out for their own interests -- but if looking out for your own interest infringes on the rights of others, you lose. Microsoft isn't just looking out for themselves, they're actively doing everything they can to dominate a market to the detriment of their customers, their partners, the OEMs and their competitors. The only people who benefit from M$ are the executives with stock and their shareholders.
Are they the most evil in the world? No. I'm not about to put Billy-boy in the same category as Hitler, Osama bin Laden or the Backstreet Boys. Evil is evil, nonetheless, and the tactics that Microsoft uses are detrimental to almost anyone who comes into contact with them, just to ensure that they can continue to reap obscene profits. That is evil. End of story.
Indeed they can, and should. However, this is another example of big money riding roughshod over smaller businesses. The RIAA has basically employed a government agency to do its dirty work, and it will require a lot of money in lawyer's fees and quite a bit of time for any case to make its way through the courts. By the time the case is won, appealed, won again, appealed again and so forth the businesses who want to do online broadcasting are going to be dead or near dead while the RIAA has gotten their way.
Oh, puh-leeze. What FUD.
I've dual-booted Linux and Windows 95, 98, NT and never had even the slightest problem on several machines. Several Linux companies have sold dual-boot hardware with no such problems.
Microsoft doesn't know what will happen when you load program X either -- but it doesn't prevent companies from selling Windows with software pre-installed. Gateway or Dell can sell Microsoft Windows XP with their own software installed for customer support or whatever -- they don't prevent that.
If you had problems with LILO it was more likely user error than anything.
But in this case, it is not as evil as you think.
It's every bit as evil as I think. Probably more.
I think this is the discrepancy the FCC is trying to remediate with these regulations.
The FCC isn't doing this. The Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel is doing it at the behest of the RIAA so they can put the screws to Internet broadcasters.
Go read the articles -- they're asking for more information than is easily available. Far more.
Well, if they aren't paying ASCAP and BMI, then the webcasters are obviously in violation of the copyrights of the record companies.
Yes, they should have to pay the same fees that radio stations do -- but to make them jump through hoops that radio broadcasters do not have to jump through -- including logging each user, every song/program and such is ridiculous.
It costs a hell of a lot more to put up radio towers and pay for a studio and hosts than it does to load up a couple of servers and stream data.
Yes, this is very true. Still, there's no excuse for the restrictions that they're trying to impose on Internet broadcasters.
Radio stations only have to provide playlist information a few days a year (used to mete out royalties collected by ASCAP and BMI to artists) -- they do not have to provide information about every single song they play and they are certainly not responsible for reporting who might be listening to the stations.
These guys are going to be some of the first up against the wall when the revolution comes...
Assume that, you have a company which sells PCs. Would you go with BeOs or Windows?
I would want to sell both, actually. This is something that Microsoft went out of its way to prevent, using their monopoly position. That is why they must be punished. Severely.
Are Microsoft's tactics alone responsible for Be's failure? Maybe not, but they're a strong contributor.
Your analogy has no merit. You really need to do some research before you speak up again.
But if you think that microsoft strongarming PC manufacturers is some sort of evil, you should open your eyes.
So...your argument is because other companies are evil, it somehow lessens Microsoft's evil? Or is this the old "everyone is doing it" argument? The topic of discussion here is a suit filed against M$. I wasn't by any means implying that I didn't think that other corporations are equally evil by not explicitly holding forth on them, so I don't believe that I'm being inconsistent.
Those who sell a product or make a product have the right to dictate on what terms they'll manufacture or sell it.
Not entirely true. Microsoft is a monopoly, there are restrictions on what a company with a monopoly in a given market can do to hold on to or extend that monopoly. Having a monopoly is not illegal, but many things that Microsoft has done are.
Even companies that do not have monopolies have restrictions on their business practices.
For instance, it's illegal to tell a reseller what price they can charge for an item. If I produce product X, and I want to set the price for it at $19.95 (retail) I can't stop you from selling it at your price if you choose to do so. I can choose not to sell you the product, but I can't keep you from selling it at cost or even at a loss if you choose to. There are limits to the restrictions and such that a manufacturer can require. I do not know all of the boundaries and laws governing dealing with retailers, but I know it's not "anything goes."
Sears Roebuck often threatens contractors and manufacturers if their prices aren't majorly reduced for Sears.
And so does Wal-Mart and just about any other large retailer. Any retailer wants the best margin that they can get, and larger retailers have the muscle to get larger discounts. That's not illegal. Sears is not a monopoly. Neither is Sony. Best Buy could stop carrying Sony products and still offer TVs. Maytag could stop selling to Sears and not go out of business -- though it might hurt their bottom line. On the other hand, Microsoft jacking up Windows licenses for Dell if they choose to also sell BeOS PCs or Linux PCs could very realistically force Dell to either not sell those OSes or put Dell out of business because the margin is so thin for PCs. Since Microsoft does have a monopoly in that market, it is supposed to be illegal for them to do this sort of thing.
Whining about BeOS not having a chance because of exposure is bullshit. Exposure is not and should not be free.
No one said exposure should be free -- but Microsoft should not be allowed to use its monopoly to prevent manufacturers from developing non-M$ products. Nor should a manufacturer have to pay the M$ tax for every machine, regardless of whether it has Windows loaded.
Bottom line, the "free market" is not unregulated and it's not truly free either. It is mired down with laws to protect individuals, government incentives to help out businesses and all kinds of other legislation and practices that make the so-called "free market" anything but.
And the age-old adage applies here too: Your rights end where mine begin. When a company like Microsoft tramples the rights of other companies by abusing its monopoly position it has crossed a line and it should be punished. It amazes me that so many people actively defend a company whose practices are so repugnant to common decency. If a four-year-old child acted in the same manner as M$ its parents would smack it on its bottom and tell it to behave. Apparently the decency we expect from a child is too much to ask from a multi-billion dollar corporation led by adults.
The fact of the matter is, only a small percentage of people even want to use these fringe products. Why punish Microsoft for that?
This would be compelling if it were truthful.
The reality is that people would like alternatives to using Microsoft, but Microsoft has done everything it can to prevent Dell, HP, Compaq and others from presenting options to their customers.
The other OSes aren't getting to play on a level playing field. BeOS was a very slick OS, it had all the features that most users would want and was very user-friendly. And it never had a chance, because people weren't exposed to it. They didn't have the marketing dollars to promote it to the average computer user and they couldn't get it on PCs made by the big PC manufacturers because Microsoft did everything they could to prevent it.
I'm sure that there are people who would still buy Windows if Dell offered BeOS computers -- but the number of people who would have chosen BeOS would probably surprise you -- had they ever been offered and promoted.
If you're technically apt enough to build your own computer, you can go with an alternative OS. But the customers who want to buy a premade computer from a major manufacturer don't get a choice. Many PC manufacturers have shown interest in having a product line that doesn't include Windows -- and they've been slapped down with exclusive licensing agreements and price dis-incentives from M$ for trying to offer non M$ products.
That's why M$ should be punished. Harshly.
Like Anonymous IRC or BBS in the early 90s? What did he mean?
I think that means that you have online friends that are AI, but you're not sure which friends are AI and which ones are real people. In 2007 Slashdot will have AC and AI posters, and the AI posters will probably make better observations and definitely be more polite...
"Orgasm by email - 2010"
Suddenly "you've got mail" takes on a whole new meaning... spam becomes wildly popular... hookers are out of work in droves...
Only eight more years...
I think 99.9% of people would agree that breaking a misdemeanor traffic law is not sufficient to consider a person a "criminal." That's why there are traffic courts, and job applications specifically disregard traffic offenses as being convicted of a crime. Perhaps I should have said "felons" rather than "criminal" but any reasonable person would have understood the point without clarification.
If somone were to rearend you and die because of the broken tail light would you then not be a murderer?
No. Murder is when you kill someone with "malice aforethought." You have to intend to kill someone to murder them. If your unintentional actions cause the death of another person it would be negligent homicide or involuntary manslaughter. I doubt any court would even convict someone of manslaughter or negligent homicide because of a busted tail-light. You might make an argument that a drunk driver who kills someone is a murderer -- they should have foreseen that their actions were very likely to result in the death of another person or persons, but someone who has a burnt-out tail light is not in this category. Besides, you'd really have to have several lights burned out not just one.
You're also ignoring the remainder of my post. I don't fault traffic officers for pulling people over, I just stated that most people -- particularly when pulled over -- feel that the police force could be pursuing criminals, by which I meant people who actively participate in criminal behaviour such as dealing drugs, killing or raping others, burglary or other notorious behaviour. If the average person considered speeding to be criminal behaviour they would not engage in the practice, and we'd really not need the traffic officers in the first place. Or do you intend to argue that we're a society of criminals?
Anyway, BOT, the US is a Capatilistic society, if you want Communism go somewhere else.
Not sure who you're addressing here. I never mentioned anything about patents.
The US is also a society that is supposed to embrace free speech -- hardly an attitude that shows through an intolerant phrase like "if you don't like it go somewhere else!" If that's the best rhetoric you can summon to make a point, perhaps you should just think a little longer before piping up.
Also, patents were never devised to be used as they're used today. Patents aren't used to protect an idea -- they're used as legal gotchas by companies to attempt to discourage competition. I'm pretty sure the framers of the constitution would have been horrified by the idea of "region encoding" and other tools used to try to stifle fair use and free trade.
Why does someone always bring this sort of thing up?
:)
Because people see "this sort of thing" as an annoyance -- and most people feel that law enforcement spends too much time enforcing things like traffic laws, and not enough time chasing down criminals. Admittedly, this feeling is usually heightened when you're the person being pulled over...
Are you the sort of person who tells a police officer giving you a traffic ticket that he should be out solving murders rather than worrying about your broken taillight?
I don't know about the original poster, but no -- I'm not. I might write a letter to the editor or to the chief of police if I felt strongly about it, but the guy doing the ticketing is usually not choosing to be on the traffic beat. They're assigned to it, and I don't feel they deserve any flack. I also have to say that most of the times I've been pulled over, I've been pleasantly surprised how polite the officer has been -- and most of the highway patrol guys genuinely do care about motorists and don't want to see people speeding -- probably because they've seen one too many accidents.
The same with the customs agents -- their boss says "impound x brand DVD players" then that's what they should do. We should be making noise with the legislators and the people who run the customs offices -- not the poor schlub barely making a living by checking imports all day.
It's not a zero sum game, they don't have to let an opium shipment go by to impound a DVD player.
Well, no...they don't have to -- but there is a limit to how much they can do and how much manpower the customs office has.
They should definitely impound DVD players with opium stored in them. I think we can all agree on that.
Any "average" or lower student wouldn't care about it enough to make the Socratic Method work.
And they'd respond to being lectured? I think you're failing to make a distinction between average intelligence and motivation. Students that aren't in high level classes can be motivated, but the average high school instructor isn't really up to the task. I stand by my original recommendation -- lecturing a class full of teenagers about the evils of censorship and so forth isn't going to make an impression. Certainly, you want a few examples to get started, but it's up to the students to make the connections. If you can't motivate them to care, you've failed either way.
Looking back at my high school and college years, the instructors who left lasting impressions and actually taught me something were the ones who didn't just expect students to take dictation for a few weeks and then regurgitate answers. They were the ones who challenged the class and brought out the best of their students. Some kids (and adults) didn't like them, and didn't respond -- but many more did. I suspect that the ones who didn't wouldn't have gotten much out of the class regardless of the teaching style.
This book is not beyond the "processing power" of persons of average intelligence, but most students need to be convinced that it makes a difference to them.
I know this much about high school students because I go to school with them.
Because you go to school with them, or because you are a high school student? I get the sense that you feel you are somehow above the people you attend school with. Your priorities are probably different, you might even be smarter, but don't assume you're better.
Why does the govenment feel the need, or even the Right to get involved in such things?
Probably because government is comprised of individual people. Most of those people get involved in running for political office or apply for government posts because they have opinions they want to be able to enforce. Ashcroft has even said publically that he believes morality can be legislated. I don't agree with the theory, but he's right -- many laws enforce a percentage of the population's moral issues. Not everyone's, mind you, but a percentage. Gambling or prostitution for example, and liquor laws. (Live in an area where you can't buy alcohol on Sunday? Congrats, some Baptist is enforcing their morals on you.)
For every reader on Slashdot who thinks that censorship is evil, there's a church-going, God-fearing old lady who thinks that there are things that are beyond the pale and should not be allowed. They offend her sensibility, so they must be destroyed -- and guess what? She's 10x as likely to get her old ass to the polls on election day than the average person who doesn't believe in censorship.
Government is involved because people want and allow them to be, or at least sit silently without protesting while the people in government get involved.
Don't like it? Speak up, get involved. Vote. Write. Protest. Support causes you believe in. Otherwise, you're as much a part of the problem as the elected officials doing things you don't like.
Make your students do a project tying the novel into something happening now. They'll likely come up with something you haven't though of, and it would be more instructive than just shoving a message down their throats.
Try the Socratic method -- lead them to the ideas you want them to discover by asking questions, not by preaching at them.
Just a thought...
Well, it's legalese. It is hard to read, but legal terminology is somewhat specific -- I'm not sure if a plain language representation would hold up in court. In other words, it might be possible for someone to say that the plain language version and the legalese version were out of sync and to sue M$ over the discrepancy -- even if there wasn't an intentional discrepancy. IANAL, though, so I could be wrong.
So what if I don't like the license agreement? By the time I've seen it, I've already paid for the damn product.
Not only have you paid for it, but if you buy it at a typical store like Best Buy you're stuck with it even if you don't agree to the license -- as soon as you open the shrinkwrap, it's non-returnable. Conveniently, you can't even read the full EULA until you've opened the product. M$ should have to print the entire EULA and attach it to the outside of the box.
the attempt at humor made me read 2x the number of words I should have had to.
Oh the horror. Having to read, what? 200 pages? Sorry, I just have to flinch when someone complains about "having" to read...
Everyone is entitled to their preferences, but I'd rather read a technical book -- whether a beginner's book or an advanced book -- with some humor. Books where the author is afraid, or worse -- not allowed -- to make asides and commentary are far too dull to follow. The Camel Book has quite a bit of humor and personality, which is one of the things that makes it great.
Having said that, some people just aren't good at humor. So...maybe some authors shouldn't try to be funny, but don't pick up a "For Dummies" book and expect it to be "just the facts."
I had a tech reviewer on one project that made a comment about "if I wanted to read someone's opinion, I'd read a magazine." I would never have worked with him again, happily the publisher didn't want to work with him again either.
It's not just for the benefit of the reader, either -- writing a book about a technical subject is fairly tedious and thankless work much of the time. Asking the author to also strip out any personality is going too far.
Those are definitely the games that consume the bulk of my time right now. Q3A at the end of the day when I need to blow something up, but during the day a quick game of glTron (or twenty...games of glTron are short) or Klines every hour or so keeps me sane. Well, sane-ish, anyway...
Assembly line workers do the same thing for 8 hours a day plus.
Yup, and I've got a wicked case of CTS to show for the three and a half years that I worked in a factory. I did the same job for more than a year because I was faster at my job than any one else on the line and my supervisor didn't want to rotate me. So, I spent 8 hours a day doing the same job -- not just in the same factory, mind you, doing the same repetitive motion -- for more than 12 months. Eventually I couldn't even sleep for more than a few hours without waking up due to the pain in my wrists and hands.
Happily, I got out of there without having to have surgery or anything -- I know a few people who had surgery and never regained full strength in their hands. I did go through about a month of physical therapy and learned a few exercises to help relieve the strain. I can't use normal keyboards or laptop keyboards for any period of time without causing pain, though. I've stocked up on ergonomic keyboards just in case the models that I like go out of production. (The original M$ "Natural" keyboards rock. The new models suck -- one doesn't have normal arrow keys, the other is too clunky with all the extra function keys. The cordless Logitech ergo keyboards rock too...)
Anyway, factories are required by OSHA to allow workers to rotate jobs or try to make sure that their jobs aren't going to cause RSI. I'm not sure it's 100% possible -- the human body was not designed to do repetitive tasks for 8 hours a day for years on end. But they're supposed to make an effort to prevent it.
And kids, if your hands hurt because you've been playing video games too long then it's time to go read a f&*^%ing book. Pain is the first sign of RSI, and if you heed it you won't have serious problems. If you ignore it, you're in for a lot worse than hand cramps.