You're right, this proposal wouldn't work. But it's a good place to start.
How about this? What if we created a P2P system similar to the proposal, but with a distributed library of corporate-owned copyrighted works. It could be any copyrighted work -- books, music CDs, DVDs, whatever. Then, like a public library (or Hollywood Video), only one employee would be able to check out any given copy at a time. However, this being a high-tech electronic library, as soon as you're finished with it the copy would be immediately available for another employee to check out. So, if you're listening to a music CD, as soon as you finish track 1, that track is available for another employee to hear while you go on to track 2. If you're reading a book, as soon as you finish chapter 1 it's available to another employee while you read chapter 2, etc.
Naturally, you'd need more copies of the most popular stuff than in the original proposal, but you'd still need far fewer than one copy per employee. Also, you could have a points system for ranking employees (hey, aren't employees ranked at your place of work?) which rewards those who contribute more works, and/or who contribute the most popular works. The reward could be higher placement in the "reserve" queue. The backlog list (the stuff in high demand) could be used to help determine employee ranking, and it would be published so employees would know what works to add to the library to improve their personal ranking.
The user interface could tell you the expected wait for the requested item and suggest alternatives: "Stairway to Heaven will be available in approx. 25 minutes. May I suggest Oops, I Did It Again, which is available immediately?"
Predition: All these posts will be modded -1 redundant, including this first one.
Hey, moderators! It's the damn stories that deserve the "-1 redundant", not the readers who complain about dupes!
Meta-moderators: Please mark all "-1 Redundant" moderations to any post in this thread as "Unfair", because there is no other forum/way to complain about duplicate stories. Thank you.
Oh, I don't know about that. They released gcc for free, but you don't see "everyone" developing for Linux or *BSD. (of course, you don't see anyone developing for Hurd:-)
They also helped me for free when I couldn't get Visual Studio.NET to install.
Sure, they're desperate for.NET developers -- they'll bend over backwards to help anyone who's interested. I'm amazed they don't give Visual Studio.NET away free, but then they've always had a thing for making you pay them for, well, damn near anything.
Ask them for help when you can't get Flight Simulator or Office to install, and see if they're so free with their advice.
Did you read the KB article? "To resolve this problem immediately, contact Microsoft Product Support Services to obtain the fix." Not, "go to Windows Update to obtain the fix." I'm sure you can download the fix for free, but finding out how requires a call to Support Services, which will cost you if you don't already have a support contract (in which case it already cost you). From the tone of the KB article it's clear they don't want just anyone downloading this fix -- I'm guessing it's not fully tested -- and they probably want the Support droids to try and talk you out of it.
Not only that, "User further attests that no submitted content is subject to any license (such as the GPL Open Source License) that would infringe on any of the rights granted to other parties in this contract." Now, can anyone please tell me how posting GPL code would infringe on the rights of PlanetSourceCode's readers? AFAIK it only infringes on their policy of forbidding readers from redistributing source code, which I believe exists to protect those who post the code. If the poster wishes to allow source re-distribution, why not let them? I think the clue comes from their Windows-centric origins. 'If billg hates the GPL, then we do, too!'
You have to pay for Microsoft Product Support Services. From Knowledge Base Article 815411: "In special cases, charges that are ordinarily incurred for support calls may be canceled if a Microsoft Support Professional determines that a specific update will resolve your problem." May be canceled. Or maybe not. So it's entirely up to Microsoft whether or not to charge you for the fix to a problem they admit having! Of all the nerve.
Avoid Service Pack 1, or better yet, avoid Windows.
Hey, how do I know it's not harmful unless I monitor it?;-)
If they're so concerned about theft of service they should only beam their signal to their customer's houses. If they don't want me to see it, don't beam it at my house.
The Federal Government's official position is that automobiles are theirs to regulate, because they operate on public roads that cross state lines. It doesn't matter if you only operate your car within your state, you're still subject to Federal regulations (emissions, safety, etc.) because you could cross a state line. California has emissions regulations that exceed the Federal standards only because Federal law grants them permission to set their own standards. So the fact that your radar detector is inside your car doesn't mean anything -- it's still covered by Federal laws/regulations (FCC), not state. It doesn't matter if the states don't think it's interstate commerce, what matters is what the courts think. So far, AFAIK, Federal courts have not ruled on state laws prohibiting radar detectors.
Back to the original topic, I remember an arguement from the 1970s regarding satelite television which went something like this: I have a right to protect my family from the potentially harmful radiation your satelite is beaming at my house, and in the course of providing this protection I have a right to monitor the radiation levels. If I chose to display the radiation levels in the form of an image on a television screen, that's my business.
A few states prohibit radar detectors, and a few prohibit listening to police scanners while in a car.
My point is that, in my opinion, these state laws are unconstitutional. You have only stated that such laws exist, not argued that they are constitutional or pointed to any court finding them constitutional.
Also, it's illegal to make a device to receive cell phone frequencies
That's a federal law, not a state law -- which supports my point!
"to conceal... from any communication service provider... the existence or place of origin or destination of any communication."
If you use NAT you are concealing from your ISP the place of origin or destination of your email, web surfing, etc. As far as your ISP knows, all your traffic is from/to your firewall, but in reality it's from/to the various computers within your home network. Ergo, you are concealing the true origin/destination of your Internet traffic.
Only because a simple speeding ticket isn't worth appealing all the way to the Spreme Court. But if I were rich... Seriously, the Constitution gives authority over interstate commerce to the Federal Government, and the courts have ruled this applies to radio, because radio crosses state lines. Therefore, the courts have ruled, the States have no authority over radio. Therefore, I believe (but IANAL), the courts would rule the States have no authority to prevent you from using the radio waves in a way the FCC permits, including reception of police radar frequencies. Now, to be fair, the courts have also ruled that if you listen in with a police scanner you may not share what you hear with anyone, so be sure your radar detector is positioned such that other drivers (including cops) can't see it when it lights up, or hear it when it sounds off.
As with the DMCA, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
In the case of the DMCA: It's a superhighway to hell, they knew exactly where it went when they built it, and their intentions were not at all good. Congress' intention was to hand your wallet over to the corporate copyright holders, allowing Disney - for example - to charge you every time you view a Disney movie, not just when you buy it at WallMart. They know the best way to get further campaign contributions is to help fill their donor's pockets.
Read the GPL. It clearly allows full use of the software without any restrictions, including allowing the Chinese to use GPL'd software to opress Tibet (or allowing you to use GPL'd software to lampoon RMS:-)
Why is this story hidden in "Developers"? This has nothing to do with development, it's a charity trying to evangelize Linux by sharing otherwise unused CDs among those who can't afford to buy them (or don't have a high-speed internet connection to download ISOs). This belongs on the front page.
Please provide references to back up your assumption that ActiveX has become more secure over the last 6.5 years. It still allows the execution of any program on your machine, including a program downloaded without your knowledge -- that's the point of ActiveX. It is, by design, insecure. Java, on the other hand, at lease runs in a "sandbox" within your browser, and while potentially dangerous it's not as potentially dangerous as ActiveX.
I allow neither Java nor ActiveX and I'm able to surf the Web just fine. I don't see why Mozilla thinks they need it, and they'd damn well better give us a way to disable it.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure -- the IRS gets to listen to 23% of the music.
Oh, wait, I see the problem: You have monkeys in your pants.
The parent is both "Insightful" and "Redundant"? MOC, again. I rest my case.
this is one of those "funny" April Fools stories, isn't it?
How about this? What if we created a P2P system similar to the proposal, but with a distributed library of corporate-owned copyrighted works. It could be any copyrighted work -- books, music CDs, DVDs, whatever. Then, like a public library (or Hollywood Video), only one employee would be able to check out any given copy at a time. However, this being a high-tech electronic library, as soon as you're finished with it the copy would be immediately available for another employee to check out. So, if you're listening to a music CD, as soon as you finish track 1, that track is available for another employee to hear while you go on to track 2. If you're reading a book, as soon as you finish chapter 1 it's available to another employee while you read chapter 2, etc.
Naturally, you'd need more copies of the most popular stuff than in the original proposal, but you'd still need far fewer than one copy per employee. Also, you could have a points system for ranking employees (hey, aren't employees ranked at your place of work?) which rewards those who contribute more works, and/or who contribute the most popular works. The reward could be higher placement in the "reserve" queue. The backlog list (the stuff in high demand) could be used to help determine employee ranking, and it would be published so employees would know what works to add to the library to improve their personal ranking.
The user interface could tell you the expected wait for the requested item and suggest alternatives: "Stairway to Heaven will be available in approx. 25 minutes. May I suggest Oops, I Did It Again, which is available immediately?"
Hey, moderators! It's the damn stories that deserve the "-1 redundant", not the readers who complain about dupes!
Meta-moderators: Please mark all "-1 Redundant" moderations to any post in this thread as "Unfair", because there is no other forum/way to complain about duplicate stories. Thank you.
Oh, I don't know about that. They released gcc for free, but you don't see "everyone" developing for Linux or *BSD. (of course, you don't see anyone developing for Hurd :-)
They used one of these motherboards in the WallMart $200 Lindows PC, although now they seem to have switched to AMD Durons.
Ask them for help when you can't get Flight Simulator or Office to install, and see if they're so free with their advice.
Did you read the KB article? "To resolve this problem immediately, contact Microsoft Product Support Services to obtain the fix." Not, "go to Windows Update to obtain the fix." I'm sure you can download the fix for free, but finding out how requires a call to Support Services, which will cost you if you don't already have a support contract (in which case it already cost you). From the tone of the KB article it's clear they don't want just anyone downloading this fix -- I'm guessing it's not fully tested -- and they probably want the Support droids to try and talk you out of it.
Not only that, "User further attests that no submitted content is subject to any license (such as the GPL Open Source License) that would infringe on any of the rights granted to other parties in this contract." Now, can anyone please tell me how posting GPL code would infringe on the rights of PlanetSourceCode's readers? AFAIK it only infringes on their policy of forbidding readers from redistributing source code, which I believe exists to protect those who post the code. If the poster wishes to allow source re-distribution, why not let them? I think the clue comes from their Windows-centric origins. 'If billg hates the GPL, then we do, too!'
Avoid Service Pack 1, or better yet, avoid Windows.
If they're so concerned about theft of service they should only beam their signal to their customer's houses. If they don't want me to see it, don't beam it at my house.
Back to the original topic, I remember an arguement from the 1970s regarding satelite television which went something like this: I have a right to protect my family from the potentially harmful radiation your satelite is beaming at my house, and in the course of providing this protection I have a right to monitor the radiation levels. If I chose to display the radiation levels in the form of an image on a television screen, that's my business.
Yes, thanks!
Only because a simple speeding ticket isn't worth appealing all the way to the Spreme Court. But if I were rich... Seriously, the Constitution gives authority over interstate commerce to the Federal Government, and the courts have ruled this applies to radio, because radio crosses state lines. Therefore, the courts have ruled, the States have no authority over radio. Therefore, I believe (but IANAL), the courts would rule the States have no authority to prevent you from using the radio waves in a way the FCC permits, including reception of police radar frequencies. Now, to be fair, the courts have also ruled that if you listen in with a police scanner you may not share what you hear with anyone, so be sure your radar detector is positioned such that other drivers (including cops) can't see it when it lights up, or hear it when it sounds off.
Can you please explain, or point me to an explanation: What's the difference between CAP and iCalendar? Are they competing or complementary? Thanks.
Read the GPL. It clearly allows full use of the software without any restrictions, including allowing the Chinese to use GPL'd software to opress Tibet (or allowing you to use GPL'd software to lampoon RMS :-)
Why is this story hidden in "Developers"? This has nothing to do with development, it's a charity trying to evangelize Linux by sharing otherwise unused CDs among those who can't afford to buy them (or don't have a high-speed internet connection to download ISOs). This belongs on the front page.
I allow neither Java nor ActiveX and I'm able to surf the Web just fine. I don't see why Mozilla thinks they need it, and they'd damn well better give us a way to disable it.