Some would argue that the US is one big "real-live fuck-you-in-the-ass type prison". It's just that the people doing the pounding are the Republicans in Washington right now and the people getting pounded are the average citizens.
If the original poster had talked about error correction in a wider context, as you and some others have, rather than only in the context of letting him download as many songs as he wanted without any hassle then perhaps I wouldn't have replied to his post.
I'm confused why you think that my support of fair use, etc means that I can't appreciate RIAA's position with regards to major P2P fileswappers, a significant percentage (perhaps even a majority) of whom infringe on their copyrights in violation of local laws, etc.
I don't believe that RIAA's taken the long view on this: if I were them, I wouldn't be suing 12 year-olds or grandparents who weren't aware of what their grandkids were doing, as it's nothing but bad publicity. I believe that given enough rope they could quite easily hang themself with that strategy once public awareness of issues such as fair use, DRM, etc became more widespread.
But in the meantime, I think that the worst thing P2P application developers could do is write an app that focused solely on making filesharing of copyrighted materials as easy as possible, which is what the original poster said they should do? Why? Because it gives RIAA (and others) the ammunition that they need, in the papers and in the courts, to label P2P as nothing but piracy on the grandest scale.
As to whether RIAA should be deliberately hindered, or whether downloaders should have an unequivocable right to privacy, here's are some (perhaps crude) analogies for you:
1. If I rob a bank, do the bank (via the police) have a right to come after me? Don't I have the right to just run into a crowd and escape freely? If I they don't catch me red-handed by the end of the day, shouldn't I have the right to never be prosecuted for the crime? 2. If my rifle can be used for legitimate purposes, such as hunting, why do I need to be transparent in its use? Why do I have to have a license or, one day, perhaps even have to prove it wasn't used in a crime?
Similarly:
1. Do P2P fileswappers who do nothing but knowingly infringe on copyrights have a right to do whatever they please with no regards for the law? Do they have a total and unequivocable right to copyright infringement on a mass scale using a system that makes them impossible to track? (And what happens when it's paedophiles swapping kiddie porn? Do they deserve the same protection?) 2. Why doesn't RIAA have any right to investigate P2P fileswapping? If everyone doing it is doing so legitimately then where's the problem? As others have said before, I'd rather they went after the fileswappers than went after P2P as a concept.
My question still stands though, why not publish one article, thereby letting people discuss all aspects of the OS in one place rather than two? In six month's time, if someone wants to read what people had to say in the discussion then they'll have to read through two sets of comments rather than one. Surely that's counterproductive?
This isn't a step-by-step tutorial - I could understand if one of those was fragmented - it's a review. I just find it strange that the editors would split up a review like that. (In publishing, splitting up a review is pretty much a cardinal sin.) Will they start doing that for other reviews? If so, I can't wait for the first part of the Kill Bill, Volume 2 review.
HMV, Virgin, WH Smith and Woolworths all will have some chart stuff at around 10 pounds, although not all of it. New releases tend to have offers on them as well. Supermarkets also discount CDs. Tesco, Sainsburys and Asda all stock chart CDs at around 10 pounds too.
But if you're going to buy CDs on the high street then buy them from a smaller independent music retailer. Their prices are usually more reasonable than those of the big boys and you're likely to receive better service. Depending on how you feel about large corporations you might even get a warm fuzzy feeling when you're walking out with your new purchases.
Of course, if you're looking to fill out your collection, the regular sales held by Virgin and HMV to clear out excess stock are great. The 5 CDs for 30 pounds deals that Virgin run is brilliant and it runs to DVDs too: just before Christmas I bought a stack of great stuff and I could have easily have bought a lot more if the self-restraint hadn't kicked in.
The story summary says that the BPI demanded that CD-Wow raise its prices by 2 pounds per CD. What they actually demanded was that CD-Wow stopped sourcing CDs that it was selling in the EU from outside the EU.
The end result is that CD-Wow will be raising its prices by 2 pounds per CD, but it wasn't because the BPI walked up to them and said "Raise prices by 2 pounds or else!" If that were true, they could equally have demanded a price hike of more than 2 pounds, or hit CD-Wow with the same demand in a year's time ("Hey, we want another 2 pounds per CD!") but, clearly, that's not the case.
And, as I pointed out, if the law on grey importing is lifted, then CD-Wow can go back to sourcing CDs from wherever it wants, and drop its prices back down accordingly. The way the story summary put it, CD-Wow was eternally bound to do the BPI's will. Again, that's not the case.
There's a difference between the story summary and the reality of the situation. Perhaps not a difference that you appreciate, but a difference nevertheless. Either way though, I and other CD-Wow customers are going to be paying more for our music in the near future.
Tell everyone that you're all for fair play, an even playing field for everyone but then read other people's confidential memos to gain an unfair advantage. How sleazy is that?
I wonder what Republicans who thought Bill Clinton getting a blowjob was worthy of impeachment have to say about Senators and their staffs committing crimes punishable by up to a year in prison?
What the agreement (that avoided a court case) stated was that CD-Wow would source products that they are selling in the EU from within the EU, not from elsewhere (eg, Asia).
Unfortunately, because manufacturers charge more for the EU versions of their CDs (or, to put it another way, because they aren't discounted as much as CDs intended for Asian consumers) this means that CD-Wow will have to pay more for its stock in future. To reflect that increased cost, CD-Wow is putting up the prices of its CDs by 2 pounds.
The reason for this is that (ridiculously) buying goods from cheaper sources outside the EU without the permission of the vendor is illegal. Other companies, such as Levi Strauss, have taken supermarkets and other discount retailers to court over grey (non-EU sourced) imports in the past, so CD-Wow would almost have certainly lost the court case that was avoided. Clearly, this is one law that EU consumers would love to see changed.
Other online vendors who the BPI believes are selling grey imports in the UK are also being considered for legal action. These include Amazon.co.uk (which is based in the UK) and Play.com (which is based in the Channel Islands).
Why the crackdown? Well, I'm sure the BPI is being pressurised by traditional retailers complaining about losing sales to etailers undercutting them at every opportunity. It's not a coincidence that since the likes of CD-Wow, Play.com, etc appeared the average cost of an album in the UK has dropped to 10 pounds. And it's also not a coincidence that cheaper CDs (on the high street and online) led to a 30 percent rise in UK album sales last year.
As a regular CD-Wow customer, I'm disappointed by the BPI's stance, the agreement and and the law that forced it, but I'll continue to shop at CD-Wow because, for the most part, they'll still be cheaper than many of the alternatives. Not only that, but they somehow manage to ship from Hong Kong to the UK faster than most their rivals shipping from one part of the UK to another! Their customer services are friendly and helpful too.
Hopefully the consumer-hostile legislation that led to this agreement will soon be repealed. When that day comes, I'm sure CD-Wow will drop its prices again.
Well RIAA's not interested in you if you're in the Netherlands, is it? And they can find out that much from your IP address, so tell me why what I've said offends you?
I've not suggested for a second that copyright holders have the automatic right to null the privacy of non-copyright holders; that's something for the courts to decide.
What I have said, is that if you were to write a P2P application that bent over backwards to thwart any and every effort made by RIAA (and others) to limit the infringement of its copyrights then you as the writer of said application would probably find yourself with RIAA breathing down your neck and taking you to court, and that the courts probably (note, probably) wouldn't be too quick to take your side when RIAA (or whoever) provides a point-by-point analysis of the extra features you've intentionally implemented to deliberately hinder them whilst helping infringers.
(It'd be hard to argue that you've developed a P2P application for legitimate use when you've done so much to help illegal downloading. To use an everyday analogy, you might not be the one "providing" or "stealing" the goods, but you'd be the one helping to "launder" or "fence" them.)
In short, just like Napster, you as the author of the application would become RIAA's biggest target. Now, why would you want that?
I am all for fair use, privacy and the limitation of copyright terms. I've been vocal on those issues in the past, and I'll continue to be vocal on them in the future. But downloading 20 albums a week as soon as they are released without ever buying an actual CD isn't the way to address those issues. Remember, it's not like you have to own a piece of music: we're talking about a luxury here, not a necessity like food or water. And it's not like you can't find other music not managed by RIAA that you can download freely with the copyright holder's consent.
And, just as you correctly state that privacy isn't designed for the exclusive use of copyright holders, I?ll say this: being able to use a P2P application doesn't give you the automatic right not to be pursued by copyright holders when you flagrantly infringe on their property.
b) Have some sort of way to filter out the fake files put out by record companies and the RIAA. Check files, particularly MP3s, for filler, or repetitions of strings (the usual cause of noise on fake MP3s). Make users able to chose the actual content that they are after. Perhaps also blacklisting of unreliable users from a user level?
In other words, make it as simple as possible for you to infringe on someone else's copyright.
I tell you what, why don't you write such an app with such a filter and see how long it takes for RIAA and the courts to come down on you like a ton of bricks for deliberately designing a tool that a) stops them from posting their own material, whilst, b) helping people infringe on their copyrights as easily as possible.
Writing a P2P application isn't against the law, but I bet designing a P2P application that uses such measures to intentionally block RIAA (or any other copyright holder) from trying to track down individuals that are wantonly infringing on their copyrights will be severely frowned upon by the courts.
Contrary to what you might believe, you don't have a right to infringe on copyrights. And the Napster, etc court decisions decided you can't use the "unlimited friends" defence to protect your ass. If you want the latest Britney Spears/Eminem/Outkast/whoever CD then you can pay for it.
Now watch me get flamed to hell and back by half of Slashdot nation. Like I care about karma: if I did I wouldn't be writing this post, would I?
God, I hope you're never in a situation where your car has just gone off the road and is sinking in water because you'd die if you tried it your way.
The very first thing you must do if your car hits the water and is going under is wind down the windows. Why? Because if you don't wind down the windows then you won't be able to open the doors: the pressure and inertia of the water will prevent them from opening. Your only hope is if the windows are down, even a fraction. If they're closed then you're dead.
So, trying to "pull that little lever to unlock the door and get out", is your second problem, not your first.
As I've said elsewhere, I know I'd heard of Patrick Stewart before TNG but I know that just about everyone else around me was oblivious to his existance before he played Jean Luc Picard.
As to your point about reality TV, well, I'd have to agree with you there. Documentaries are fine, but so-called docusoaps have really blurred the line between education and entertainment so much that the education aspect has been almost lost.
For example, I know that I'd enjoy something like Survivor if they actually took time away from the contestants to teach the audience basic bushcraft or showed us some of the unique aspects of the environments that they were filming in or both. Unfortunately, most people start switching off when faced with that kind of stuff (or, at least, that's what the TV execs believe) so we're fed a gameshow that's nothing more than a popularity contest-cum-boot camp.
Again, the difference between "virtual unknowns" (which is what I said) and "unknowns" (which is what you seem to assume I said) is significant.
Compared to Scott Bakula, who most fans watching ST:E for the first time would be able to name immediately, the actors that you name were virtual unknowns. Yes, you might be able to trawl IMDB and pull out their career histories pre-Star Trek but the point remains: before their various Star Trek appearances, most people (ie, 90 percent of the public, perhaps more) would have not been able to put names to their faces.
An actor who most people can't name is, by definition, a virtual unknown. If you have an issue with that then I suggest you look up the phrase in a dictionary.
Well, for one thing, most cars in the UK are manuals. Automatics make up a tiny percentage of the market, less than five percent I believe.
In my entire life (as a driver and a passenger) I've sat in two automatic cars in the UK. That's two out of about, say, 200. People don't have automatic cars here, ergo new drivers mostly choose to learn how to drive manuals. Those that take and pass their test in an automatic receive licences that only allow them to drive automatics; to drive a manual they'd have to pass the driving test again, in a manual car. Those that pass a test in a manual receive licences that let them drive either sort of transmission, hence that being the popular option.
As to why British people don't buy automatics, well, I'm sure it's partly a cultural thing. Driving an automatic isn't as demanding yet most of us choose the more difficult option. I believe (although I could be wrong) automatics are less fuel efficient and harder wearing than equivalent manuals, so that could be part of it too.
f that's the case, perhaps the question shouldn't be about why the British drive manuals, but why the Americans drive automatics. Again, I'm no expert in this field but I believe the norm throughout the world is manual, so it's the US that's the exception here and not the rule.
I think you're starting to split hairs. After all I did say "virtual unknown", not "unknown": there is a difference between the two.
As for the ability of other classically trained actors to play Professor Xavier just as well as Patrick Stewart, well, I think you're missing the point. Stewart might well have been perfect for the role but so would dozens of others. Go to a RADA or RSC reunion (if such things exist) throw a rock in the air and it'll hit someone who would have been able to pull off the role equally as well.
Or are you suggesting that Stewart's performance as Prof X was unmatchable? That nobody else could have played the part equally as well? If so, I think you're exaggerating. The role of Prof X is hardly a challenging one, is it?
I'm British, I enjoy the theatre but I wouldn't even begin to suggest that Patrick Stewart had any sort of serious recognition outside the theatrical world before TNG.
Similarly, when I saw Alan Cummings and Jane Horrocks in a performance of Caberet at the Donmar Warehouse in 1994 very few people would have known who they are. Yet today both are far more recognisable thanks to big breaks and appearances in film and TV.
My point stands: that the cast of TNG, etc were virtual unknowns. If you had taken 1,000 people off the street and asked them to name even one of the leading lights of any of the shows before they debuted then I doubt that you could find ten of them who would recognise them as actors let alone name any of them. Take those people and that same group of actors now and I think you'd find that that name recognition has risen by more than an order of magnitude. I bet that at least 200 out of a 1,000 could at least recognise Stewart by name now and even more would be recognise him as Jean Luc Picard or "that guy from Star Trek". That is the difference between a virtual unknown and name talent.
Uh, do you think that Patrick Stewart would have been high up on someone's list of candidates to play Professor Xavier if it wasn't for the recognition he earnt playing Jean Luc Picard?
There are dozens of classically trained actors with careers identical to those of Stewart pre-TNG who would have been just as good for the part. The major advantage Stewart had over them was his recognition, recognition that he gained from TNG. No TNG role, no gig as Prof X. It's that simple.
Citing a role that Stewart has gained since TNG isn't how you make a case for him being anything other than a virtual unknown before TNG and/or TNG being the reason for his fame.
Care to venture how many people had even heard of Patrick Stewart before he was cast as Jean Luc Picard? Care to venture how many have heard of him now? Apart from a minor role in Dune, I challenge you to honestly name one thing that you'd seen Patrick Stewart in before TNG.
And even the most memorable of the pre-Star Trek appearances of Kate Mulgrew, Brent Spiner and Avery Brooks didn't raise their stars even a thousandth as much as Star Trek did. In that respect, they were as anonymous to the average man on the street as you or I. If that's not the definition of a virtual unknown then I don't know what is. On the other hand, Scott Bakula had major face recognition, courtesy of Quantum Leap and various Hollywood appearances.
I've watched a lot of dire sci-fi (War Of The Worlds springs to mind) in my time but ST:E really scrapes the bottom of the barrel. The characters are a joke (there's not a single one that I can empathise with or admire), and the storylines are almost entirely incompatible with the rest of the Star Trek universe (Klingons that look like TNG/DS9/Voyager rather than TOS, etc).
Frankly, I'm amazed it lasted this long. Personally, I think the decision to cast Scott Bakula as Captain Archer was telling: the producers and the network knew that the concept was so weak and limited that they needed an established sci-fi lead to help bring viewers on board. (All the previous Star Trek shows featured actors who were virtual unknowns at the time of being cast, and perhaps the shhows were that much better because of it.)
If I'd been in charge of pushing the Star Trek envelope and creating a fifth show, ST:E would have been the last thing that I would have come up with. Perhaps a series set even further into the future with a focus that included the temporal time directive would have been better - it's hard to see how it could have been much worse.
In my experience, female motorists tend to be more worried about their wing mirrors being clipped by passing vehicles, and more considerate about leaving adequate space for the drivers either side of them, and park their cars accordingly.
I will, however, reinforce the grandparent posters point, albeit more directly. I was learning how to drive in the UK when I went on an long summer holiday to Florida. At the time I went over, my driving instructor thought I had a fair way to go (and I did) before I could consider taking a driving test and getting my licence. But, when I got to the US, getting a licence over there was ridiculously easy by comparison.
For one thing, learners in the UK (and in most countries) learn in manual (ie, stick-shift) rather than automatic vehicles, quite the opposite of their US counterparts. For another, they have a whole handbook of information that they have to absorb, with details on everything from road signage, stopping distances, driving in hazardous conditions, etc - from what I saw, theoretical knowledge is barely tested in the US.
Also, the most tricky manouvre tested in the US seems to be parking, whereas in the UK you also have to safely demonstrate emergency stopping, reversing around a corner, making a three-point turn (turning around the direction of your car in a confined area using forward and reverse gears), etc.
Nowadays the UK standards are even tougher, with two seperate stages, a theoretical test and a practical test, both of which must be passed to attain a driver's licence. I believe the standards in some European countries (such as Germany, if I remember correctly) are just as strict.
In some places, such as Northern Ireland, newly qualified drivers are required to wear special plates on their cars to alert other drivers of their rookie status, further ensuring road safety.
Reread my post. I said that an initial quick check could be made by comparing file sizes, not that that should be the only check or that it that it should be the only check, as you seem to have assumed.
In the initial aftermath of a virus (or a worm, or a trojan horse, or whatever) being released, the overwhelming majority of the files used to perpetrate the attack are identical. Scanning the file sizes of attachments and comparing them to that of known viruses (and, of course, running an MD5 checksum), would eliminate a great many infected files right away.
Of course, viruses do come in different shapes and sizes, but that's why it's an initial check. And, even those variations in file sizes could be tracked and defeated by MD5ing. But, hopefully, by that time the anti-virus software providers would have caught up with the new virus too.
What I'm suggesting (amongst other things) is that such checking by ISPs/mail providers in the immediate aftermath of a virus release could help stem its spreading, especially amongst its customer base. Of course someone who writes a virus that randomly mutates in size (and which is truly random in its mutating) could perhaps avoid such detection but that doesn't change the fact that 99.9 percent of the viral infections out there could be detected and defeated by such an approach.
Why don't ISPs and mail providers perform quick checks of attachments to see if they compare with known viruses (similar file sizes would be a quick initial check) and then filter out (or at least alert the recipient about) any attachments that they successfully determine are viral attacks, such as this one?
Do any such ISPs or mail providers offer such a service? If not, why not? Surely it's in their interest? After all, these viruses (especially the ones that send themselves on to everyone in the infected machines address book) just add unneccessary traffic to their systems, hurt their users and hurt the reputations of both parties too. Shouldn't ISPs and mail providers be looking to implement such safeguards?
Nobody's stopping people aged 18 and over from receiving adult content, they're only trying to shield children from that content.
I know of a 12 year-old that has her own mobile - many children even younger than that age have their own phones too, so doesn't it make sense to put in some form of protection that stops them from being sent adult content without their requesting it?
A mobile phone is as much of a commodity these days as a bag of sugar. You can buy a pay-as-you-go mobile phone (ie, one without a fixed monthly contract that you top up with credit as and when you need to) for as little as 30-40 pounds, which is the price of a few CDs.
So with mobiles being so cheap, it's no surprise that parents buy them for their kids so that they can get in touch whenever they need to.
I've heard of kids as young as five having their own phones (ridiculous as that sounds) so don't you think that protecting kids that young from adult content is appropriate?
This isn't about surveillance, it's not about stripping someone of their rights: it's about not bombarding children with material that society has already decided that they shouldn't be exposed to, and it's about enforcing already established rules on a new platform.
If someone invented a holographic TV system would you scream "surveillance" or "censorship" if it had the same password/PIN protection on the adult channels as regular TV systems we have today already use?
Slashdot Mirror
Some would argue that the US is one big "real-live fuck-you-in-the-ass type prison". It's just that the people doing the pounding are the Republicans in Washington right now and the people getting pounded are the average citizens.
If the original poster had talked about error correction in a wider context, as you and some others have, rather than only in the context of letting him download as many songs as he wanted without any hassle then perhaps I wouldn't have replied to his post.
I'm confused why you think that my support of fair use, etc means that I can't appreciate RIAA's position with regards to major P2P fileswappers, a significant percentage (perhaps even a majority) of whom infringe on their copyrights in violation of local laws, etc.
I don't believe that RIAA's taken the long view on this: if I were them, I wouldn't be suing 12 year-olds or grandparents who weren't aware of what their grandkids were doing, as it's nothing but bad publicity. I believe that given enough rope they could quite easily hang themself with that strategy once public awareness of issues such as fair use, DRM, etc became more widespread.
But in the meantime, I think that the worst thing P2P application developers could do is write an app that focused solely on making filesharing of copyrighted materials as easy as possible, which is what the original poster said they should do? Why? Because it gives RIAA (and others) the ammunition that they need, in the papers and in the courts, to label P2P as nothing but piracy on the grandest scale.
As to whether RIAA should be deliberately hindered, or whether downloaders should have an unequivocable right to privacy, here's are some (perhaps crude) analogies for you:
1. If I rob a bank, do the bank (via the police) have a right to come after me? Don't I have the right to just run into a crowd and escape freely? If I they don't catch me red-handed by the end of the day, shouldn't I have the right to never be prosecuted for the crime?
2. If my rifle can be used for legitimate purposes, such as hunting, why do I need to be transparent in its use? Why do I have to have a license or, one day, perhaps even have to prove it wasn't used in a crime?
Similarly:
1. Do P2P fileswappers who do nothing but knowingly infringe on copyrights have a right to do whatever they please with no regards for the law? Do they have a total and unequivocable right to copyright infringement on a mass scale using a system that makes them impossible to track? (And what happens when it's paedophiles swapping kiddie porn? Do they deserve the same protection?)
2. Why doesn't RIAA have any right to investigate P2P fileswapping? If everyone doing it is doing so legitimately then where's the problem? As others have said before, I'd rather they went after the fileswappers than went after P2P as a concept.
Who do all these people who are concerned about false labelling go to for enforcement?
Dirty Harry?
All you Martian explorers are belong to us.
Whoever sets up the Martian Automobile Association is going to make a lot of money.
When I asked this same question yesterday, I got modded down as a troll.
My question still stands though, why not publish one article, thereby letting people discuss all aspects of the OS in one place rather than two? In six month's time, if someone wants to read what people had to say in the discussion then they'll have to read through two sets of comments rather than one. Surely that's counterproductive?
This isn't a step-by-step tutorial - I could understand if one of those was fragmented - it's a review. I just find it strange that the editors would split up a review like that. (In publishing, splitting up a review is pretty much a cardinal sin.) Will they start doing that for other reviews? If so, I can't wait for the first part of the Kill Bill, Volume 2 review.
HMV, Virgin, WH Smith and Woolworths all will have some chart stuff at around 10 pounds, although not all of it. New releases tend to have offers on them as well. Supermarkets also discount CDs. Tesco, Sainsburys and Asda all stock chart CDs at around 10 pounds too.
But if you're going to buy CDs on the high street then buy them from a smaller independent music retailer. Their prices are usually more reasonable than those of the big boys and you're likely to receive better service. Depending on how you feel about large corporations you might even get a warm fuzzy feeling when you're walking out with your new purchases.
Of course, if you're looking to fill out your collection, the regular sales held by Virgin and HMV to clear out excess stock are great. The 5 CDs for 30 pounds deals that Virgin run is brilliant and it runs to DVDs too: just before Christmas I bought a stack of great stuff and I could have easily have bought a lot more if the self-restraint hadn't kicked in.
The story summary says that the BPI demanded that CD-Wow raise its prices by 2 pounds per CD. What they actually demanded was that CD-Wow stopped sourcing CDs that it was selling in the EU from outside the EU.
The end result is that CD-Wow will be raising its prices by 2 pounds per CD, but it wasn't because the BPI walked up to them and said "Raise prices by 2 pounds or else!" If that were true, they could equally have demanded a price hike of more than 2 pounds, or hit CD-Wow with the same demand in a year's time ("Hey, we want another 2 pounds per CD!") but, clearly, that's not the case.
And, as I pointed out, if the law on grey importing is lifted, then CD-Wow can go back to sourcing CDs from wherever it wants, and drop its prices back down accordingly. The way the story summary put it, CD-Wow was eternally bound to do the BPI's will. Again, that's not the case.
There's a difference between the story summary and the reality of the situation. Perhaps not a difference that you appreciate, but a difference nevertheless. Either way though, I and other CD-Wow customers are going to be paying more for our music in the near future.
Preach one thing, practise another!
Tell everyone that you're all for fair play, an even playing field for everyone but then read other people's confidential memos to gain an unfair advantage. How sleazy is that?
I wonder what Republicans who thought Bill Clinton getting a blowjob was worthy of impeachment have to say about Senators and their staffs committing crimes punishable by up to a year in prison?
What the agreement (that avoided a court case) stated was that CD-Wow would source products that they are selling in the EU from within the EU, not from elsewhere (eg, Asia).
Unfortunately, because manufacturers charge more for the EU versions of their CDs (or, to put it another way, because they aren't discounted as much as CDs intended for Asian consumers) this means that CD-Wow will have to pay more for its stock in future. To reflect that increased cost, CD-Wow is putting up the prices of its CDs by 2 pounds.
The reason for this is that (ridiculously) buying goods from cheaper sources outside the EU without the permission of the vendor is illegal. Other companies, such as Levi Strauss, have taken supermarkets and other discount retailers to court over grey (non-EU sourced) imports in the past, so CD-Wow would almost have certainly lost the court case that was avoided. Clearly, this is one law that EU consumers would love to see changed.
Other online vendors who the BPI believes are selling grey imports in the UK are also being considered for legal action. These include Amazon.co.uk (which is based in the UK) and Play.com (which is based in the Channel Islands).
Why the crackdown? Well, I'm sure the BPI is being pressurised by traditional retailers complaining about losing sales to etailers undercutting them at every opportunity. It's not a coincidence that since the likes of CD-Wow, Play.com, etc appeared the average cost of an album in the UK has dropped to 10 pounds. And it's also not a coincidence that cheaper CDs (on the high street and online) led to a 30 percent rise in UK album sales last year.
As a regular CD-Wow customer, I'm disappointed by the BPI's stance, the agreement and and the law that forced it, but I'll continue to shop at CD-Wow because, for the most part, they'll still be cheaper than many of the alternatives. Not only that, but they somehow manage to ship from Hong Kong to the UK faster than most their rivals shipping from one part of the UK to another! Their customer services are friendly and helpful too.
Hopefully the consumer-hostile legislation that led to this agreement will soon be repealed. When that day comes, I'm sure CD-Wow will drop its prices again.
Well RIAA's not interested in you if you're in the Netherlands, is it? And they can find out that much from your IP address, so tell me why what I've said offends you?
I've not suggested for a second that copyright holders have the automatic right to null the privacy of non-copyright holders; that's something for the courts to decide.
What I have said, is that if you were to write a P2P application that bent over backwards to thwart any and every effort made by RIAA (and others) to limit the infringement of its copyrights then you as the writer of said application would probably find yourself with RIAA breathing down your neck and taking you to court, and that the courts probably (note, probably) wouldn't be too quick to take your side when RIAA (or whoever) provides a point-by-point analysis of the extra features you've intentionally implemented to deliberately hinder them whilst helping infringers.
(It'd be hard to argue that you've developed a P2P application for legitimate use when you've done so much to help illegal downloading. To use an everyday analogy, you might not be the one "providing" or "stealing" the goods, but you'd be the one helping to "launder" or "fence" them.)
In short, just like Napster, you as the author of the application would become RIAA's biggest target. Now, why would you want that?
I am all for fair use, privacy and the limitation of copyright terms. I've been vocal on those issues in the past, and I'll continue to be vocal on them in the future. But downloading 20 albums a week as soon as they are released without ever buying an actual CD isn't the way to address those issues. Remember, it's not like you have to own a piece of music: we're talking about a luxury here, not a necessity like food or water. And it's not like you can't find other music not managed by RIAA that you can download freely with the copyright holder's consent.
And, just as you correctly state that privacy isn't designed for the exclusive use of copyright holders, I?ll say this: being able to use a P2P application doesn't give you the automatic right not to be pursued by copyright holders when you flagrantly infringe on their property.
b) Have some sort of way to filter out the fake files put out by record companies and the RIAA. Check files, particularly MP3s, for filler, or repetitions of strings (the usual cause of noise on fake MP3s). Make users able to chose the actual content that they are after. Perhaps also blacklisting of unreliable users from a user level?
In other words, make it as simple as possible for you to infringe on someone else's copyright.
I tell you what, why don't you write such an app with such a filter and see how long it takes for RIAA and the courts to come down on you like a ton of bricks for deliberately designing a tool that a) stops them from posting their own material, whilst, b) helping people infringe on their copyrights as easily as possible.
Writing a P2P application isn't against the law, but I bet designing a P2P application that uses such measures to intentionally block RIAA (or any other copyright holder) from trying to track down individuals that are wantonly infringing on their copyrights will be severely frowned upon by the courts.
Contrary to what you might believe, you don't have a right to infringe on copyrights. And the Napster, etc court decisions decided you can't use the "unlimited friends" defence to protect your ass. If you want the latest Britney Spears/Eminem/Outkast/whoever CD then you can pay for it.
Now watch me get flamed to hell and back by half of Slashdot nation. Like I care about karma: if I did I wouldn't be writing this post, would I?
Why not post the whole review at once?
God, I hope you're never in a situation where your car has just gone off the road and is sinking in water because you'd die if you tried it your way.
The very first thing you must do if your car hits the water and is going under is wind down the windows. Why? Because if you don't wind down the windows then you won't be able to open the doors: the pressure and inertia of the water will prevent them from opening. Your only hope is if the windows are down, even a fraction. If they're closed then you're dead.
So, trying to "pull that little lever to unlock the door and get out", is your second problem, not your first.
As I've said elsewhere, I know I'd heard of Patrick Stewart before TNG but I know that just about everyone else around me was oblivious to his existance before he played Jean Luc Picard.
As to your point about reality TV, well, I'd have to agree with you there. Documentaries are fine, but so-called docusoaps have really blurred the line between education and entertainment so much that the education aspect has been almost lost.
For example, I know that I'd enjoy something like Survivor if they actually took time away from the contestants to teach the audience basic bushcraft or showed us some of the unique aspects of the environments that they were filming in or both. Unfortunately, most people start switching off when faced with that kind of stuff (or, at least, that's what the TV execs believe) so we're fed a gameshow that's nothing more than a popularity contest-cum-boot camp.
Again, the difference between "virtual unknowns" (which is what I said) and "unknowns" (which is what you seem to assume I said) is significant.
Compared to Scott Bakula, who most fans watching ST:E for the first time would be able to name immediately, the actors that you name were virtual unknowns. Yes, you might be able to trawl IMDB and pull out their career histories pre-Star Trek but the point remains: before their various Star Trek appearances, most people (ie, 90 percent of the public, perhaps more) would have not been able to put names to their faces.
An actor who most people can't name is, by definition, a virtual unknown. If you have an issue with that then I suggest you look up the phrase in a dictionary.
Well, for one thing, most cars in the UK are manuals. Automatics make up a tiny percentage of the market, less than five percent I believe.
In my entire life (as a driver and a passenger) I've sat in two automatic cars in the UK. That's two out of about, say, 200. People don't have automatic cars here, ergo new drivers mostly choose to learn how to drive manuals. Those that take and pass their test in an automatic receive licences that only allow them to drive automatics; to drive a manual they'd have to pass the driving test again, in a manual car. Those that pass a test in a manual receive licences that let them drive either sort of transmission, hence that being the popular option.
As to why British people don't buy automatics, well, I'm sure it's partly a cultural thing. Driving an automatic isn't as demanding yet most of us choose the more difficult option. I believe (although I could be wrong) automatics are less fuel efficient and harder wearing than equivalent manuals, so that could be part of it too.
f that's the case, perhaps the question shouldn't be about why the British drive manuals, but why the Americans drive automatics. Again, I'm no expert in this field but I believe the norm throughout the world is manual, so it's the US that's the exception here and not the rule.
I think you're starting to split hairs. After all I did say "virtual unknown", not "unknown": there is a difference between the two.
As for the ability of other classically trained actors to play Professor Xavier just as well as Patrick Stewart, well, I think you're missing the point. Stewart might well have been perfect for the role but so would dozens of others. Go to a RADA or RSC reunion (if such things exist) throw a rock in the air and it'll hit someone who would have been able to pull off the role equally as well.
Or are you suggesting that Stewart's performance as Prof X was unmatchable? That nobody else could have played the part equally as well? If so, I think you're exaggerating. The role of Prof X is hardly a challenging one, is it?
I'm British, I enjoy the theatre but I wouldn't even begin to suggest that Patrick Stewart had any sort of serious recognition outside the theatrical world before TNG.
Similarly, when I saw Alan Cummings and Jane Horrocks in a performance of Caberet at the Donmar Warehouse in 1994 very few people would have known who they are. Yet today both are far more recognisable thanks to big breaks and appearances in film and TV.
My point stands: that the cast of TNG, etc were virtual unknowns. If you had taken 1,000 people off the street and asked them to name even one of the leading lights of any of the shows before they debuted then I doubt that you could find ten of them who would recognise them as actors let alone name any of them. Take those people and that same group of actors now and I think you'd find that that name recognition has risen by more than an order of magnitude. I bet that at least 200 out of a 1,000 could at least recognise Stewart by name now and even more would be recognise him as Jean Luc Picard or "that guy from Star Trek". That is the difference between a virtual unknown and name talent.
Uh, do you think that Patrick Stewart would have been high up on someone's list of candidates to play Professor Xavier if it wasn't for the recognition he earnt playing Jean Luc Picard?
There are dozens of classically trained actors with careers identical to those of Stewart pre-TNG who would have been just as good for the part. The major advantage Stewart had over them was his recognition, recognition that he gained from TNG. No TNG role, no gig as Prof X. It's that simple.
Citing a role that Stewart has gained since TNG isn't how you make a case for him being anything other than a virtual unknown before TNG and/or TNG being the reason for his fame.
Yes, they were virtual unknowns.
Care to venture how many people had even heard of Patrick Stewart before he was cast as Jean Luc Picard? Care to venture how many have heard of him now? Apart from a minor role in Dune, I challenge you to honestly name one thing that you'd seen Patrick Stewart in before TNG.
And even the most memorable of the pre-Star Trek appearances of Kate Mulgrew, Brent Spiner and Avery Brooks didn't raise their stars even a thousandth as much as Star Trek did. In that respect, they were as anonymous to the average man on the street as you or I. If that's not the definition of a virtual unknown then I don't know what is. On the other hand, Scott Bakula had major face recognition, courtesy of Quantum Leap and various Hollywood appearances.
They say that as if it's a bad thing.
I've watched a lot of dire sci-fi (War Of The Worlds springs to mind) in my time but ST:E really scrapes the bottom of the barrel. The characters are a joke (there's not a single one that I can empathise with or admire), and the storylines are almost entirely incompatible with the rest of the Star Trek universe (Klingons that look like TNG/DS9/Voyager rather than TOS, etc).
Frankly, I'm amazed it lasted this long. Personally, I think the decision to cast Scott Bakula as Captain Archer was telling: the producers and the network knew that the concept was so weak and limited that they needed an established sci-fi lead to help bring viewers on board. (All the previous Star Trek shows featured actors who were virtual unknowns at the time of being cast, and perhaps the shhows were that much better because of it.)
If I'd been in charge of pushing the Star Trek envelope and creating a fifth show, ST:E would have been the last thing that I would have come up with. Perhaps a series set even further into the future with a focus that included the temporal time directive would have been better - it's hard to see how it could have been much worse.
In my experience, female motorists tend to be more worried about their wing mirrors being clipped by passing vehicles, and more considerate about leaving adequate space for the drivers either side of them, and park their cars accordingly.
I will, however, reinforce the grandparent posters point, albeit more directly. I was learning how to drive in the UK when I went on an long summer holiday to Florida. At the time I went over, my driving instructor thought I had a fair way to go (and I did) before I could consider taking a driving test and getting my licence. But, when I got to the US, getting a licence over there was ridiculously easy by comparison.
For one thing, learners in the UK (and in most countries) learn in manual (ie, stick-shift) rather than automatic vehicles, quite the opposite of their US counterparts. For another, they have a whole handbook of information that they have to absorb, with details on everything from road signage, stopping distances, driving in hazardous conditions, etc - from what I saw, theoretical knowledge is barely tested in the US.
Also, the most tricky manouvre tested in the US seems to be parking, whereas in the UK you also have to safely demonstrate emergency stopping, reversing around a corner, making a three-point turn (turning around the direction of your car in a confined area using forward and reverse gears), etc.
Nowadays the UK standards are even tougher, with two seperate stages, a theoretical test and a practical test, both of which must be passed to attain a driver's licence. I believe the standards in some European countries (such as Germany, if I remember correctly) are just as strict.
In some places, such as Northern Ireland, newly qualified drivers are required to wear special plates on their cars to alert other drivers of their rookie status, further ensuring road safety.
Reread my post. I said that an initial quick check could be made by comparing file sizes, not that that should be the only check or that it that it should be the only check, as you seem to have assumed.
In the initial aftermath of a virus (or a worm, or a trojan horse, or whatever) being released, the overwhelming majority of the files used to perpetrate the attack are identical. Scanning the file sizes of attachments and comparing them to that of known viruses (and, of course, running an MD5 checksum), would eliminate a great many infected files right away.
Of course, viruses do come in different shapes and sizes, but that's why it's an initial check. And, even those variations in file sizes could be tracked and defeated by MD5ing. But, hopefully, by that time the anti-virus software providers would have caught up with the new virus too.
What I'm suggesting (amongst other things) is that such checking by ISPs/mail providers in the immediate aftermath of a virus release could help stem its spreading, especially amongst its customer base. Of course someone who writes a virus that randomly mutates in size (and which is truly random in its mutating) could perhaps avoid such detection but that doesn't change the fact that 99.9 percent of the viral infections out there could be detected and defeated by such an approach.
Why don't ISPs and mail providers perform quick checks of attachments to see if they compare with known viruses (similar file sizes would be a quick initial check) and then filter out (or at least alert the recipient about) any attachments that they successfully determine are viral attacks, such as this one?
Do any such ISPs or mail providers offer such a service? If not, why not? Surely it's in their interest? After all, these viruses (especially the ones that send themselves on to everyone in the infected machines address book) just add unneccessary traffic to their systems, hurt their users and hurt the reputations of both parties too. Shouldn't ISPs and mail providers be looking to implement such safeguards?
Nobody's stopping people aged 18 and over from receiving adult content, they're only trying to shield children from that content.
I know of a 12 year-old that has her own mobile - many children even younger than that age have their own phones too, so doesn't it make sense to put in some form of protection that stops them from being sent adult content without their requesting it?
A mobile phone is as much of a commodity these days as a bag of sugar. You can buy a pay-as-you-go mobile phone (ie, one without a fixed monthly contract that you top up with credit as and when you need to) for as little as 30-40 pounds, which is the price of a few CDs.
So with mobiles being so cheap, it's no surprise that parents buy them for their kids so that they can get in touch whenever they need to.
I've heard of kids as young as five having their own phones (ridiculous as that sounds) so don't you think that protecting kids that young from adult content is appropriate?
This isn't about surveillance, it's not about stripping someone of their rights: it's about not bombarding children with material that society has already decided that they shouldn't be exposed to, and it's about enforcing already established rules on a new platform.
If someone invented a holographic TV system would you scream "surveillance" or "censorship" if it had the same password/PIN protection on the adult channels as regular TV systems we have today already use?