When you get that band or label's ad account, you can go about releasing their work on a shareware basis. Until then, it's up to the band (and their licensees) how and how effectively they self-promote.
I agree on that particular point, but it's clear from the context that the "tubes" analogy was less "insightfully spot-on" than "correct by way of flailing wildly and actually randomly hitting something".
Recall the recent quote-unquote "cross-site" exploits stealing info. Although some people blamed things like form autofill, the real problem was that the server name was the same, so the pages created by separate people, which should have been cordoned off from each other, were under the same hostname and therefore the same website for all intents and purposes. I recall LiveJournal having problems like this, which were solved in part by making each user page a subdomain. I suppose this really isn't a "monoculture" problem, but it's certainly an issue with throwing everyone in the same bin, especially when people are given so much power over their page's logic and presentation.
the biggest problem with people is that a problem doesn't exist until it effects you, then it is the biggest problem in the world and you can't understand why no one cares.
I'd imagine if someone were trying to crack a WiFi device, they'd probably set their system up to change MACs on a regular schedule as well. Then again, I'd probably be surprised, and it's a simple bit more protection.
First off, I think your fundamental argument (some things aren't illegal, but just a lousy thing to do) is true, and something a lot of people forget about.
However, unless this person is in identified real danger, there's a case to be made that there's a public service in exposing an anonymous editorializer. On one hand, absolute freedom of speech may be chilled or curtailed by required identification. On the other hand, though, people with bad or incorrect ideas can avoid necessary criticism, scrutiny, and feedback by sniping from the shadows.
For most applications, I think you could run afoul of patent law by unauthorized use of the patented process. There's a small case, illustrated by Macromedia's (overzealous, IMO) licensing for Director standalones, when elements created solely by the program's creator are bundled verbatim with user-published work as a matter of course.
So you're trying to install to a computer with a faulty hard disk, and you're complaining that it didn't work? Shocking!
As for the FAT32/NTFS problem, I've never run into that, either. Granted, I tend to back everything up and wipe the partition, or I'm working from a fresh drive. In any case, I've found the most taxing part of installing Windows to be the part where you have to wait through all the "Oh, your computer's going to be SO much better now!" marketing bull while it installs.
No, wait, I take that back. I had to put in my timezone. That was one long dropdown list.
I'll grant, there are some annoying procedures of "destupidification" that a more experienced user may wish to go through after installing Windows XP (assure Explorer you have two brain cells to rub together, get it to show all the hidden folders and files, turn off Simple File Sharing, turn off the useless theming and visual effects) but other than that, it's a rather painless process.
Apple sells computers, not operating systems (or, at the very most, computer/OS bundles). The OS/Hardware combination is not trivially duplicable, where an OS usable on commodity hardware is (apart from artificial technical protections). Try running OSX/Intel on anything but an Intel Mac, and see how far your valued customership gets you with Apple legal.
For that matter, does the old "uninstall, reinstall, run the timer down, repeat" method still work? I had an OEM version of Norton an age ago that worked on that. Of course, there was also the "download the update, set the clock back, install the update, set the clock forward" trick as well. Now, I just use AVG, Pegasus Mail, and intelligence and suspicion.
I don't think we'll ever get into "intent" problems regarding things like accidentally open Windows shares and misplaced iPods, but even taking into account just P2P networks brings up a good point-- there are protocols like BitTorrent, designed in part to have accountability that decentralized networks didn't have (having to have.torrent files hosted from a static location and thus a known vendor), however, nowadays that protocol has become the method-of-choice for illegal video sharing. It'll be difficult to seperate the trade-centric Kazaas from the legitimate-but-co-opted BitTorrents and determine which creators are responsible, even if a common-sense approach is taken.
It's a shame, because I'd like to see some sort of legislation that would affect the central network operators who flaunt their services as piracy facilitators. They do have responsibility, albeit nothing technical enough to catch on, and going after these bigger fish of piracy would actually yield a result worth the *AA's time in prosecuting, rather than dropping their high-dollar bombs on individual end-pirates.
In a perfect world, you might be right, but this is doubtful optimism.
1.) What that other fellow said above me-- it still takes people and money to enforce. Now it just means that there's a ready grab-bag of minor infractions ready as a weapon whenever the people-in-power have someone they want to pick on.
2.) Person A doesn't mind "safe" drinking and driving, but is vocal for tougher legislating on pornographic access. Person B is wanking off at the computer right now, but when he's done, he's back to sending letters and lobbying for stricter drunken driving laws. Everyone thinks their own subset of vices are all right, but this doesn't keep them from fighting tooth-and-nail against the things they find "wrong". Unfortunately, the acceptable and unacceptable vices rarely are universal.
3.) Camera-canvassing the open countryside would be a tremendous waste of money.
The problem is that murder and rape are pretty easy to define, detect, and legislate, but the real complexity comes into play when the society wants legislation against theft of property.
Then there comes questions of: What is property? What is ownership? What is theft? What is duress? How can things be proven to have been given or traded freely rather than stolen (and thus enters contract law)?
I'm sure one could finagle a system together for quite a bit less, especially if you had a spare computer sitting around. Scrounge for old video cameras. Batteries and tape-feeding ability are no problem, as long as you could pull a signal off the thing. A few cheap capture cards, and I doubt the software would be hard to find. You might need to rig up some weather-protection for the camera, as well.One could work their way up from there as their cost/quality tradeoff ratio allowed.
Simply saying something is an opinion doesn't make it so. An accusation of child molestation, presented as a straight statement without metaphor, is a provable right-or-wrong statement of fact.
Now, the first statement would fly-- you can legitimately think he looks like a child molester (that's something wholly dependent upon your personal perception), but you put yourself into a statement of fact when you say that he is a child molester. Granted, the "I think" tempers it a bit, but it's still shaky ground if someone were to take you up on it.
(By my own measure-- I don't know the legal opinions on the subject.)
One of the fundamental points of free speech is that, while they are not censored, we are all free to dismiss such bozos as the gaggle of nuts that they are, and spread word of this far and wide.
Slashdot Mirror
What happened?
I could see that being sufficiently transformative, although I suppose I could see the magazine's argument of lost profit as well.
When you get that band or label's ad account, you can go about releasing their work on a shareware basis. Until then, it's up to the band (and their licensees) how and how effectively they self-promote.
I agree on that particular point, but it's clear from the context that the "tubes" analogy was less "insightfully spot-on" than "correct by way of flailing wildly and actually randomly hitting something".
Recall the recent quote-unquote "cross-site" exploits stealing info. Although some people blamed things like form autofill, the real problem was that the server name was the same, so the pages created by separate people, which should have been cordoned off from each other, were under the same hostname and therefore the same website for all intents and purposes. I recall LiveJournal having problems like this, which were solved in part by making each user page a subdomain. I suppose this really isn't a "monoculture" problem, but it's certainly an issue with throwing everyone in the same bin, especially when people are given so much power over their page's logic and presentation.
Real-time voicetexting? Brilliant!
the biggest problem with people is that a problem doesn't exist until it effects you, then it is the biggest problem in the world and you can't understand why no one cares.
And let us remember that this works both ways.
limit the amount of tries per minute per mac.
I'd imagine if someone were trying to crack a WiFi device, they'd probably set their system up to change MACs on a regular schedule as well. Then again, I'd probably be surprised, and it's a simple bit more protection.
First off, I think your fundamental argument (some things aren't illegal, but just a lousy thing to do) is true, and something a lot of people forget about.
However, unless this person is in identified real danger, there's a case to be made that there's a public service in exposing an anonymous editorializer. On one hand, absolute freedom of speech may be chilled or curtailed by required identification. On the other hand, though, people with bad or incorrect ideas can avoid necessary criticism, scrutiny, and feedback by sniping from the shadows.
A public demo, perhaps?
For most applications, I think you could run afoul of patent law by unauthorized use of the patented process. There's a small case, illustrated by Macromedia's (overzealous, IMO) licensing for Director standalones, when elements created solely by the program's creator are bundled verbatim with user-published work as a matter of course.
So, what do you think, is DNG going anywhere as an interchange format? Adobe's really pushing it, but it just doesn't seem to be taking.
That's one helluva nose.
Are you sure you even had to activate the university key? I got one from my college and it was a volume license key-- no activation required.
So you're trying to install to a computer with a faulty hard disk, and you're complaining that it didn't work? Shocking!
As for the FAT32/NTFS problem, I've never run into that, either. Granted, I tend to back everything up and wipe the partition, or I'm working from a fresh drive. In any case, I've found the most taxing part of installing Windows to be the part where you have to wait through all the "Oh, your computer's going to be SO much better now!" marketing bull while it installs.
No, wait, I take that back. I had to put in my timezone. That was one long dropdown list.
I'll grant, there are some annoying procedures of "destupidification" that a more experienced user may wish to go through after installing Windows XP (assure Explorer you have two brain cells to rub together, get it to show all the hidden folders and files, turn off Simple File Sharing, turn off the useless theming and visual effects) but other than that, it's a rather painless process.
Apple sells computers, not operating systems (or, at the very most, computer/OS bundles). The OS/Hardware combination is not trivially duplicable, where an OS usable on commodity hardware is (apart from artificial technical protections). Try running OSX/Intel on anything but an Intel Mac, and see how far your valued customership gets you with Apple legal.
I can't tell you how they're connected.
ISA?
For that matter, does the old "uninstall, reinstall, run the timer down, repeat" method still work? I had an OEM version of Norton an age ago that worked on that. Of course, there was also the "download the update, set the clock back, install the update, set the clock forward" trick as well. Now, I just use AVG, Pegasus Mail, and intelligence and suspicion.
I don't think we'll ever get into "intent" problems regarding things like accidentally open Windows shares and misplaced iPods, but even taking into account just P2P networks brings up a good point-- there are protocols like BitTorrent, designed in part to have accountability that decentralized networks didn't have (having to have .torrent files hosted from a static location and thus a known vendor), however, nowadays that protocol has become the method-of-choice for illegal video sharing. It'll be difficult to seperate the trade-centric Kazaas from the legitimate-but-co-opted BitTorrents and determine which creators are responsible, even if a common-sense approach is taken.
It's a shame, because I'd like to see some sort of legislation that would affect the central network operators who flaunt their services as piracy facilitators. They do have responsibility, albeit nothing technical enough to catch on, and going after these bigger fish of piracy would actually yield a result worth the *AA's time in prosecuting, rather than dropping their high-dollar bombs on individual end-pirates.
In a perfect world, you might be right, but this is doubtful optimism.
1.) What that other fellow said above me-- it still takes people and money to enforce. Now it just means that there's a ready grab-bag of minor infractions ready as a weapon whenever the people-in-power have someone they want to pick on.
2.) Person A doesn't mind "safe" drinking and driving, but is vocal for tougher legislating on pornographic access. Person B is wanking off at the computer right now, but when he's done, he's back to sending letters and lobbying for stricter drunken driving laws. Everyone thinks their own subset of vices are all right, but this doesn't keep them from fighting tooth-and-nail against the things they find "wrong". Unfortunately, the acceptable and unacceptable vices rarely are universal.
3.) Camera-canvassing the open countryside would be a tremendous waste of money.
The problem is that murder and rape are pretty easy to define, detect, and legislate, but the real complexity comes into play when the society wants legislation against theft of property.
Then there comes questions of: What is property? What is ownership? What is theft? What is duress? How can things be proven to have been given or traded freely rather than stolen (and thus enters contract law)?
Still, it's much better to be obviously innocent instead of being potentially guilty.
Of course, when you take into account the interests of the people who own the cameras... and how accidents and losses are bound to happen sometimes...
I'm sure one could finagle a system together for quite a bit less, especially if you had a spare computer sitting around. Scrounge for old video cameras. Batteries and tape-feeding ability are no problem, as long as you could pull a signal off the thing. A few cheap capture cards, and I doubt the software would be hard to find. You might need to rig up some weather-protection for the camera, as well.One could work their way up from there as their cost/quality tradeoff ratio allowed.
Simply saying something is an opinion doesn't make it so. An accusation of child molestation, presented as a straight statement without metaphor, is a provable right-or-wrong statement of fact.
Now, the first statement would fly-- you can legitimately think he looks like a child molester (that's something wholly dependent upon your personal perception), but you put yourself into a statement of fact when you say that he is a child molester. Granted, the "I think" tempers it a bit, but it's still shaky ground if someone were to take you up on it.
(By my own measure-- I don't know the legal opinions on the subject.)
One of the fundamental points of free speech is that, while they are not censored, we are all free to dismiss such bozos as the gaggle of nuts that they are, and spread word of this far and wide.
Sooo... get letters of positive reference?