Its nice that someone's trying to move research materials and other content into the free arena. Most of the stuff out there is just too expensive for students like me to get. Of course, colleges pay for subscriptions, but once I'm out there on my own...
Plus I think the that the point they make, saying:
"researchers write and review papers for free, so the journals should not charge to read them."
is quite valid. Didn't the NYTimes have to remove a bunch of content from their (paid subscription) database because the people who submitted the articles still had the copyrights, etc? I know those were editorial pieces, and that when you submit journal articles, you give up the copyright, (pretty sure about that part) but isn't the principle of the thing the same?
I really like this part :
The literature that should be freely accessible online is that which scholars give to the world without expectation of payment,"
Fire (like trillian, but for OS X) doesn't seem to care. At least, as far as I can tell. Most likely the security hole lies in windows/MSN integration. or in the MSN client software. But not the messaging protocol.
Of course, the trillian people have a MUCH better track record in terms of patches and so forth (they keep updating so it'll work with AOL...) so even if it affects trillian (pretty sure the answer is NO...) they will fix it before M$.
Anyone who is shocked is a bit of a fool. It was only a matter of time, really, until one of M$'s many security holes in messenger was exploited. Kinda sad to think what will happen in the future as OS becomes more and more integrated with the internet. Your personal data (courtesy of passport) might be spread around if you replied to a IM, or data loss.
Don't use microsoft products, so I am not vulnerable. Happy me.
I don't think the writer really understands the point of a "killer app." It's not any particular document, but rather an APPLICATION. that said, I think he makes a very valid point. If people HAD to buy eBooks to get crack (or harry potter, or whatever may happen to be "hot" at any given moment... think tickle-me-elmos or pokemon) then the market would take off. Until the fad died out, that is.
eBooks will *never* catch on this way, though. The likelihood of any author (especially one so popular as JK Rowling) publishing a potential best-selling book ONLY in the fragile and pretty much non-existant eBook market is virtually nil.
Plus we'd all have to boycott Harry Potter because of the eeeeevil eBook maker's coalition (ya know, that whole adobe, FBI, dmitri skylakarov, and DMCA stuff:)
eBooks will, in my not-so-humble and actually quite arrogant opinion, never catch on until you can read them just as well as you can read books. This means terrific resolution, the ability to throw them anywhere, and definately cheaper readers. Resolution is really the key thing though. I much much prefer to read a newspaper, even with the nasty ink it ges on my hands, than a web page. Its just easier on the eyes. And my monitor is a not-too-shabby Apple LCD display. The digital-ink thing seems to me to be the key to this. But thats far off in the distant future (oh, sure, they have prototypes for bill-boards now, but nothing nearly good enough for, say, a newspaper).
Okay, so most of that was ridiculously offtopic (what was the question again? oh yeah. Harry Potter:) but to get back on point, let me re-iterate what the author of the article, and about a billion other people surely know.
As the author puts it :
"Jo Rowling [...] absolutely loves dear old-fashioned, manually operated, non-electronic storybooks."
Yeah, and from what I heard about the movie she isn't particularly affectionate with other technological "magic" either. So I don't anticipate a Potter eBook rollout soon.
hrmph. As both a Mac and windows user, I can't say that I was particularly impressed at first by these new machines.
Apple really needs to ramp up their speed--and since most people were expecting 1.2 Ghz G5 machines, this upgrade will come as a dissapointment to many.
The new machines also use PC-133 SDRAM, which is, to say the least, sad.
There are some nice points about the new macs, though. Apple seems to have greatly improved the interior architecture of the machines, enabling the PCI bus to run at 215MBps instead of 133MBps, and giving more dedicated bandwidth to hard drives et ect. The new machines also feature an AGP 4x slot, whereas (to the best of my recollection) the older PowerMacs only had AGP 2x. The GeForce 4 MX is nice, of course, though until I see some real benchmarks comparing it to Radeon 8500 and the high-end older GeForce 3 cards, I won't be impressed.
Well, here are the total specs of the new machines.
My overall impression is "Nice, but not nice enough."
I, for one, will wait for the G5 to buy a new mac. MacWorld New York, anyone?
>It is in players' best interest to spend money
>as fast as they can recieve it.
Actually, no. Deflation measn the amount of "goods" or "gear" or whatever a given amount of money buys INCREASES over time.
--therefore, if I have 10k pp and I keep them for 1 month without spending any of them, I will be able to buy *more* after that period of time than at the beginning.
To simplify, *money increases in value over time*
This means that everCrack players are better off never spending their money, as tomorrow they would be able to get more for the same $$.
You were thinking of inflation. No normal economies have deflation. In fact, I cannot think of *any* economy that has had deflation in recent times.
Perhaps its because I dont play Everyquest regularly, but I really *dont get* how the EverQuest universe has a deflation rate of like 30% annually...
I mean, theoretically, as more people play and level up characters, wouldnt that increase the general money supply, thereby causing *inflation*?
Plus, from the macroeconomics courses I have taken it seems like deflationis really hard to pull off, and requires people not to be buying stuff and a *loss* of overall money as compared to overall goods/items.
Maybe deflation is possible if less and less people are playing everquest (less *active* money available, therefore prices go down) but from talking to my evercrack addicted friends it sure doesnt seem this way...
It really ticks me off every time courts crack down on music sharing. Heck, what some people use it for may be illegal (okay, most people) but the programs have legitamate uses.
I, for one, used a P2P program some time ago to get all my LP songs as MP3s... much much cheaper than buying a new turntable, software, etc...
The DMCA is just stupid. That a company (or a person, like Dmitri Skylakarov) can be sued because someone uses their product or research in illegal ways is just plain anal.
For an interesting comparison, take guns and cars. Guns are often used illegally, yet that is not their only use... nobody persecutes gun manufacturers ("Guns dont kill people... people do") Cars also kill people all the time or are used to ccommit crimes all the time. Yet we dont sue Ford for hit-and-run incidents.
Lets say someone bought a car... and a gun. Then they pulled up in front of a bank, and used these two pieces of equipment to ROB THE BANK!!!!! Would we sue Ford, inc, and Colt, inc?? No! we would go after the culprits, and let the manufacterers get away, because ITS NOT THEIR FAULT.
The DMCA is just stupid, because it takes the opposite approach.
True, their is a differecnce b/w cars and P2P software... you own your car. the manufacturer doesnt have to worry about you. with P2P software, you only own a licence... like if enterprise-rent-a-car owned the bank robbery vehicle. Since the company still owns the software, they can be obliged to makee sure that its not used in illegal ways... i just still think its unfair.
Bah. We all know, deep down, that the reason the DMCA et ect exists is because of lobbying $$ spent on the part of the RIAA and their equivalent for video...
Slashdot Mirror
Plus I think the that the point they make, saying: is quite valid. Didn't the NYTimes have to remove a bunch of content from their (paid subscription) database because the people who submitted the articles still had the copyrights, etc? I know those were editorial pieces, and that when you submit journal articles, you give up the copyright, (pretty sure about that part) but isn't the principle of the thing the same?
I really like this part : Thats music to my ears.
Fire (like trillian, but for OS X) doesn't seem to care. At least, as far as I can tell. Most likely the security hole lies in windows/MSN integration. or in the MSN client software. But not the messaging protocol.
Of course, the trillian people have a MUCH better track record in terms of patches and so forth (they keep updating so it'll work with AOL...) so even if it affects trillian (pretty sure the answer is NO...) they will fix it before M$.
I for one, am not shocked at all :)
Anyone who is shocked is a bit of a fool. It was only a matter of time, really, until one of M$'s many security holes in messenger was exploited. Kinda sad to think what will happen in the future as OS becomes more and more integrated with the internet. Your personal data (courtesy of passport) might be spread around if you replied to a IM, or data loss.
Don't use microsoft products, so I am not vulnerable. Happy me.
I don't think the writer really understands the point of a "killer app." It's not any particular document, but rather an APPLICATION. that said, I think he makes a very valid point. If people HAD to buy eBooks to get crack (or harry potter, or whatever may happen to be "hot" at any given moment... think tickle-me-elmos or pokemon) then the market would take off. Until the fad died out, that is.
:)
:) but to get back on point, let me re-iterate what the author of the article, and about a billion other people surely know.
eBooks will *never* catch on this way, though. The likelihood of any author (especially one so popular as JK Rowling) publishing a potential best-selling book ONLY in the fragile and pretty much non-existant eBook market is virtually nil.
Plus we'd all have to boycott Harry Potter because of the eeeeevil eBook maker's coalition (ya know, that whole adobe, FBI, dmitri skylakarov, and DMCA stuff
eBooks will, in my not-so-humble and actually quite arrogant opinion, never catch on until you can read them just as well as you can read books. This means terrific resolution, the ability to throw them anywhere, and definately cheaper readers. Resolution is really the key thing though. I much much prefer to read a newspaper, even with the nasty ink it ges on my hands, than a web page. Its just easier on the eyes. And my monitor is a not-too-shabby Apple LCD display. The digital-ink thing seems to me to be the key to this. But thats far off in the distant future (oh, sure, they have prototypes for bill-boards now, but nothing nearly good enough for, say, a newspaper).
Okay, so most of that was ridiculously offtopic (what was the question again? oh yeah. Harry Potter
As the author puts it :
"Jo Rowling [...] absolutely loves dear old-fashioned, manually operated, non-electronic storybooks."
Yeah, and from what I heard about the movie she isn't particularly affectionate with other technological "magic" either. So I don't anticipate a Potter eBook rollout soon.
hrmph. As both a Mac and windows user, I can't say that I was particularly impressed at first by these new machines.
Apple really needs to ramp up their speed--and since most people were expecting 1.2 Ghz G5 machines, this upgrade will come as a dissapointment to many.
The new machines also use PC-133 SDRAM, which is, to say the least, sad.
There are some nice points about the new macs, though. Apple seems to have greatly improved the interior architecture of the machines, enabling the PCI bus to run at 215MBps instead of 133MBps, and giving more dedicated bandwidth to hard drives et ect. The new machines also feature an AGP 4x slot, whereas (to the best of my recollection) the older PowerMacs only had AGP 2x. The GeForce 4 MX is nice, of course, though until I see some real benchmarks comparing it to Radeon 8500 and the high-end older GeForce 3 cards, I won't be impressed.
Well, here are the total specs of the new machines.
My overall impression is "Nice, but not nice enough."
I, for one, will wait for the G5 to buy a new mac. MacWorld New York, anyone?
>It is in players' best interest to spend money
>as fast as they can recieve it.
Actually, no. Deflation measn the amount of "goods" or "gear" or whatever a given amount of money buys INCREASES over time.
--therefore, if I have 10k pp and I keep them for 1 month without spending any of them, I will be able to buy *more* after that period of time than at the beginning.
To simplify, *money increases in value over time*
This means that everCrack players are better off never spending their money, as tomorrow they would be able to get more for the same $$.
You were thinking of inflation. No normal economies have deflation. In fact, I cannot think of *any* economy that has had deflation in recent times.
Perhaps its because I dont play Everyquest regularly, but I really *dont get* how the EverQuest universe has a deflation rate of like 30% annually...
I mean, theoretically, as more people play and level up characters, wouldnt that increase the general money supply, thereby causing *inflation*?
Plus, from the macroeconomics courses I have taken it seems like deflationis really hard to pull off, and requires people not to be buying stuff and a *loss* of overall money as compared to overall goods/items.
Maybe deflation is possible if less and less people are playing everquest (less *active* money available, therefore prices go down) but from talking to my evercrack addicted friends it sure doesnt seem this way...
typo? or more explanation?
It really ticks me off every time courts crack down on music sharing. Heck, what some people use it for may be illegal (okay, most people) but the programs have legitamate uses.
I, for one, used a P2P program some time ago to get all my LP songs as MP3s... much much cheaper than buying a new turntable, software, etc...
The DMCA is just stupid. That a company (or a person, like Dmitri Skylakarov) can be sued because someone uses their product or research in illegal ways is just plain anal.
For an interesting comparison, take guns and cars. Guns are often used illegally, yet that is not their only use... nobody persecutes gun manufacturers ("Guns dont kill people... people do") Cars also kill people all the time or are used to ccommit crimes all the time. Yet we dont sue Ford for hit-and-run incidents.
Lets say someone bought a car... and a gun. Then they pulled up in front of a bank, and used these two pieces of equipment to ROB THE BANK!!!!! Would we sue Ford, inc, and Colt, inc?? No! we would go after the culprits, and let the manufacterers get away, because ITS NOT THEIR FAULT.
The DMCA is just stupid, because it takes the opposite approach.
True, their is a differecnce b/w cars and P2P software... you own your car. the manufacturer doesnt have to worry about you. with P2P software, you only own a licence... like if enterprise-rent-a-car owned the bank robbery vehicle. Since the company still owns the software, they can be obliged to makee sure that its not used in illegal ways... i just still think its unfair.
Bah. We all know, deep down, that the reason the DMCA et ect exists is because of lobbying $$ spent on the part of the RIAA and their equivalent for video...