to admit to copyright infringement in a national newspaper.
"(Full disclosure: For research purposes, I've used BitTorrent to grab two episodes of "The Simpsons" and Jon Stewart's famously combative "Crossfire" appearance.) "
If you read Larry Lessige's "Free Code," you'll discover that one of the reasons the motion picture studios are in California is that California was too far away from NY for the Edison corporation to effectivly enforce its patents on movie making equipment.
Yup, the technology for making and showing movies was patented by Thomas Edison. If you wanted to use Thomas Edison's "valuable IP," you had to pay.
Instead, the movie industry "stole" the patented processes, imported grey market film stock, and moved to California where there was less enforcement.
Seems the theiving pirates are just getting what comes around.:)
I think news organizations have a responsibility to evaluate the credibility of the information they post, not just "post[ed] another readers view". There are plenty of stories that express a view I don't agree with. That's different from posting tabloid news without any concern for the sources of the stories.
As for my reasons for not subscribing, I think it is legitimate to not support a news organization becuase they don't do a good job of seperating valid, accurate news from FUD and PR. That's the value of news that's filtered by editors.
But, I take your point about e-mailing the subscriptions address. I may do just that.
A paid shill for SCO with zero credibility writes and article full of lies, half-truths, and innuendo, Slashdot posts about it, thus generating enormous amounts of traffic to the site that posts such slop.
Well done. I'll sure they'll keep giving voice to such trash as long as they make money on it.
The number one reason for me to build my own Linux-based PVR is privacy.
Did you know that Tivo tracks not only what shows you watch, but exaclty what parts of shows you replay or skip over?
Now, I know it's *supposed* to be anonymous. And I do believe them when they say they aren't selling the data *at the moment*.
I also know they have systems in place to anonymize the data.
But can you (or Tivo) guarentee that they will *never* be bought out be someone less ethical?
Can you guarentee that Tivo won't get a new CEO who decides selling your viewing habits to direct mail advertisers is more lucrative? (Imagine if Darl McBride went to Tivo instead of SCO).
That's my biggest reason for me to put together my own PVR.
Of course, there's also flexibility. I get to decide exactly what capabilities I want, not the marketing department of a profit-motivated company.
So if someone writes a trojan that comes with five seconds of synth-pop in a secure WMA file and also installs a program to mail your bank details to the author, all the author has to do is create a EULA like the above and they can avoid going to jail?
How is this any different?
Also, where do they get off saying "Usage of the CD on your computer requires your acceptance of the End User License Agreement" Music is not licensed. I *bought* a copy. I can use that copy wherever I want and I don't need a license from anyone. If you don't like that, don't sell it to me.
What eventually became the "World Wide Web" was developed by CERN (Based in Geneva, Switzerland.)
Uhh. It was invented at CERN by Tim-Burners Lee, who is British.
Geezz and it was only about 10 years ago. You didn't even need to crack a textbook for this. You could have looked this up on Google.
I suspect this case will depend on whether people have a right to download music they already have on CD or if only copying it yourself is legal.
Given that the RIAA keeps implying that I don't "own" the music, just the right to listen to it, then surely once I've bought it in one format, I have the right to possess it in another format. I guess that means I'll never have to buy the White album again...
Yes, it's a good thing for the Bush spin machine becuase: a) they control what catagories are presented. b) They can now state "Well, there's some minor grumbling about [unpopular policy] by the Press, but look at our e-mail statistics! Hardly anyone outside the liberal washington elite are complaining..."
Of course [unpopular policy] won't be one of the catagories you can select.
You don't have to control the answers if you can control the questions.
Apparently, with both size and color the same, foreigners have a hard time differenciating between the bills.
I am an American, living in London and I have to say I think this comment is unfair.
The statement above implies that foreigners have a hard time because they are either stupid or lazy. Most of the comments supporting the status quo seem to have the same opinion. Along the lines of "I can easily read the number in the corner so what's the problem..."
First, foreigners are not stupid or lazy. Foreigners are used to paper currency that is a different size, so to go to America and not have those extra clues is confusing.
Second, the Americans here are claiming that having all the same size and color bills are fine, but turn that argument around. Imaging that every coin was the same size, shape, texture, as a quarter and the only way of telling a 1 penny coing from a 50 cent piece was by reading the number engraved on the front!
Most people would agree that being able to reach into their pocket for some change and pick out the correct coin by feel is a good thing. Why, when you apply that same prinicple to paper currency, is it suddenly a silly idea or unneeded?
Methinks some people just don't like change (pun intended).
I can't imagine that Citrix reseller would tell you that even though you've purchased a valid license, you've still got to buy access client from Microsoft too.
They should. You must purschase a CAL for every machine that accesses Terminal Services. You must purschae a TS CAL (Terminal Services CAL) for every non-Windows 2000 machine that accesses Terminal Services.
With all the licenses needed (you need WinNT + client licenses + terminal server, but funny is that client side is even more expensive because every client needs Win98 license + WinNT full license + Terminal server access license)
No, you don't need that much. You need WinNT/Terminal Server Win2k license. Then you need Win98 license + Client Access License + Terminal Services Client Access License. You do not need a WinNT license for each client.
Re:What Difference Does It Make In The Long Run?
on
Palm OS 5.0 Preview
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
You're confusing Palm the device maker with the Palm OS subsidiary.
Palm OS is releasing a new version that will be licensed to many different hardware manufacturers. The point is that these hardware manufacturers can take a multimedia-ready Palm OS 5 and build something more than a "39 cent paper note pad".
No, it's not "business people," it's Microsoft. By trying to generalize this to all businesses, you are missing the point of monopoly laws and the ruling of the court.
The laws restraining the practices of a monopoly are designed to ensure free markets and to foster competition. Microsoft is a monopoly that acted to restrict free competition. That is what a court of law, and now an appeals court, have decided.
Microsoft was not found guilty because they were "successful."
Most of the recent laws around patents and IP protection have been intended to help the content distributers. Now, we have a small company that is using those same laws to go after potentially huge amounts of money.
I wonder, if the patent is upheld, if this will be the real spark that forces changes in patent laws. After all, the large corporations this patent will hurt, who spent huge amounts of money getting software under the umbrella of patent protection and, more recently, the DMCA, might realize the genie they let out of the bottle.
Re:There is use for a table in zero-gravity ?
on
Home Improvement
·
· Score: 1
One of the common arguments made against using Open Source software is the "somoene to sue" argument. It goes something like, "If something goes wrong with Linux, there is no single entity or person who can be held accountable. However, when using software from [Insert name of large commercial software company], you know there is a single entity to sue, should said software go wrong."
Given the text of most commercial software licenses, which limit warrenties to defects in media and exclude any damages arising from use, how valid is this argument?
If I install, for example, Micorsoft Accounting 1.0 and, due to a bug in Micorsoft's code, suffer financial loss, can I realisticly sue Micorsoft and what would be the odds of winning?
In short, is their any validity to the premise that commercial software companies can and are held more legally accountable for bugs in their software?
I don't agree with that sentiment. I think that, when the market for computers gets big enough, there should be different laptops for different uses and people.
I've got about 5 beefy desktop computers that I either own or control at work. I don't really need a "desktop in a small package".
Think about PDAs. A PalmPilot is, by any definition and computer, yet it is very limited in its functionality. But, that is precisely the thing that makes it so useful and popular.
There is a place for small specialized devices. Not everyone needs to do everything all of the time.
Slashdot Mirror
to admit to copyright infringement in a national newspaper.
"(Full disclosure: For research purposes, I've used BitTorrent to grab two episodes of "The Simpsons" and Jon Stewart's famously combative "Crossfire" appearance.) "
If you read Larry Lessige's "Free Code," you'll discover that one of the reasons the motion picture studios are in California is that California was too far away from NY for the Edison corporation to effectivly enforce its patents on movie making equipment.
:)
Yup, the technology for making and showing movies was patented by Thomas Edison. If you wanted to use Thomas Edison's "valuable IP," you had to pay.
Instead, the movie industry "stole" the patented processes, imported grey market film stock, and moved to California where there was less enforcement.
Seems the theiving pirates are just getting what comes around.
I think news organizations have a responsibility to evaluate the credibility of the information they post, not just "post[ed] another readers view". There are plenty of stories that express a view I don't agree with. That's different from posting tabloid news without any concern for the sources of the stories.
As for my reasons for not subscribing, I think it is legitimate to not support a news organization becuase they don't do a good job of seperating valid, accurate news from FUD and PR. That's the value of news that's filtered by editors.
But, I take your point about e-mailing the subscriptions address. I may do just that.
I am amazed that Slashdot would lend credibility to a story by Maureen O'Gara. She's nothing more than a hack with an obvious anti-Linux bias.
I had been considering subscribing to Slashdot. I have now decided that I'll spend my money where the editors have better sense.
A paid shill for SCO with zero credibility writes and article full of lies, half-truths, and innuendo, Slashdot posts about it, thus generating enormous amounts of traffic to the site that posts such slop.
Well done. I'll sure they'll keep giving voice to such trash as long as they make money on it.
The number one reason for me to build my own Linux-based PVR is privacy.
Did you know that Tivo tracks not only what shows you watch, but exaclty what parts of shows you replay or skip over?
Now, I know it's *supposed* to be anonymous. And I do believe them when they say they aren't selling the data *at the moment*.
I also know they have systems in place to anonymize the data.
But can you (or Tivo) guarentee that they will *never* be bought out be someone less ethical?
Can you guarentee that Tivo won't get a new CEO who decides selling your viewing habits to direct mail advertisers is more lucrative? (Imagine if Darl McBride went to Tivo instead of SCO).
That's my biggest reason for me to put together my own PVR.
Of course, there's also flexibility. I get to decide exactly what capabilities I want, not the marketing department of a profit-motivated company.
Uhh yeah, but it still shouldn't just crash!
Hmmm.
So if someone writes a trojan that comes with five seconds of synth-pop in a secure WMA file and also installs a program to mail your bank details to the author, all the author has to do is create a EULA like the above and they can avoid going to jail?
How is this any different?
Also, where do they get off saying "Usage of the CD on your computer requires your acceptance of the End User License Agreement" Music is not licensed. I *bought* a copy. I can use that copy wherever I want and I don't need a license from anyone. If you don't like that, don't sell it to me.
Uh huh. Because GM and Ford never abused the law to hide flaws with their products....
I suspect this case will depend on whether people have a right to download music they already have on CD or if only copying it yourself is legal.
Given that the RIAA keeps implying that I don't "own" the music, just the right to listen to it, then surely once I've bought it in one format, I have the right to possess it in another format. I guess that means I'll never have to buy the White album again...
This IS a big deal.
Yes, it's a good thing for the Bush spin machine becuase:
a) they control what catagories are presented.
b) They can now state "Well, there's some minor grumbling about [unpopular policy] by the Press, but look at our e-mail statistics! Hardly anyone outside the liberal washington elite are complaining..."
Of course [unpopular policy] won't be one of the catagories you can select.
You don't have to control the answers if you can control the questions.
Apparently, with both size and color the same, foreigners have a hard time differenciating between the bills.
I am an American, living in London and I have to say I think this comment is unfair.
The statement above implies that foreigners have a hard time because they are either stupid or lazy. Most of the comments supporting the status quo seem to have the same opinion. Along the lines of "I can easily read the number in the corner so what's the problem..."
First, foreigners are not stupid or lazy. Foreigners are used to paper currency that is a different size, so to go to America and not have those extra clues is confusing.
Second, the Americans here are claiming that having all the same size and color bills are fine, but turn that argument around. Imaging that every coin was the same size, shape, texture, as a quarter and the only way of telling a 1 penny coing from a 50 cent piece was by reading the number engraved on the front!
Most people would agree that being able to reach into their pocket for some change and pick out the correct coin by feel is a good thing. Why, when you apply that same prinicple to paper currency, is it suddenly a silly idea or unneeded?
Methinks some people just don't like change (pun intended).
They should. You must purschase a CAL for every machine that accesses Terminal Services. You must purschae a TS CAL (Terminal Services CAL) for every non-Windows 2000 machine that accesses Terminal Services.
With all the licenses needed (you need WinNT + client licenses + terminal server, but funny is that client side is even more expensive because every client needs Win98 license + WinNT full license + Terminal server access license)No, you don't need that much. You need WinNT/Terminal Server Win2k license. Then you need Win98 license + Client Access License + Terminal Services Client Access License. You do not need a WinNT license for each client.
You're confusing Palm the device maker with the Palm OS subsidiary.
Palm OS is releasing a new version that will be licensed to many different hardware manufacturers. The point is that these hardware manufacturers can take a multimedia-ready Palm OS 5 and build something more than a "39 cent paper note pad".
Do you think they'll get many impulse buy sales?
No, it's not "business people," it's Microsoft. By trying to generalize this to all businesses, you are missing the point of monopoly laws and the ruling of the court.
The laws restraining the practices of a monopoly are designed to ensure free markets and to foster competition. Microsoft is a monopoly that acted to restrict free competition. That is what a court of law, and now an appeals court, have decided.
Microsoft was not found guilty because they were "successful."
Most of the recent laws around patents and IP protection have been intended to help the content distributers. Now, we have a small company that is using those same laws to go after potentially huge amounts of money.
I wonder, if the patent is upheld, if this will be the real spark that forces changes in patent laws. After all, the large corporations this patent will hurt, who spent huge amounts of money getting software under the umbrella of patent protection and, more recently, the DMCA, might realize the genie they let out of the bottle.
What would make it not stay on the table?
Think about it.
One of the common arguments made against using Open Source software is the "somoene to sue" argument. It goes something like, "If something goes wrong with Linux, there is no single entity or person who can be held accountable. However, when using software from [Insert name of large commercial software company], you know there is a single entity to sue, should said software go wrong."
Given the text of most commercial software licenses, which limit warrenties to defects in media and exclude any damages arising from use, how valid is this argument?
If I install, for example, Micorsoft Accounting 1.0 and, due to a bug in Micorsoft's code, suffer financial loss, can I realisticly sue Micorsoft and what would be the odds of winning?
In short, is their any validity to the premise that commercial software companies can and are held more legally accountable for bugs in their software?
Thanks
I don't agree with that sentiment. I think that, when the market for computers gets big enough, there should be different laptops for different uses and people.
I've got about 5 beefy desktop computers that I either own or control at work. I don't really need a "desktop in a small package".
Think about PDAs. A PalmPilot is, by any definition and computer, yet it is very limited in its functionality. But, that is precisely the thing that makes it so useful and popular.
There is a place for small specialized devices. Not everyone needs to do everything all of the time.
"Using Nanotechnology scientists..."
Those tiny scientists really can work wonders...
According to the book "The Puzzle Palace" (sorry, don't remember the author), the NSA has been monitoring Internet traffic for years.