Check out the Extigy. Its an extra thing to lug around, and you need a power source for it (which sucks for portability or watching on a plane or in a car or whatever) butyou get the dolby out of it.
I take my portable mp3 player (Which to the airline security people is a cd player), and a portable dvd player on every flight I go on (2 a month or so) I have never had any trouble, just one time they made me turn on the dvd player to make sure it wasn't a bomb.
I actually have more trouble with the laptop, and my ipaq than with the dvd player.
Where have you ever heard of a policy against DVD players on board?
Of course, there are the normal restrictions on electronic devices during take off and landing, but thats it.
The discovery of more than a hundred new rain-forest species...
The new finding increases the island's previously known tree frog diversity more than fivefold to over 100 species.
So did they find 100 species, or did they find a few more, bringing the Total to 100. They found at least five, because they talk about some later down, but shoddy reporting...
Also, what exactly makes a species? Just because they look different doesn't mean they are a different species. White people look alot different from black people. Same species. Did they do DNA comparisons? How different is different?
This reminds me of the Darwin thing with the birds on the island that gave him the idea of evolution. Most scientists say, if the birds in question weren't so "holy" because of darwin, they wouldn't be classified as different spiecies at all, because the differences are so minor.
She didn't say P2P networks were illegal. She said downloading the music off of a P2P network is illegal, and it is. Its the copying of the music that is illegal, not the medium used.
Yes, you can debate if it SHOULD be illegal (just like the cocaine!) but it currently is.
Yes, tehre are probably people using P2P for backups, space shifting, but the vast majority are doing it to get free music. (See grandparent post)
yeah yeah yeah. There are theoretically some legitimate uses. but 99.999999999999 percent of all users out there, and 99.9999999999999 percent of all files downloaded are illegal.
Now, from a legal standpoint, the theoretical legal use should have just as loud of a voice as the illegal use.
From a practical making your point type of speech, the.000000000000000001 can be ignored.
Cocaine is illegal. Even though there are some very narrowly defined places and circumstances in which it is legal (research, some medicine etc). However if I say cocaine is illegal, nobody is going to get into a debate with me. They might debate if it SHOULD be illegal, but not that it IS illegal.
I think its very interesting that this article is posted on the Apache subsite, when Slashdot is touted as the source for Open Source news. This is the type of thing you would want to get out to as many users as possible so they can all get patched (Isn't that the advantage to Open Source? You can patch it? Or have someone smarter than you patch it for you?)
Meanwhile, every obscure, really difficult to implement, not really dangerous IIS flaw makes it to the frontpage, so we can have 500 comments of MS sucks, use open source, it can be patched faster!
No wonder the views are so lopsided. Massive exposure to every MS bug. Hide every open source bug.
Bring on the moderation. Its not that big of a deal...
The actual workers are compensated by the fact that they get paid to do their work up front. In fact, they get paid if the movie/work flops, or even if it gets shelved and never shown. In some respects they have a better deal than the investors!
Pretty much all the real profit goes to the investor. This is because they came up with the capitol up front, and are assuming 100% of the risk.
If you think this is wrong, remember two things.
1) Nobody forced the "workers" to work for the investor. Whatever deal they made they thought was fair, or was the best they could get.
2) Nothing stops the creative type from going off on their own.
Ah! but you say yes the creative type can make the work, but nobody will ever see it because of the marketing monopolies! Well yes, thats true. But creating that marketing monopoly is part of what the investor paid for, and if that monopoly went away, its not like the individuals could re-create it. (You would end up with an ecomomy somewhat like the local bar band gigs. People advertise locally, and are known locally. Nobody is known everywhere.)
And you are exactly right. Invest early, invest often, invest alot. You too can become "The Man"! I invest 30% of my income, so that someday, I am either rich, or my kids get a big leg up on being rich.
I dont wan't to achieve immortality through my children... I want to achieve immortality by not dieing!
Actually, there is no fair use provision for "trying it out" if you want to try it out, go to the library, they have a fair use provision.
And copyright infringement is breaking criminal law, not just civil law. I think you might be confusing EULA infringment which falls under breach of contract.
Piracy is punishable by fines and jail time. Both of these are for criminal acts. You can't get fined for a civil act (however you can be sued or held liable)
They are both illegal. And the bulk of what you wrote is just plain wrong.. Cracking DeCSS is perfectly legal. In fact there is no crack involved, since the code is available freely. Cracking CSS to make DeCSS on the other hand is illegal under the DMCA.
Downloading copyrighted files is also illegal. Under Copyright Infringment. While you may claim that it SHOULDNT be a crime, it currently is.
You should really get your facts straight before you advise people on legal matters. In addition you should have the most minimal decency to know what the fuck you are talking about when you open your trap (or in this case type) at all.
Limiting of a large data set most certainly should not be done client side, because you are sending down a ton of data that is by denefinition not wanted. Cull on the server side, or better yet, right inside the DB. thats what indexes are for!
Do more people use deCSS to watch DVDs under linux, or do more people use deCSS to rip DVDs and trade them on the internet? Make sure to include users who don't actually do the ripping themselves, but traffic in ripped movies.
Compare : The number of users of cocaine who use it for legitimate medical purposes (and there are legitimate purposes) and the number that use it for getting high. (Replace cocaine with almost any substance or activity that is illegal, the analogy holds)
Regulation of an activity, or substance, or piece of software does not depend on the intend use of the original author or inventor. It depends on the most common use.
Now, you may certainly argue that ripping and trading movies is fair use. There is some argument to be made there. However, currently such activity is not fair use, and is illegal. Therefore deCSS is thrown into limbo.
Yeah, because ActiveX and COM both work so well from within the Zaurus... That doesn't run windows...
I don't know what the memory/speed of the machine is off hand, but if it could handle a terminal services client, or vnc client, then that would be easy, and you could just remote into your main computer and control from there. As an added benefit you could control other programs as well.
Actually, since banner ads are usually just links to 3rd party sites, if we scraped the html, the link would still be there, and would still have the correct site ID in the url, so the guy would still get his revenue.
I think the original post meant that the jab position would morph, not the job holder. Some people will just be phased out through attrition (death, retirment) some people can retrain, and some people are SOL.
Its sad that some people are SOL, but you can't stop progress for them.
Its a close call. Certainly there could be a privacy policy in the licnese, which would then be more binding.
I think in this case, MS didn't really break their policy, just bent it a bit, or had sections that were too ambiguous.
Most EULAs essentially boil down to "we can do whatever we want, if you dont like it, dont use the program" The privacy policy (of most sites/apps) is more of a PR thing than any kind of requirement or licensing thing.
Most they could do is misrepresentation. And in that you can only get back what you lost as a result of the misrepresentation. Since passport is cheap/free, there isnt a big up front monetary loss. The only real loss is that of consumer confidence and consumer relations for the people who use passport. Its real hard to put numbers on that kind of loss, and even harder to attribute that to a specific cause, so they really can't get anything.
Well, thie thing is, while obviously what Microsoft did was bad, it isn't illegal. So they can't do much more than tell them "Abide by what you said you were going to do". A privacy policy is a policy, not a contract. So you really can't even get them for breach of contract.
If you have it auto forwarding, then its you that is calling a cell phone, not the telemarketer. Your fault, not theirs.
BTW, a simmilar argument was made for email a few years back, there were some products out there that would auto-forward emails to a fax machine (I even wrote one of em!). This was when email wasn't a primary means of communication, and fax was. They could have business people go grab the pile of faxes, and not have to have a seperate process for emails.
When spam started taking off, people said "well, If I forward to my fax machine, does that count with the anti-spam-fax law?"
Nope, because they were sending to the fax, not the spammer.
It is already illegal to make an unsolicited call to a cell phone. For exactly that reason. All the major telemarketing firms cull cell numbers from their databases.
Slashdot Mirror
Check out the Extigy. Its an extra thing to lug around, and you need a power source for it (which sucks for portability or watching on a plane or in a car or whatever) butyou get the dolby out of it.
I take my portable mp3 player (Which to the airline security people is a cd player), and a portable dvd player on every flight I go on (2 a month or so) I have never had any trouble, just one time they made me turn on the dvd player to make sure it wasn't a bomb.
I actually have more trouble with the laptop, and my ipaq than with the dvd player.
Where have you ever heard of a policy against DVD players on board?
Of course, there are the normal restrictions on electronic devices during take off and landing, but thats it.
The discovery of more than a hundred new rain-forest species...
The new finding increases the island's previously known tree frog diversity more than fivefold to over 100 species.
So did they find 100 species, or did they find a few more, bringing the Total to 100. They found at least five, because they talk about some later down, but shoddy reporting...
Also, what exactly makes a species? Just because they look different doesn't mean they are a different species. White people look alot different from black people. Same species. Did they do DNA comparisons? How different is different?
This reminds me of the Darwin thing with the birds on the island that gave him the idea of evolution. Most scientists say, if the birds in question weren't so "holy" because of darwin, they wouldn't be classified as different spiecies at all, because the differences are so minor.
She didn't say P2P networks were illegal. She said downloading the music off of a P2P network is illegal, and it is. Its the copying of the music that is illegal, not the medium used.
Yes, you can debate if it SHOULD be illegal (just like the cocaine!) but it currently is.
Yes, tehre are probably people using P2P for backups, space shifting, but the vast majority are doing it to get free music. (See grandparent post)
yeah yeah yeah. There are theoretically some legitimate uses. but 99.999999999999 percent of all users out there, and 99.9999999999999 percent of all files downloaded are illegal.
.000000000000000001 can be ignored.
Now, from a legal standpoint, the theoretical legal use should have just as loud of a voice as the illegal use.
From a practical making your point type of speech, the
Cocaine is illegal. Even though there are some very narrowly defined places and circumstances in which it is legal (research, some medicine etc). However if I say cocaine is illegal, nobody is going to get into a debate with me. They might debate if it SHOULD be illegal, but not that it IS illegal.
I think its very interesting that this article is posted on the Apache subsite, when Slashdot is touted as the source for Open Source news. This is the type of thing you would want to get out to as many users as possible so they can all get patched (Isn't that the advantage to Open Source? You can patch it? Or have someone smarter than you patch it for you?)
Meanwhile, every obscure, really difficult to implement, not really dangerous IIS flaw makes it to the frontpage, so we can have 500 comments of MS sucks, use open source, it can be patched faster!
No wonder the views are so lopsided. Massive exposure to every MS bug. Hide every open source bug.
Bring on the moderation. Its not that big of a deal...
R&D costs for things that cost nothing after the first copy tend to run in the millions of dollars to get that first copy.
How many man hours do you think went into writing windows? or office?
The actual workers are compensated by the fact that they get paid to do their work up front. In fact, they get paid if the movie/work flops, or even if it gets shelved and never shown. In some respects they have a better deal than the investors!
Pretty much all the real profit goes to the investor. This is because they came up with the capitol up front, and are assuming 100% of the risk.
If you think this is wrong, remember two things.
1) Nobody forced the "workers" to work for the investor. Whatever deal they made they thought was fair, or was the best they could get.
2) Nothing stops the creative type from going off on their own.
Ah! but you say yes the creative type can make the work, but nobody will ever see it because of the marketing monopolies! Well yes, thats true. But creating that marketing monopoly is part of what the investor paid for, and if that monopoly went away, its not like the individuals could re-create it. (You would end up with an ecomomy somewhat like the local bar band gigs. People advertise locally, and are known locally. Nobody is known everywhere.)
And you are exactly right. Invest early, invest often, invest alot. You too can become "The Man"! I invest 30% of my income, so that someday, I am either rich, or my kids get a big leg up on being rich.
I dont wan't to achieve immortality through my children... I want to achieve immortality by not dieing!
Actually, there is no fair use provision for "trying it out" if you want to try it out, go to the library, they have a fair use provision.
And copyright infringement is breaking criminal law, not just civil law. I think you might be confusing EULA infringment which falls under breach of contract.
Piracy is punishable by fines and jail time. Both of these are for criminal acts. You can't get fined for a civil act (however you can be sued or held liable)
They are both illegal. And the bulk of what you wrote is just plain wrong.. Cracking DeCSS is perfectly legal. In fact there is no crack involved, since the code is available freely. Cracking CSS to make DeCSS on the other hand is illegal under the DMCA.
Downloading copyrighted files is also illegal. Under Copyright Infringment. While you may claim that it SHOULDNT be a crime, it currently is.
You should really get your facts straight before you advise people on legal matters. In addition you should have the most minimal decency to know what the fuck you are talking about when you open your trap (or in this case type) at all.
Limiting of a large data set most certainly should not be done client side, because you are sending down a ton of data that is by denefinition not wanted. Cull on the server side, or better yet, right inside the DB. thats what indexes are for!
Do more people use deCSS to watch DVDs under linux, or do more people use deCSS to rip DVDs and trade them on the internet? Make sure to include users who don't actually do the ripping themselves, but traffic in ripped movies.
Compare :
The number of users of cocaine who use it for legitimate medical purposes (and there are legitimate purposes) and the number that use it for getting high. (Replace cocaine with almost any substance or activity that is illegal, the analogy holds)
Regulation of an activity, or substance, or piece of software does not depend on the intend use of the original author or inventor. It depends on the most common use.
Now, you may certainly argue that ripping and trading movies is fair use. There is some argument to be made there. However, currently such activity is not fair use, and is illegal. Therefore deCSS is thrown into limbo.
You get paid for your time, at nice union rates, but if ou had any royalties in your contract, or % of gross (only leads usually) you dont get those.
Yeah, because ActiveX and COM both work so well from within the Zaurus... That doesn't run windows...
I don't know what the memory/speed of the machine is off hand, but if it could handle a terminal services client, or vnc client, then that would be easy, and you could just remote into your main computer and control from there. As an added benefit you could control other programs as well.
Did you read anything in the articles or comments? They do NOT appreciate. they lose LOTS of value, in real and inflated dollars.
Actually, since banner ads are usually just links to 3rd party sites, if we scraped the html, the link would still be there, and would still have the correct site ID in the url, so the guy would still get his revenue.
I think the original post meant that the jab position would morph, not the job holder. Some people will just be phased out through attrition (death, retirment) some people can retrain, and some people are SOL.
Its sad that some people are SOL, but you can't stop progress for them.
Its a close call. Certainly there could be a privacy policy in the licnese, which would then be more binding.
I think in this case, MS didn't really break their policy, just bent it a bit, or had sections that were too ambiguous.
Most EULAs essentially boil down to "we can do whatever we want, if you dont like it, dont use the program" The privacy policy (of most sites/apps) is more of a PR thing than any kind of requirement or licensing thing.
Most they could do is misrepresentation. And in that you can only get back what you lost as a result of the misrepresentation. Since passport is cheap/free, there isnt a big up front monetary loss. The only real loss is that of consumer confidence and consumer relations for the people who use passport. Its real hard to put numbers on that kind of loss, and even harder to attribute that to a specific cause, so they really can't get anything.
Them using their monopoly to get into financial markets has nothing to do with them renegging on their privacy policy.
Its a pretty minor story. I bet its not on CNN either. but it is on cnn.com, and it is on MSNBC.com
http://www.msnbc.com/news/791587.asp?0dm=C12PT
Well, thie thing is, while obviously what Microsoft did was bad, it isn't illegal. So they can't do much more than tell them "Abide by what you said you were going to do". A privacy policy is a policy, not a contract. So you really can't even get them for breach of contract.
No, the bomber was not invisible because it was the size of a bird. The bomber is huge. It was invisible because it had the radar signature of a bird.
If you have it auto forwarding, then its you that is calling a cell phone, not the telemarketer. Your fault, not theirs.
BTW, a simmilar argument was made for email a few years back, there were some products out there that would auto-forward emails to a fax machine (I even wrote one of em!). This was when email wasn't a primary means of communication, and fax was. They could have business people go grab the pile of faxes, and not have to have a seperate process for emails.
When spam started taking off, people said "well, If I forward to my fax machine, does that count with the anti-spam-fax law?"
Nope, because they were sending to the fax, not the spammer.
It is already illegal to make an unsolicited call to a cell phone. For exactly that reason. All the major telemarketing firms cull cell numbers from their databases.