i dont think they'd use it for street signs wouldnt one side always be shown in reverse?
It seems to me that you would use this tech on those pda's/laptops that have a swivel screen to eiter be used with a keyboard or cover up the keyboard to be used like a pad. Those swivel screens must be hell to design well compared to a switch that just makes the screen draw in reverse.
Re:Yeah, thats super. We all need more of this.
on
dB Drag Racing
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
An interesting paper debunking EMP guns along with a bunch of background info on EMP and stories of hackers tricking the news media into running bogus EMP gun stories.
I am using spam assassin with bayesian filtering turned on
My experience is that the bayesian filtering is extremely effective, far better than any other spam filtering i had tried before and far better than spam assasin before bayesian filtering was added.
I was using spam assassin before bayesian filtering was available and i found that while it had been mostly effective, it was becoming less and less so even while i kept up with software upgrades. It was not uncommon for 5-10 spam mail to get through per day, blocking 40-80 pieces of spam (with about 10 legit emails per day)
Now that I use the bayesian filtering in combination with spam assasin i find that most days it catches 100% of my spam. I will get maybe 1-3 pieces of spam that isn't filtered per week, usually no more than one in a day. (out of about 60-100 pieces of spam per day)
I trained it with about 700 pieces of spam and about 700 pieces of legit email when i started it. I could have started it with much less. I now only train errors, and it auto trains itself with very high scoring spam (over 10 on the spam assassin scale)
It seem to me that the combination of these two types of spam filtering in one is more effective than either one individually. I often find email that would have been treated as good if the bayesian scoring wasn't included, and i also often find spam that would have been treated as good if the spam assasin rules didn't augment the low bayesian score some mail gets.
Due to the way spam assassin includes their reports with individual scores for each rule including the bayesian score you could analyze a batch of old mail for effectiveness. Last quarter i recieved about 7000 pieces of spam (kind of a guess but i think thats right). A program could go through this old spam of mine and take the final spamassassin scroe and subtract the bayesian modifier from each one. While I haven't done this i am confident that this would show at least a thousand messages that bayesian filtering caught over and above what spamassassin alone would.
For the record, I have made a few modifications to the spamassassin scoring and filtering. I changed the spam threshold to 4 (instead of 5), auto training at 10 (instead of 15), and score bayes_90 at 4 (instead of 3) and bayes_80 at 3.9 (instead of 2.9). I've found this is much more effective while the only mistagged good email i find is occassional newsletters.
It's multi-level marketing. While speakeasy may have made more money if your neighbor signed up for service with them himself, as they are not a dominant service provider it's much more likely your neighbor would have signed up with another ISP. Having the existing customer do their marketing for them gets them sales they probably wouldnt have otherwise had
1) how do you know how many people pay to get into a club? You must be kidding me, have you ever gone to a club? It seems like no. Of course when you pay to get in a club the venue and the band know how many people paid to get in. It's the basis of the whole business.
2) If you don't like music that's made for an album, then never listen to it. Obviously, however, you do like it. You like it enough to pirate it. So it's obvious that you just dont like to pay for it.
3) As a DJ at weddings and the like you get paid to play other people's records. You want to not pay them. newsflash: at a wedding when you announce the bridal dance they aren't paying you to kick some fat beats, they are paying you to play when a man loves a woman and STFU.
4) You're hopeless. If you had any real appreciation for music, art and the scene you wouldn't be so willing to go directly against their wishes to steal the fruits of the labor.
Obviously you are so hell bent on your supposed moral standing about art because you're trying desperately to assuage your own guilt from defrauding the music that you love. I hope someday you come to terms with it before you explode from lying to yourself for so long.
This is it for me, have fun arguing with the ether.
Those are bars you fucking idiot. They don't sell 1000 seats, he probably doesnt sell them out at 300 seats, and you don't make $5 a head. Bzzzt. Just another instance of you HAVING NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT trying to justify copying the life works of thousands of artists because you a) want to benefit from their hard work and effort but b) don't want to pay anything because you're a cheap bastard.
Are you blind? On the right hand side of the main page are two links to buy her cds.
She has used her freedom to decide to make a portion of her songs available for download. And yet she still sells cd's to people.
The difference here is she decided thats what she wanted to do. If she didn't want to give away her music for free, you don't have the right to copy it just because you feel like it.
1) 25,000 seat arena in new york for five nights? WTF are you smoking? Like i said there's a handful of bands, MAYBE, in the world that can play five nights at madison square garden. And this is your answer to smaller bands that want to make a living playing music? Come back when you have a shred of common sense.
2) $0.50 per cd sold? You are continuing to refuse to see the difference between media mogul superstars and the other 99% of the music industry. Bands that sell albums for $10 and play in clubs see far more that $0.50 for their efforts. Bands sell their own cd's, small labels, and even those that are signed to big labels dont have huge expenses in promotion, or $3M for a music video or if they are selling them themselves huge distribution costs. It's much more common for real every day artists and NOT eminem to make $5 on a cd they sell to a fan. They sure aren't making that much off a $10 door fee.
1) Small band is forced to give all their music away for free 2) You copy it and listen to it 3) ??? 4) Play arenas in tokyo and mage huge $$$
you know what the missing ??? is? It's the part where you admit this is some kind of random fantasy you've made up to justify copying what ever you want.
you must not be much of a music fan if you are honestly in favor of only bands that can fill arenas getting paid to make music. There's maybe a few dozen of these bands at any given time... What a bleak world it would be to only have 30 bands that made any kind of music for me to listen to. Because the rest certainly arent going to work for years on making great albums for you to download them each time, menahwile saying well my sister went to an nsync concert last month so my family supports the arts.
look at what the EFF is saying, they are saying that anyone should be able to copy anyone's music for free for any reason. If you cant see how that hurts a small time band that makes money off of it's records, how much more blind can you be?
Just to be clear, I don't have a band, i don't make music, i'm a software programmer. So all of your attacks against me, my laziness, supposedly me saying my music was great, were all made up.
I can see now that you're just trolling me. Everyone even cursorily involved with the music business knows that the only people making any significant amount of money from live shows are people like the rolling stones, or the grateful dead did, or other large acts. Even those that play in theater size venues only break even on tour. In 1000 seats or less usually the cost of going on tour barely breaks even and thats doubling up in cheap hotels, packing all their own gear and searching for the cheapest gas.
Why do all these bands go on tour then? To sell their albums. They sell them there at the show.. why do you think they are doing that? To get you to come to the concert? Obviously they are alread there so in your theory hey they should be raking in the dough out on tour. say it again with me TOURS SELL RECORDS. And records is how musicians make their money. Thanks.
Sure I do, our freedom 60 million people, is more important than your freedom
So if 60 million people wanted to rape your wife, and only your family disagreed, you would support their freedom to do with her what they would? Of course not, modern society recognizes that human rights are not dictated by those who have the biggest stick, or the biggest constituency.
I think a lot more people want freedom of speech and freedom online
There has got to be thousands of great thinkers rolling over in their graves right now to think that your idea of freedom of speech (which you are blessed with) is there to allow you to mass copy someone else work because you want to enjoy it but dont want to pay for it.
I suppose coming up with this belief helps a lot to reduce the pangs of guilt while you are ripping off other working class people like artists.
Let me tell you the other side of the story. I know dozens of people who make their living either in whole or in part due to creating music on records.
Not a single one of these people owns an expensive car. None of them jet off to london to jam with the stones. Only a few of them own their own house, something that has long been heralded as basic achievement of working class people. Many work part or full time in record stores, recording studios, restaurants and bars. When we go out to lunch most of the time it's at a place that a burrito and a coke will cost you less than $5.
These are the upper class elite you're talking about?
When i go out to see music, it's almost always at smaller clubs like the bottom of the hill, or slim's, or bimbos. These places hold 300-700 people, sometimes up to 1000. The door is often $5 or $10. They sell CD's for $10 that often dont even have barcodes on them, or are made on cdr's. When they go to the next town they all cram into a van, drive a uhual, or get on a bus and go. They pay their gas money with cash they made the night before off of their records.
Are these the greedy people bilking you out of your hard earned money to scam you with music? No, they are working class americans. Based on your arguments about the evils of capitalism and copyright one would assume that file swappers would not be sharing music by these people, right? Well, of course they are though. Search for any number of these bands on p2p apps and you'll find their whole albums ready to download.
An interesting anecdote to this is a band that a friend of mine works for as a recording engineer and sound tech while they are on the road. Though they have had a following for years in a small circle, they have all had straight jobs to pay the bills. A few years ago, an old friend joined their band... Now this guy was a bit different, he had been in a popular san francisco band that had toured internationally and consequently had made somewhat of a name for himself. Him joining was probably going to help them all make more of a living out of making their music. They made a new album and played a few shows locally to introduce the new guy. The album was available for sale on their website. About a month after their cd release I was told a sobering tale from my friend the sound engineer. The band had recieved a large amount of positive feedback on the new album... over a hundred and fifty people had written to tell them that the new album was great, that they loved it. The problem? Between the CD sales at the concerts and online, they had sold less than 100 copies. More people had loved the album enough to write in an congratulate them on it than had bought the album in the first place. And we know most people who get an album (either bought or copied) aren't going to write the band. So here were working class guys with a shot at getting a bit more for their labor essentially shot down by music piracy. Nobody involved in their process was ever near getting rich, but money from the album sales could and did help people buy clothes for their kids or gas or pay their rent.
"[...] stupid people like you want to take that freedom away from 60 million people, just so a few hundred thousand greedy rich CEOs such as yourself can profit off other peoples ideas."
Well, I'm sure you knew this before you wrote it, but I'm neither rich nor a CEO. Attacking me like this it's easy for everyone to see that you're just trying to justify something that you like to do so that you don't feel bad.. which you would if you faced the reality of much of the music business.
In reality, you're the greedy, gluttenous one. Copying music that you can afford while the artists that make it often stuggle to pay their own bills.
Who is running the EFF now? There has obviously been a number of changes of power over the last decade, but this latest incarnation of the EFF seems to have nearly nothing in common with the principles with which the organization was formed.
As a former supporter of and contributor to the EFF I am appalled at this latest campaign. After reading the information available about their latest campaign on their website, it is clear that the EFF now is promoting mass violation of legally held copyrights of music and other works. Obviously stepping far beyond fair use doctrine, the EFF appears to be supporting mass distribution of copyrighted works to thousands of people the user has never met.
Some of the alternatives to paid copyright use the EFF suggests are simply laughable. Tip jars are one of the suggestions, something that nearly every investigation into that i have read has discounted as ineffective. Ad revenue sharing is another suggestion they make, and anyone who has survived the.com era knows how meager ad revenue can be, especially for someone who is creating their own content and not simply presenting millions of page views of other people's work. Digital patronage, another answer presented is akin to saying "We don't want to pay you to do your work, find someone else to pay you. We still want the product, though!"
Cases such as Steve Jackson Games and others that the EFF cut their teeth on and grew influential were all examples of protecting individual's rights online and in a digital age. Indeed there was a need for this kind of protection and there still is, physical rights that citizens had been granted were being ignored either intentionally or unintentionally in a digital venue.
Now it seems that the EFF has done a complete 180 degree turn in their approach. They are now attacking copyright holders, saying that they shouldn't have the same protections online as they have in the physical world. Meanwhile, while these rights still do apply to the digital world the EFF is trying to make sure that anyone who choses to violate them is guaranteed anonymity.
Wouldn't the old EFF have stood up for these people who were having their rights violated - the vast majority of whom are regular folks, paying their rent, or small businesses (bands) making only a mediocre income on their work?
Agreed, i think this is the real point. Piracy of current release feature films has skyrocketed, thanks in most part to much higher quality being available. If you could read harry potter in a pleasing book form without much effort, there would be a ton more piracy no matter what the price of the book was. In a way, perhaps its very smart to keep publishing books as is and not getting consumers used to ebook format... if they really got used to it then they'd be in the same position films & music are now.
Said another way, is it really the high cost of products driving piracy, or is it the quality of pirated goods and the ease of attaining them that causes us to believe they are worth less?
Since no one came up with any better research i thought i would share this, which was the only substantial discussion i was able to find of RCU patent & copyright history:
did anyone read the linux interview? I haven't read every SCO article that has come out but i found it surprising to read that linus was saying that RCU patents and copyrights are held by IBM (formerly sequent) considering it is the RCU code that they have been showing.
Does anyone have a link to analysis of the RCU patents and copyrights? Up to this point everything i have seen has been very broad discussion about why people doubted SCO's claim was correct, but this seems like a smoking gun... SCO shows rcu code and rcu ip is shown to belong to sequent and bought by ibm? Would push me into placing a short position.
Yeah, I totally agree with you. I love linux too and for servers it's by far my first choice.
I think you hit the nail on the head about linux with a truly exceptional GUI. The free development process simply doesn't encourage an environment that can build a world class user interface.
I am using kde3.1 exclusively on my laptop now, and I admit linux as a desktop os has come a very very long way, I am impressed. But I would trade my thinkpad for a an apple laptop in a heartbeat, OS/X is by far a nicer environment to me. I plan on buying a tiBook as soon as i can justify an upgrade.
i think the best way to gauge the real split for desktop OS's is browser impressions for each platform. This way it realistically measures desktops in use and not shipped units or servers. It also catches people who use multiple desktop OS's and should accurately track the split between them.
Google Zeitgeist is a great way to take a look at those figures over time at a pretty universal location.
For may '03 google lists linux at 1% and mac at 3%. Linux zealots may look at that and say well 2% is miniscule with the rate of growth that won't take long, etc. But go back and look at june 2001 zeitgeist and you'll see similar numbers. Linux with 1% and Mac with 4%
The conclusion i draw from those numbers is that linux desktop use isnt growing at any significant rate at all, and the only danger Apple has in getting passed on the desktop is if they lose a dramatic amount of market share to windows.
In the early 90's I worked on a project sponsored by AT&T to install classrooms of the future in a few universities. While there are undoubtedly things we did poorly and have been improved upon, one of the most striking findings of the project was that some classes did very poorly in the room. They had booked a variety in the theater the first year and found while some technology & science classes obviously benfitted a lot, other classes such a arts & history had a harder time in the room than in a normal classroom.
A few of the findings: * students often appeared more distracted * time spent learning software was not made up in efficiency * less personal contact with the professor & with the material * transient failures would disrupt the class
If you are searching for ways to use the classroom i would wager that at least to a degree you will be changing your course from english to one that also involves learning about computers or techniques such as blogs. Is that really what you want to teach? If it was me i would seriously consider asking for a room change or for students to turn off the computers during the class but i'm no professor.
Don't get me wrong they had great uses but i think the biggest thing we learned (somewhat as suspected) was that they are not for everything.
"To keep the service running, SCIS engineers fended off denial-of-service attacks, domain hijackings and other foreign hacker intrusions, not to mention regular investigations from suspicious Iraqi government officials. "
then later
"According to Harif, the delay in bringing the Uruklink website back online is due to security concerns. While the site's content has been ready for weeks, he said technicians needed extra time to harden the underlying server software against electronic attacks."
Didn't they probably have more trouble due to internet attacks before the fall rather than after? Also doesnt this quote seem odd, if you were explaining launching internet service you wouldnt say everything was ready to go to be turned on, except that you are still working on a big part of it.
It seems to me the article is saying that someone else like the US government is delaying the return to service based on their monitoring equipment being installed. Or am i just being paranoid? Oh well, i supose thats what they call victor's rights.
I am trying to figure out how a player with 32MB of memory and no hard drive or cd drive or dvd drive is any kind of "personal video player" and yes i read the articles none of the journalists appear to have done anything but reformatted the press releases
Slashdot Mirror
Implemented by hping2
you can either do
hping 1.2.3.4 -e your_message_here
or
hping 1.2.3.4 -E file-to-embed
have fun!
i dont think they'd use it for street signs wouldnt one side always be shown in reverse?
It seems to me that you would use this tech on those pda's/laptops that have a swivel screen to eiter be used with a keyboard or cover up the keyboard to be used like a pad. Those swivel screens must be hell to design well compared to a switch that just makes the screen draw in reverse.
An interesting paper debunking EMP guns along with a bunch of background info on EMP and stories of hackers tricking the news media into running bogus EMP gun stories.
I am using spam assassin with bayesian filtering turned on
My experience is that the bayesian filtering is extremely effective, far better than any other spam filtering i had tried before and far better than spam assasin before bayesian filtering was added.
I was using spam assassin before bayesian filtering was available and i found that while it had been mostly effective, it was becoming less and less so even while i kept up with software upgrades. It was not uncommon for 5-10 spam mail to get through per day, blocking 40-80 pieces of spam (with about 10 legit emails per day)
Now that I use the bayesian filtering in combination with spam assasin i find that most days it catches 100% of my spam. I will get maybe 1-3 pieces of spam that isn't filtered per week, usually no more than one in a day. (out of about 60-100 pieces of spam per day)
I trained it with about 700 pieces of spam and about 700 pieces of legit email when i started it. I could have started it with much less. I now only train errors, and it auto trains itself with very high scoring spam (over 10 on the spam assassin scale)
It seem to me that the combination of these two types of spam filtering in one is more effective than either one individually. I often find email that would have been treated as good if the bayesian scoring wasn't included, and i also often find spam that would have been treated as good if the spam assasin rules didn't augment the low bayesian score some mail gets.
Due to the way spam assassin includes their reports with individual scores for each rule including the bayesian score you could analyze a batch of old mail for effectiveness. Last quarter i recieved about 7000 pieces of spam (kind of a guess but i think thats right). A program could go through this old spam of mine and take the final spamassassin scroe and subtract the bayesian modifier from each one. While I haven't done this i am confident that this would show at least a thousand messages that bayesian filtering caught over and above what spamassassin alone would.
For the record, I have made a few modifications to the spamassassin scoring and filtering. I changed the spam threshold to 4 (instead of 5), auto training at 10 (instead of 15), and score bayes_90 at 4 (instead of 3) and bayes_80 at 3.9 (instead of 2.9). I've found this is much more effective while the only mistagged good email i find is occassional newsletters.
hope this helps
Sign up your neighbors, sniff their email, let the world know their business at the next block party.
It's multi-level marketing. While speakeasy may have made more money if your neighbor signed up for service with them himself, as they are not a dominant service provider it's much more likely your neighbor would have signed up with another ISP. Having the existing customer do their marketing for them gets them sales they probably wouldnt have otherwise had
1) how do you know how many people pay to get into a club? You must be kidding me, have you ever gone to a club? It seems like no. Of course when you pay to get in a club the venue and the band know how many people paid to get in. It's the basis of the whole business.
2) If you don't like music that's made for an album, then never listen to it. Obviously, however, you do like it. You like it enough to pirate it. So it's obvious that you just dont like to pay for it.
3) As a DJ at weddings and the like you get paid to play other people's records. You want to not pay them. newsflash: at a wedding when you announce the bridal dance they aren't paying you to kick some fat beats, they are paying you to play when a man loves a woman and STFU.
4) You're hopeless. If you had any real appreciation for music, art and the scene you wouldn't be so willing to go directly against their wishes to steal the fruits of the labor.
Obviously you are so hell bent on your supposed moral standing about art because you're trying desperately to assuage your own guilt from defrauding the music that you love. I hope someday you come to terms with it before you explode from lying to yourself for so long.
This is it for me, have fun arguing with the ether.
Those are bars you fucking idiot. They don't sell 1000 seats, he probably doesnt sell them out at 300 seats, and you don't make $5 a head. Bzzzt. Just another instance of you HAVING NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT trying to justify copying the life works of thousands of artists because you a) want to benefit from their hard work and effort but b) don't want to pay anything because you're a cheap bastard.
Are you blind? On the right hand side of the main page are two links to buy her cds.
She has used her freedom to decide to make a portion of her songs available for download. And yet she still sells cd's to people.
The difference here is she decided thats what she wanted to do. If she didn't want to give away her music for free, you don't have the right to copy it just because you feel like it.
1) 25,000 seat arena in new york for five nights? WTF are you smoking? Like i said there's a handful of bands, MAYBE, in the world that can play five nights at madison square garden. And this is your answer to smaller bands that want to make a living playing music? Come back when you have a shred of common sense.
2) $0.50 per cd sold? You are continuing to refuse to see the difference between media mogul superstars and the other 99% of the music industry. Bands that sell albums for $10 and play in clubs see far more that $0.50 for their efforts. Bands sell their own cd's, small labels, and even those that are signed to big labels dont have huge expenses in promotion, or $3M for a music video or if they are selling them themselves huge distribution costs. It's much more common for real every day artists and NOT eminem to make $5 on a cd they sell to a fan. They sure aren't making that much off a $10 door fee.
1) Small band is forced to give all their music away for free
2) You copy it and listen to it
3) ???
4) Play arenas in tokyo and mage huge $$$
you know what the missing ??? is? It's the part where you admit this is some kind of random fantasy you've made up to justify copying what ever you want.
you must not be much of a music fan if you are honestly in favor of only bands that can fill arenas getting paid to make music. There's maybe a few dozen of these bands at any given time... What a bleak world it would be to only have 30 bands that made any kind of music for me to listen to. Because the rest certainly arent going to work for years on making great albums for you to download them each time, menahwile saying well my sister went to an nsync concert last month so my family supports the arts.
look at what the EFF is saying, they are saying that anyone should be able to copy anyone's music for free for any reason. If you cant see how that hurts a small time band that makes money off of it's records, how much more blind can you be?
Just to be clear, I don't have a band, i don't make music, i'm a software programmer. So all of your attacks against me, my laziness, supposedly me saying my music was great, were all made up.
I can see now that you're just trolling me. Everyone even cursorily involved with the music business knows that the only people making any significant amount of money from live shows are people like the rolling stones, or the grateful dead did, or other large acts. Even those that play in theater size venues only break even on tour. In 1000 seats or less usually the cost of going on tour barely breaks even and thats doubling up in cheap hotels, packing all their own gear and searching for the cheapest gas.
Why do all these bands go on tour then? To sell their albums. They sell them there at the show.. why do you think they are doing that? To get you to come to the concert? Obviously they are alread there so in your theory hey they should be raking in the dough out on tour. say it again with me TOURS SELL RECORDS. And records is how musicians make their money. Thanks.
Sure I do, our freedom 60 million people, is more important than your freedom
So if 60 million people wanted to rape your wife, and only your family disagreed, you would support their freedom to do with her what they would? Of course not, modern society recognizes that human rights are not dictated by those who have the biggest stick, or the biggest constituency.
I think a lot more people want freedom of speech and freedom online
There has got to be thousands of great thinkers rolling over in their graves right now to think that your idea of freedom of speech (which you are blessed with) is there to allow you to mass copy someone else work because you want to enjoy it but dont want to pay for it.
Copyright benefits the upper class elite.
I suppose coming up with this belief helps a lot to reduce the pangs of guilt while you are ripping off other working class people like artists.
Let me tell you the other side of the story. I know dozens of people who make their living either in whole or in part due to creating music on records.
Not a single one of these people owns an expensive car. None of them jet off to london to jam with the stones. Only a few of them own their own house, something that has long been heralded as basic achievement of working class people. Many work part or full time in record stores, recording studios, restaurants and bars. When we go out to lunch most of the time it's at a place that a burrito and a coke will cost you less than $5.
These are the upper class elite you're talking about?
When i go out to see music, it's almost always at smaller clubs like the bottom of the hill, or slim's, or bimbos. These places hold 300-700 people, sometimes up to 1000. The door is often $5 or $10. They sell CD's for $10 that often dont even have barcodes on them, or are made on cdr's. When they go to the next town they all cram into a van, drive a uhual, or get on a bus and go. They pay their gas money with cash they made the night before off of their records.
Are these the greedy people bilking you out of your hard earned money to scam you with music? No, they are working class americans. Based on your arguments about the evils of capitalism and copyright one would assume that file swappers would not be sharing music by these people, right? Well, of course they are though. Search for any number of these bands on p2p apps and you'll find their whole albums ready to download.
An interesting anecdote to this is a band that a friend of mine works for as a recording engineer and sound tech while they are on the road. Though they have had a following for years in a small circle, they have all had straight jobs to pay the bills. A few years ago, an old friend joined their band... Now this guy was a bit different, he had been in a popular san francisco band that had toured internationally and consequently had made somewhat of a name for himself. Him joining was probably going to help them all make more of a living out of making their music. They made a new album and played a few shows locally to introduce the new guy. The album was available for sale on their website. About a month after their cd release I was told a sobering tale from my friend the sound engineer. The band had recieved a large amount of positive feedback on the new album... over a hundred and fifty people had written to tell them that the new album was great, that they loved it. The problem? Between the CD sales at the concerts and online, they had sold less than 100 copies. More people had loved the album enough to write in an congratulate them on it than had bought the album in the first place. And we know most people who get an album (either bought or copied) aren't going to write the band. So here were working class guys with a shot at getting a bit more for their labor essentially shot down by music piracy. Nobody involved in their process was ever near getting rich, but money from the album sales could and did help people buy clothes for their kids or gas or pay their rent.
"[...] stupid people like you want to take that freedom away from 60 million people, just so a few hundred thousand greedy rich CEOs such as yourself can profit off other peoples ideas."
Well, I'm sure you knew this before you wrote it, but I'm neither rich nor a CEO. Attacking me like this it's easy for everyone to see that you're just trying to justify something that you like to do so that you don't feel bad.. which you would if you faced the reality of much of the music business.
In reality, you're the greedy, gluttenous one. Copying music that you can afford while the artists that make it often stuggle to pay their own bills.
Who is running the EFF now? There has obviously been a number of changes of power over the last decade, but this latest incarnation of the EFF seems to have nearly nothing in common with the principles with which the organization was formed.
.com era knows how meager ad revenue can be, especially for someone who is creating their own content and not simply presenting millions of page views of other people's work. Digital patronage, another answer presented is akin to saying "We don't want to pay you to do your work, find someone else to pay you. We still want the product, though!"
As a former supporter of and contributor to the EFF I am appalled at this latest campaign. After reading the information available about their latest campaign on their website, it is clear that the EFF now is promoting mass violation of legally held copyrights of music and other works. Obviously stepping far beyond fair use doctrine, the EFF appears to be supporting mass distribution of copyrighted works to thousands of people the user has never met.
Some of the alternatives to paid copyright use the EFF suggests are simply laughable. Tip jars are one of the suggestions, something that nearly every investigation into that i have read has discounted as ineffective. Ad revenue sharing is another suggestion they make, and anyone who has survived the
Cases such as Steve Jackson Games and others that the EFF cut their teeth on and grew influential were all examples of protecting individual's rights online and in a digital age. Indeed there was a need for this kind of protection and there still is, physical rights that citizens had been granted were being ignored either intentionally or unintentionally in a digital venue.
Now it seems that the EFF has done a complete 180 degree turn in their approach. They are now attacking copyright holders, saying that they shouldn't have the same protections online as they have in the physical world. Meanwhile, while these rights still do apply to the digital world the EFF is trying to make sure that anyone who choses to violate them is guaranteed anonymity.
Wouldn't the old EFF have stood up for these people who were having their rights violated - the vast majority of whom are regular folks, paying their rent, or small businesses (bands) making only a mediocre income on their work?
Agreed, i think this is the real point. Piracy of current release feature films has skyrocketed, thanks in most part to much higher quality being available. If you could read harry potter in a pleasing book form without much effort, there would be a ton more piracy no matter what the price of the book was. In a way, perhaps its very smart to keep publishing books as is and not getting consumers used to ebook format... if they really got used to it then they'd be in the same position films & music are now.
Said another way, is it really the high cost of products driving piracy, or is it the quality of pirated goods and the ease of attaining them that causes us to believe they are worth less?
i get the fact that you need a good punch in the mouth
Since no one came up with any better research i thought i would share this, which was the only substantial discussion i was able to find of RCU patent & copyright history:
http://lwn.net/Articles/36164/
did anyone read the linux interview? I haven't read every SCO article that has come out but i found it surprising to read that linus was saying that RCU patents and copyrights are held by IBM (formerly sequent) considering it is the RCU code that they have been showing.
Does anyone have a link to analysis of the RCU patents and copyrights? Up to this point everything i have seen has been very broad discussion about why people doubted SCO's claim was correct, but this seems like a smoking gun... SCO shows rcu code and rcu ip is shown to belong to sequent and bought by ibm? Would push me into placing a short position.
Yeah, I totally agree with you. I love linux too and for servers it's by far my first choice.
I think you hit the nail on the head about linux with a truly exceptional GUI. The free development process simply doesn't encourage an environment that can build a world class user interface.
I am using kde3.1 exclusively on my laptop now, and I admit linux as a desktop os has come a very very long way, I am impressed. But I would trade my thinkpad for a an apple laptop in a heartbeat, OS/X is by far a nicer environment to me. I plan on buying a tiBook as soon as i can justify an upgrade.
Google Zeitgeist is a great way to take a look at those figures over time at a pretty universal location.
For may '03 google lists linux at 1% and mac at 3%. Linux zealots may look at that and say well 2% is miniscule with the rate of growth that won't take long, etc. But go back and look at june 2001 zeitgeist and you'll see similar numbers. Linux with 1% and Mac with 4%
The conclusion i draw from those numbers is that linux desktop use isnt growing at any significant rate at all, and the only danger Apple has in getting passed on the desktop is if they lose a dramatic amount of market share to windows.
I agree with the above poster.
In the early 90's I worked on a project sponsored by AT&T to install classrooms of the future in a few universities. While there are undoubtedly things we did poorly and have been improved upon, one of the most striking findings of the project was that some classes did very poorly in the room. They had booked a variety in the theater the first year and found while some technology & science classes obviously benfitted a lot, other classes such a arts & history had a harder time in the room than in a normal classroom.
A few of the findings:
* students often appeared more distracted
* time spent learning software was not made up in efficiency
* less personal contact with the professor & with the material
* transient failures would disrupt the class
If you are searching for ways to use the classroom i would wager that at least to a degree you will be changing your course from english to one that also involves learning about computers or techniques such as blogs. Is that really what you want to teach? If it was me i would seriously consider asking for a room change or for students to turn off the computers during the class but i'm no professor.
Don't get me wrong they had great uses but i think the biggest thing we learned (somewhat as suspected) was that they are not for everything.
am i the only one reading between the lines here?
"To keep the service running, SCIS engineers fended off denial-of-service attacks, domain hijackings and other foreign hacker intrusions, not to mention regular investigations from suspicious Iraqi government officials. "
then later
"According to Harif, the delay in bringing the Uruklink website back online is due to security concerns. While the site's content has been ready for weeks, he said technicians needed extra time to harden the underlying server software against electronic attacks."
Didn't they probably have more trouble due to internet attacks before the fall rather than after? Also doesnt this quote seem odd, if you were explaining launching internet service you wouldnt say everything was ready to go to be turned on, except that you are still working on a big part of it.
It seems to me the article is saying that someone else like the US government is delaying the return to service based on their monitoring equipment being installed. Or am i just being paranoid? Oh well, i supose thats what they call victor's rights.
I am trying to figure out how a player with 32MB of memory and no hard drive or cd drive or dvd drive is any kind of "personal video player" and yes i read the articles none of the journalists appear to have done anything but reformatted the press releases