All I want is on demand television. I want to sit down when I want, and watch what ever I want on my TV without restrictions. I want to pay a small fee per show,
You could probably have it without any fee. Since any system which can handle VOD can insert advertisments into the video stream. A fee would be to get programme 100% of the time. As opposed to 80 odd percent of the time.
That's a pretty weak counterargument. You're saying that if you want to get a copy of something from the library, you will have to wait for it and you're more likely to just go and buy it? In the vast majority of cases, the library has 1 copy of the book, and you're the only one interested in it (at least that month).
If a library could have things work such that instead of someone borrowing a book they simply made a copy of it they would do exactly that. Since that frees the library from having to handle issues and returns.
The honest truth is that it is hard to reconcile our modern interpretation of IP with the concept of a Library.
Even though we now have the technology to make very good libraries, which don't have some of the shortcommings of traditional libraries.
In fact, if we didn't have libraries and someone tried to start one today, they'd be sued in a heartbeat by the publishing industry, especially since early libraries were frequently for-pay.
When it comes to items other than books paying per borrow is quite common. Another type of library which is threatened is the "copyright library", originally intended to hold every book published, at least until the copyright expired. With a greater rate of publishing and massivly extended copyright terms such libraries have a big storage problem. For the likes of films, TV, computer programs, etc no similar entities even exist. There are a growing number of works which are copyright, but do not actually exist any longer.
Count on both the MPAA and the RIAA to milk this term as long as it remains effective, even though it is really nonsense. Basically, they are both going to continue demanding government hand-outs as long as they can.
When individuals demand government handouts the state tends to be unimpressed if they already have a decent income. Guess that concept dosn't apply to "corporate welfare". AFAIK the MPAA & RIAA are still making money perfectly well.
I had the same experience trying to locate 3 episodes of last season's Buffy that I missed. It was a PITA to find a server, download the episodes in 10 meg pieces (with several retries), and assemble and convert them into something vlc could handle. I would have gladly paid $5 per episode to avoid that hassle, but I didn't have that option.
From the industry's point of view it would be an issue if you paid your $5 to your "local station", UPN, Fox or Mutant Enemy. All except the latter are really overblown "middlemen". You'd pay $5 an episode, maybe something like $125-150 for 22 DVDs delivered directly to you in nice packaging. Also including outtakes and the kind of "behind the scenes" type material broadcasters use as cheap filler. If it was something like 1 million plus people, do you think Joss would even bother to acknowlage the existance of TV broadcasters?
It appears that the entertainment industry will once again have to be dragged kicking and screaming to a market where they can make billions
Whilst there might be billions to be made the new technologies do not require the current distributors. Be it making a file available for download from a secure site (which could include "watermarking" the download) to posting a DVD on a regular basis.
Starting next week I will be looking for "Napsterized" copies of Enterprise because we lost UPN in our area. Now if the networks offered programming on demand through cable and satellite where I could just go to UPN, CBS, FOX, etc and select the show I want to watch when I want to watch it I would pay for that service.
AFAIK the "networks" in the US don't actually provide television to viewers. Instead they work through intermediate local stations, who operate a single transmitter.
The "perfect copy" argument is only a way of trying to win the same battle that they *already lost* in the 80's in the Betamax case.
Often captures of TV and film are not "prefect copies" they have actually been fed through codecs and compressors.
They never mention that most illegal MP3s probably sound about the same whether ripped from CD or input from cassette, because that would lessen their case for a need for new laws.
It would completly destroy the fiction they have created about "digital" being somehow spacial.
Wow, can you imaging the space required for a "perfect copy" of a digitally-broadcast movie?
Which is a lot less than you'd need to make a "perfect copy" of the original film print.
Here's the thing. Trademark requires that the holder of the trademark actively defend their mark. If they do not do so and it falls into common usage, it's too bad so sad for the trademark holder. So, even if you successfully argue that Mozilla infringed on Godzilla (are these really confusingly similar?),
Also trademarks, at least originally, were tied to both product area (hence you have both Apple Computers and Apple Records) and geography. AFAIK the browser people arn't making monster movies, set in Tokyo or anywhere else.
"Mothra" describes that the chracter is based on a moth. Is the name "Godzilla" entirely made up or does it actually mean something. Anyway isn't there a time limit of claiming trademark infringment?
Signed certificates simply state that Verisign trusts the company is who it says it is.
Other than take money do they do that much to establish that the company is who they say they are. Anyway the certificate can say that the company is A and the webpage can say it's company B. If the certificate is okeyed by Verisign the user won't even see the certificate by default.
For websites you can usually turn it off permanently (if you use IE) but Outlook won't let you do the same for email.
Other software which understands IMAP over SSL can handle storing the certificate. Maybe it's deliberate to dissuade people from using non Microsoft server software.
Unfortunately most clients/browsers seem to go out of their way to discourage self-signed certificates with error messages that sound like "This certificate was self-signed. We don't know who the hell this person is.
Thing is that having an "official" certificate dosn't prove much anyway. Other than that someone had given money to Verisign. I'm sure people here can say exactly what checks Verisign carries out. In strict terms this probably isn't even a bug, since it's just following a "web of trust" approach.
Internet surveillance, using carnivore or back doors in encryption, will not stop terrorists communicating by other means e.g. face to face, personal courier or steganography.
Face to face meetings were probably their prefered method of communicating in the first place. Anyway don't expect the steganography techniques terrorists might consider to be just about hiding encrypted messages in jpegs.
Perhaps using mobile when absolutely essential, saying - "Meet you in the pub Monday" (human bomb to target A), or Tuesday (target B) or Sunday (abort).
If a terrorist intends blowing up a tourist attraction then then can probably safely name their target:)
I've seen it in the 70's with the notion of a Corporate Data Base, in the 80's with Enterprise Resource Management (ERP) systems, and in the 90's with Data Warehouses. It's nice to think of a single source of information providing all the answers, but it inevitably turns out too expensive to build and impossible to keep current. I see no evidence that such a system would have prevented the attacks on 9/11.
Indeed such a system could have made the attacks easier to carry out. The problem was not having too little information. It was having two few people to interpret the information. Combined with some combination of the FAA, NORAD and the USAF failing to follow their procedures. Can't see how this kind of system would have stopped whatever idiot it was in WTC 2 telling people everything was ok and they could return to their desks whilst WTC 1 burned.
Remember folks, the only reason we don't live in an Orwellian nightmare world is actually because it isn't technologically feasible.
There is also the problem of being able to interpret the information gathered. What makes the US government think they can manage any better than the German Democratic Republic?
That would be nice, but it is rather hard to diagnose the hardware without getting involved with the software, unless the bug is really simple.
If the machine is sold to a corporate customer it probably never ran with its OEM preinstall in the first place. Even if it was sold to an individual it's probably had applications added/removed and similar.
Furthermore, software bugs can result in tech calls that the technicians will be expected to solve but cannot. At least with Windows, they have experience.
Assuming they get someone knowlagable about Windows, as opposed to someone who simply follows a script.
Given the tiny penetration of Linux on desktops, it would seem reasonable for Dell to not offer Linux on those systems for simple economic reasons: technical support (for which Dell is known) is less expensive if your staff doesn't have to deal with disparate OS's.
Maybe then they should support the hardware they sell. With software support either not being an option or costing extra.
Why not offer systems with a Linux distro instead, with directions on how to remove it if they don't want it.
To your average corporate customer, even if they want a Linux machine, the media and instruction sheet is simply something to add to the trash. The first thing a a corporate IT department is likely to do with a new machine is to put their standard setup on it. With an OEM preinstall, even if it's the same version of the same operating system simply being ignored. Whilst a home user might mess around making do with an OEM preinstall no one else is likely to have the time to waste.
Judge: Mr. Ballmer, you're in contempt of court! I sentence you to...
[Ballmer pulls out huge wad of cash and waves it in front of the judge.]
Judge [mesmerized]:... sentence you to... er... a vacation in Hawaii! Yes, that should do quite nicely...
If the judge is smart they take the cash and have Ballmer dropped in a volcano.
Because almost all PC's with Windows preinstalled (whether from Dell or from white box manufacturers) ship with OEM licences. These licence you to run the software on the hardware it was sold on, and no other. They cost about half the price of a full retail licence, but when you replace the machine you have to buy a new license.
Though if you use the "grandad's axe" method of upgrading the licence is still probably OK.
Seriously, before we go off on a big spree about how Microsoft is bad and all that, let's keep in mind that Dell could have fought the licensing in court if they really wanted to. They could have used the precedent of Microsoft as a monopoly to tell them to fsck off. Microsoft could have tried to "punish" them, and Dell could have beat them down even further.
You mean have Microsoft drag out the case for so long that it would have ended up costing Dell even more than the loss of their exclusive supply deal. Assuming Microsoft didn't simply cut off any supply of Windows whilst the case was pending.
It *is*, today, and I'm completely convinced of that! It just needs to be pre-installed with a nice friendly distro and lots of good free software.
For one part of the market, direct sales to home users, an OEM preinstall could be a good idea. For just about anything else it can be an utter waste of time. Corporate IT departments would typically image over an OEM install, since they want something with the right applications and settings.
Slashdot Mirror
All I want is on demand television. I want to sit down when I want, and watch what ever I want on my TV without restrictions. I want to pay a small fee per show,
You could probably have it without any fee. Since any system which can handle VOD can insert advertisments into the video stream. A fee would be to get programme 100% of the time. As opposed to 80 odd percent of the time.
That's a pretty weak counterargument. You're saying that if you want to get a copy of something from the library, you will have to wait for it and you're more likely to just go and buy it? In the vast majority of cases, the library has 1 copy of the book, and you're the only one interested in it (at least that month).
If a library could have things work such that instead of someone borrowing a book they simply made a copy of it they would do exactly that. Since that frees the library from having to handle issues and returns.
The honest truth is that it is hard to reconcile our modern interpretation of IP with the concept of a Library.
Even though we now have the technology to make very good libraries, which don't have some of the shortcommings of traditional libraries.
In fact, if we didn't have libraries and someone tried to start one today, they'd be sued in a heartbeat by the publishing industry, especially since early libraries were frequently for-pay.
When it comes to items other than books paying per borrow is quite common.
Another type of library which is threatened is the "copyright library", originally intended to hold every book published, at least until the copyright expired. With a greater rate of publishing and massivly extended copyright terms such libraries have a big storage problem. For the likes of films, TV, computer programs, etc no similar entities even exist. There are a growing number of works which are copyright, but do not actually exist any longer.
Count on both the MPAA and the RIAA to milk this term as long as it remains effective, even though it is really nonsense. Basically, they are both going to continue demanding government hand-outs as long as they can.
When individuals demand government handouts the state tends to be unimpressed if they already have a decent income. Guess that concept dosn't apply to "corporate welfare". AFAIK the MPAA & RIAA are still making money perfectly well.
I had the same experience trying to locate 3 episodes of last season's Buffy that I missed. It was a PITA to find a server, download the episodes in 10 meg pieces (with several retries), and assemble and convert them into something vlc could handle. I would have gladly paid $5 per episode to avoid that hassle, but I didn't have that option.
From the industry's point of view it would be an issue if you paid your $5 to your "local station", UPN, Fox or Mutant Enemy. All except the latter are really overblown "middlemen".
You'd pay $5 an episode, maybe something like $125-150 for 22 DVDs delivered directly to you in nice packaging. Also including outtakes and the kind of "behind the scenes" type material broadcasters use as cheap filler. If it was something like 1 million plus people, do you think Joss would even bother to acknowlage the existance of TV broadcasters?
It appears that the entertainment industry will once again have to be dragged kicking and screaming to a market where they can make billions
Whilst there might be billions to be made the new technologies do not require the current distributors. Be it making a file available for download from a secure site (which could include "watermarking" the download) to posting a DVD on a regular basis.
Starting next week I will be looking for "Napsterized" copies of Enterprise because we lost UPN in our area. Now if the networks offered programming on demand through cable and satellite where I could just go to UPN, CBS, FOX, etc and select the show I want to watch when I want to watch it I would pay for that service.
AFAIK the "networks" in the US don't actually provide television to viewers. Instead they work through intermediate local stations, who operate a single transmitter.
The "perfect copy" argument is only a way of trying to win the same battle that they *already lost* in the 80's in the Betamax case.
Often captures of TV and film are not "prefect copies" they have actually been fed through codecs and compressors.
They never mention that most illegal MP3s probably sound about the same whether ripped from CD or input from cassette, because that would lessen their case for a need for new laws.
It would completly destroy the fiction they have created about "digital" being somehow spacial.
Wow, can you imaging the space required for a "perfect copy" of a digitally-broadcast movie?
Which is a lot less than you'd need to make a "perfect copy" of the original film print.
Rockets to take a MAN to the moon, note they're talking unmanned here, are much more complex.
A crew and their provisions are a much bigger payload than a robot. Also a crew needs to get home too.
Pakistan doesn't have a space program worth mentioning.
Nor did the US when Sputnik was launched.
According to Merriam-Webster, the string "zilla" doesn't exist in any English words.
Looking in one American dictionary is hardly an exhaustive search to see if it is in any English words.
Here's the thing. Trademark requires that the holder of the trademark actively defend their mark. If they do not do so and it falls into common usage, it's too bad so sad for the trademark holder. So, even if you successfully argue that Mozilla infringed on Godzilla (are these really confusingly similar?),
Also trademarks, at least originally, were tied to both product area (hence you have both Apple Computers and Apple Records) and geography. AFAIK the browser people arn't making monster movies, set in Tokyo or anywhere else.
mothra will protect us.
"Mothra" describes that the chracter is based on a moth. Is the name "Godzilla" entirely made up or does it actually mean something.
Anyway isn't there a time limit of claiming trademark infringment?
Signed certificates simply state that Verisign trusts the company is who it says it is.
Other than take money do they do that much to establish that the company is who they say they are.
Anyway the certificate can say that the company is A and the webpage can say it's company B. If the certificate is okeyed by Verisign the user won't even see the certificate by default.
For websites you can usually turn it off permanently (if you use IE) but Outlook won't let you do the same for email.
Other software which understands IMAP over SSL can handle storing the certificate. Maybe it's deliberate to dissuade people from using non Microsoft server software.
Unfortunately most clients/browsers seem to go out of their way to discourage self-signed certificates with error messages that sound like "This certificate was self-signed. We don't know who the hell this person is.
Thing is that having an "official" certificate dosn't prove much anyway. Other than that someone had given money to Verisign. I'm sure people here can say exactly what checks Verisign carries out.
In strict terms this probably isn't even a bug, since it's just following a "web of trust" approach.
Internet surveillance, using carnivore or back doors in encryption, will not stop terrorists communicating by other means e.g. face to face, personal courier or steganography.
:)
Face to face meetings were probably their prefered method of communicating in the first place. Anyway don't expect the steganography techniques terrorists might consider to be just about hiding encrypted messages in jpegs.
Perhaps using mobile when absolutely essential, saying - "Meet you in the pub Monday" (human bomb to target A), or Tuesday (target B) or Sunday (abort).
If a terrorist intends blowing up a tourist attraction then then can probably safely name their target
I've seen it in the 70's with the notion of a Corporate Data Base, in the 80's with Enterprise Resource Management (ERP) systems, and in the 90's with Data Warehouses. It's nice to think of a single source of information providing all the answers, but it inevitably turns out too expensive to build and impossible to keep current. I see no evidence that such a system would have prevented the attacks on 9/11.
Indeed such a system could have made the attacks easier to carry out. The problem was not having too little information. It was having two few people to interpret the information. Combined with some combination of the FAA, NORAD and the USAF failing to follow their procedures.
Can't see how this kind of system would have stopped whatever idiot it was in WTC 2 telling people everything was ok and they could return to their desks whilst WTC 1 burned.
Remember folks, the only reason we don't live in an Orwellian nightmare world is actually because it isn't technologically feasible.
There is also the problem of being able to interpret the information gathered. What makes the US government think they can manage any better than the German Democratic Republic?
That would be nice, but it is rather hard to diagnose the hardware without getting involved with the software, unless the bug is really simple.
If the machine is sold to a corporate customer it probably never ran with its OEM preinstall in the first place. Even if it was sold to an individual it's probably had applications added/removed and similar.
Furthermore, software bugs can result in tech calls that the technicians will be expected to solve but cannot. At least with Windows, they have experience.
Assuming they get someone knowlagable about Windows, as opposed to someone who simply follows a script.
Given the tiny penetration of Linux on desktops, it would seem reasonable for Dell to not offer Linux on those systems for simple economic reasons: technical support (for which Dell is known) is less expensive if your staff doesn't have to deal with disparate OS's.
Maybe then they should support the hardware they sell. With software support either not being an option or costing extra.
Why not offer systems with a Linux distro instead, with directions on how to remove it if they don't want it.
To your average corporate customer, even if they want a Linux machine, the media and instruction sheet is simply something to add to the trash. The first thing a a corporate IT department is likely to do with a new machine is to put their standard setup on it. With an OEM preinstall, even if it's the same version of the same operating system simply being ignored. Whilst a home user might mess around making do with an OEM preinstall no one else is likely to have the time to waste.
Judge: Mr. Ballmer, you're in contempt of court! I sentence you to ...
... sentence you to ... er ... a vacation in Hawaii! Yes, that should do quite nicely ...
[Ballmer pulls out huge wad of cash and waves it in front of the judge.]
Judge [mesmerized]:
If the judge is smart they take the cash and have Ballmer dropped in a volcano.
Because almost all PC's with Windows preinstalled (whether from Dell or from white box manufacturers) ship with OEM licences. These licence you to run the software on the hardware it was sold on, and no other. They cost about half the price of a full retail licence, but when you replace the machine you have to buy a new license.
Though if you use the "grandad's axe" method of upgrading the licence is still probably OK.
Seriously, before we go off on a big spree about how Microsoft is bad and all that, let's keep in mind that Dell could have fought the licensing in court if they really wanted to. They could have used the precedent of Microsoft as a monopoly to tell them to fsck off. Microsoft could have tried to "punish" them, and Dell could have beat them down even further.
You mean have Microsoft drag out the case for so long that it would have ended up costing Dell even more than the loss of their exclusive supply deal.
Assuming Microsoft didn't simply cut off any supply of Windows whilst the case was pending.
If you're a big corporate behemouth, your soul probably already belongs to Microsoft, so what the hell, buy Dell.
Quite possibly paying for Windows twice. Because you have some sort of deal directly with Microsoft to cover Windows (and Office, etc) licencing.
It *is*, today, and I'm completely convinced of that! It just needs to be pre-installed with a nice friendly distro and lots of good free software.
For one part of the market, direct sales to home users, an OEM preinstall could be a good idea. For just about anything else it can be an utter waste of time. Corporate IT departments would typically image over an OEM install, since they want something with the right applications and settings.