It's time for a revolution. Seriously, the RIAA is a cold, heartless institution that embodies all that is sleazy in the corporate world.
If you truly believe this, then put your money where your mouth is (not you specifically, AC -- all the readers). Also, don't give your children money to buy from the RIAA-associated labels. Instead, sit down with your teen to figure out what music they like, and help them find an independent (and legal) source that satisfies their tastes. Help them understand that if they don't act now, they'll be spending a huge amount of their future income dealing with the entrenched RIAA. Also, turn it around on the RIAA. Start referring to the RIAA as the pirates, trying to steal from their own customers to add to their booty. Help your teen get their friends interested in independent music. At least give it a try. Make 2007 the worst year EVER for the recording industry.
And don't vote for a Democrat or a Republican. Those were the people that overwhelmingly approved this crap.
Agreed, but first we need independent (or small-party) candidates that aren't complete wack-jobs. Yes, a few exist. Not nearly enough to make one bit of difference. I'd say rather than just voting, we need some people to get involved in the politics. I'd recommend in advance deciding what you want to "fix" about our government and then giving up on all of the other stuff that's important to you. If your primary purpose is to stop evil corporate-sponsored legislature, I'd say focus on that, and be determined to leave issues like evolution vs creationism, abortion and embryonic stem cell research "as are" -- in other words, convince your potential voters that you're neither a threat nor an asset. That'll be a difficult trick.
What a load of crap. If you lose your luggage, and it's a Sunday, and you can't find any shops open, and you have a meeting on Monday first thing in the morning, if, if, if... I guess wearing the same clothes for 72 hours is not that bad!
If you think this is a load of crap, you don't frequently travel out of the country on business... If you have to be in the office in Germany for a meeting first thing on Monday morning (happens four or five times a year for me), you need to arrive on a Sunday. Until recently, BY LAW, no shops would be open on a Sunday. This isn't the United States or the UK. I'm not exactly sure what the law says today, but I know that last year it was forbidden for any shops to be open on a Sunday. This means that you CANNOT buy any clothing on Sunday. Furthermore, the shops generally do not open until or after 9:00. If you have a 9:00 meeting, you're outta luck. Now, try and keep up. In order to fly from the US to Germany, even on a direct flight, you have to start the afternoon or the evening before. This means, in general, that you'll be wearing your clothes all of (or most of Saturday), all of Sunday, and until quitting time on Monday afternoon. First off, this isn't healthy. However, it's something one can live with...unless you are meeting with high-level executives on Monday. The executives don't care about your plight, but they'll certainly take note of your disheveled appearance. Believe me, you'll hear about it from your boss that same week.
Now, here's a little story for you. A colleague and I were once bumped from a flight going to Germany. We were rerouted through Paris (on Air France) to arrive later on the same day (Sunday). Even though there was only one plane change, they still managed to lose my friend's luggage. Air france gave him a "toiletry kit", which contained a toothbrush, toothpaste, comb, a T-shirt, socks, and... a condom. No deoderant. My friend asked how he was supposed to get an opportunity to use the condom if he didn't have deoderant. Anyway, he ended up wearing the same clothing until Monday afternoon, and because the meeting he was in ended late he ALMOST didn't make it to the shop in time to buy something to wear for the next day (they roll up the sidewalks in Germany at 19:00). It took three days for his luggage to arrive. The only thing he was thankful of was that he didn't have a meeting with the CIO that day. Still think this is all a load of crap?
On a Trip from Hell(tm) to the HQ of a company I was working for for in order to give a presentation, I ended up making 7 layovers over the course of 3 f*cking days[1].
Can you please provide the name of the company so that all of us know where NOT to apply? Unless this was a trip to some extremely remote location in Asia, I don't think any company has an excuse for putting its employee through such nonsense. Let me guess: it was all in the name of cost savings, right?
Do you people travel with no money or just go to places that don't have stores where you can buy clothes and toiletry items? If you are traveling on business and it happens put it on your expense report.
Did you ever try buying anything in Germany on a Sunday (other than food in a restaurant)? Did you notice that the store was empty and the doors were locked? Maybe you thought you could get up early on Monday morning, buy some new clothing, and still make it to that critical meeting with the board of directors by 9:00. I guess you were utterly disappointed when you found out the stores wouldn't be open before 9:00. I don't know about you, but I don't find the thought of wearing the same clothes for nearly 72 hours straight to be very appealing.
Personally, if we are going to have to check pretty much all baggage we take with us on a trip into the cargo hold, I want different handling for personal items. I want higher insurance coverage and a promise of more careful handling (with severe penalties should that promise not be honored). I also want some sort of confirmation that my would-be-carry-on luggage has been safely loaded onto the plane before I board it. And if the airline somehow manages to "lose" my would-be-carry-on luggage, I sure as heck don't want to float the cost of emergency replacement out of my own pocket.
It's funny though, that no sex and no violence ALSO SELLS MOVIES. There is more than one type of customer, and this editing business fills the market of those people who don't want excessive nudity, vulgarity or violence.
Oh, I agree, but judging by the low number of rated G and younger-child-approved PG movies that come out in the theaters each year, I would say Hollywood doesn't realize this. If they did, they would start putting out many more family movies. After all, when someone goes to see the sex and violence movies, it's just one (or maybe two) tickets purchased. But with a family movie, it's on average four tickets.
Anyway, while I feel that Hollywood has the law on their side (these are, after all, copyrighted works that are being modified and distributed without permission), they are absolute IDIOTS for taking it to court. What they SHOULD have done is talk with the companies doing this, let them know that it is illegal, and then grant them licensing to continue doing it with the stipulation that they clearly label the product so that consumers know it has been edited. Then they would be selling to the people who want to see the uncut version, and the people who want the cleaned up version.
Basically if the moviemakers didn't think a nude scene or excessive violence was necessary to conveying the essential story, they wouldn't have included it.
Score: -1, must... have... coffee
You don't really believe that, do you? I mean, the fact that sex and violence SELLS MOVIES wouldn't have anything to do with it, now would it?
Only americans can think nobody else can make a GPS so they don't even bother to give theirs a name.
I really hope you didn't intend this as an insult to Americans. As stated elsewhere, the American GPS is named NAVSTAR. Almost nobody uses the full name because for years and years the NAVSTAR GPS was the only one in existence. It isn't arrogance on the part of Americans as your statement seems imply; it's simply because for a long time the shorter term GPS was not ambiguous.
This was kind of the point of my question. Obviously competition is the right answer, but it's not clear where from where the competition will come. If it took taxpayer money to build the current infrastructure, how are the startup competitors going to get their funding? Personally, I'm hoping wireless will do the trick, but I'm not holding my breath.
Those were cops and most likely they would have had a warrent. If not, they should have and all information obtained is null and void.
Good point. Here's my question. Can a school search a student's backpack without involving police and a warrant? (I really don't know the answer to this) If so, how is the cell phone different?
Here's an idea: recind those monopolies. Let the market be really free.
And how, exactly, do you see that happening? Let's say that the government tomorrow morning declares that the telcos and the cablecos can no longer have a monopoly on the last mile connection to their cusomers. What happens next?
So... do you think Microsoft has gathered all it's employees and instructed them to collectively deceive the public ?
No, it's more like Microsoft HASN'T gathered its employees to clearly document interfaces in compliance with the EU ruling.
You can find info on Microsoft's Communication Protocols here
I believe the EU (and Microsoft competitors) already responded to that. The documentation isn't clear enough, and conveniently leaves out many hidden details that continue to provide Microsoft with a competitive advantage.
There's also a program which gives access to source code specifically trying to appease the EU here
And if you read the pages behind the link you provided, you'll see very clearly that the program has ROYALTIES attached to it. It would be acceptable to charge a reasonable one-time fee for technical documentation, but ROYALTIES??
I mean it's pretty hard for Microsoft to defend themselves in this circumstance, where the group they are in dispute with is also the judge and jury.
Not really true. The "judge and jury" has only become part of the dispute because Microsoft has failed to comply with their previous judgement.
Have you thought perhaps maybe just maybe the EU has decided it'd like a slice of Microsoft war chest and has just decided it'll make up whatever excuse and take some.
Have you considered that Microsoft is, as usual, trying to get away with the appearance of compliance while at the same time continuing to milk their own cash cow?
Are you implying that wardriving [wikipedia.org] from the driver's seat is unsafe?
No, I think the implication is that using a BlackBerry is hazardous to your health. Although, if it helps kill control-freak management, I'm all for it. Too bad about the collateral damage, though....
Most people on the road cant not avoid rearending the car in front of them if they were wide awake and paying attention perfectly simply because of poor driving skills.
But that doesn't make it OK to impair the bad drivers and make them even MORE likely to rear-end the car in front of them. The study showed that the same sample group fared significantly better when not distracted.
For some reason race car drivers can talk to their pit crew often and not get into crashes and they are doing it at much higher speeds and the same 3 inch spacing from the car in front of them.
The difference here being that race car drivers talk only in short phrases necessary to get and relay information, and the topic is always on their driving and the situation around them. They aren't having a conversation.
I'm sorry if you felt it was a personal attack. It was not intended as one. You just kept bringing up the double-standard issue, but because of the monopoly situation, this argument becomes irrelevant. Based on what you wrote, my interpretation was that you weren't fully aware of what can happen when a market loses its competition -- a misinterpretation on my part.
They go on about how IE is "part of the OS", when it's really not all that different from KHTML et al - it's just a GUI component that's used by a variety of apps that are bundled with the distribution.
I think the problem here is that during the antitrust trial, Microsoft claimed that IE was an integral part of the OS that could not be removed. In reality, the DLLs that make up the components of IE are not much different from KHTML and other similar components, but it is made very clear, at least within Linux, that none of these components are part of the OS. Certainly, any KDE application will use KHTML if it needs to deliver rich content, but even the choice of KDE as a desktop environment does not prevent the user from running GNOME apps using the GNOME HTML controls. But the difference here is that Microsoft claimed that IE could not be (or only with extreme difficulty) separated from the OS -- an outright lie during the trial.
Another thing that rabid MS-bashers tend to conveniently ignore is that MS are not the only ones to include such a component - in fact I can't think of a single GUI desktop environment today that doesn't include one.
Actually, not all the people you are hearing from are MS-bashers or Linux zealots. The problem is that the double-standard argument has already been thrown around several times on Slashdot. Most people (at least those who know what they are talking about) are perfectly aware that each of the desktop environments for Linux and Unix include their own versions of the controls that Microsoft has taken so much heat for. But they are also fully aware of the path that Microsoft was trying to follow. It's very clear that the intent during the nineties was to extend their monopoly into the content arena. And it doesn't yet appear that they have abandoned that effort. From a business standpoint, this makes perfect sense -- good for them. But they will have to work under the burden of suspicious eyes as a result of their past decisions. You can fully expect people to be wary of Microsoft's strategies involving the web until IE marketshare drops below eighty percent, and I'm not sure this will happen in what's left of my lifetime.
Where MS went wrong (and fell afoul of the law) was in refusing to allow OEMs to replace the default HTML widget. That was a policy decision that had nothing at all to do with the technical implementation.
Agreed. But even this wouldn't have been such a bad decision if Microsoft had controlled a less significant portion of the market.
There's a double-standard here regarding IE's bundled components and anyone else's.
I think maybe you need to improve your understanding of exactly what a monopoly is, and what anti-trust legislation is intended to do. There isn't a double-standard going on for two reasons:
Almost _all_ *nix distributions provide a choice in both the desktop and the web browser. The only possible exception is Apple, but the second reason applies to them.
None of the *nix distributors have a monopoly share of the market, and none of them are using a monopoly in one area to extend their control to another. Microsoft was charged with and convicted of exactly that. As a direct result, they are forced to, for a period of time, play by different rules.
Maybe you don't like anti-trust legislation, but bear in mind that the United States is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the only country that has monopoly-busting laws on the books.
Can I assume you're equally adamant about the browser components included with KDE (KHTML), GNOME (I forget the name, but it's there), and Mac OS X (WebKit/KHTML)?
Dude, get over it already. Most Linux distributions come with a choice of desktop environments and web browsers at install-time. The distros go out of their way to give the user as many choices as possible. If you want to complain about something, it should be the fact that too many choices can be bad too.
Similarly, anything bigger than a cell phone should probably have been designed and marketed as a non-portable device, since if most people can't fit in in their pocket or a small clip on their belt, it just can't be called "portable".
Maybe it's just my age showing, but to me the word "portable" means any device that can more or less be moved easily from one building to another. All this means is that the unit must be self-contained and include some feature that makes it easier to carry (like a handle). What comes immediately to mind are the original Compaq computers that came in a case about three times the size of a lunch box. Because of this, anytime I see the word "portable" used in the description for a computing device, I immediately assume that it would require strength-training for several months just be be able to lug the thing around. It's a warning sign to me.
On the other hand, I believe the word "mobile" has the same meaning to me as your interpretation of "portable". I would expect mobile devices to either fit in my pocket, or clip to my belt in some way to make it easy to carry them without using my hands. I realize this all comes down to semantics, though.... Does anybody else feel the same?
Are there any real experts out there who can explain how they know this creature was amphibious? I looked at the image, and I see no indication that this creature spent most of its time in the water. It seems no different than a duck - adapted to the water, but certainly not spending most of its time there. How can you tell?
How do you tell the scores of political candidates not to call you any more?
Well, the prerecorded messages are fairly easy to deal with... just hang up. You most likely won't get the same message again. And remember that they generally run for a couple months prior to an election. However, if they TRULY bother you, wait until you hear the name of the candidate or the political party, then either contact their campaign manager (email, letter, phone) and tell them if you receive one more phone call, your vote will be decided.
Here's another thought. I'm willing to bet that your political party is registered. By doing so, you'll automatically receive calls from that party. Perhaps you should try registering as "independent" or something. Maybe that will stop calls for the next election.
Why do you say this? I have personally been VERY happy with the DNC list. Yes, market surveys, charitable organizations and political campaign calls still get through, but they are a very small quantity as compared to the "WASTE YOUR MONEY NOW!!" calls we used to receive. And you can still ask all of the orgs who can legal call you to put you on their DNC list, which keeps them from calling again.
Slashdot Mirror
Now, here's a little story for you. A colleague and I were once bumped from a flight going to Germany. We were rerouted through Paris (on Air France) to arrive later on the same day (Sunday). Even though there was only one plane change, they still managed to lose my friend's luggage. Air france gave him a "toiletry kit", which contained a toothbrush, toothpaste, comb, a T-shirt, socks, and ... a condom. No deoderant. My friend asked how he was supposed to get an opportunity to use the condom if he didn't have deoderant. Anyway, he ended up wearing the same clothing until Monday afternoon, and because the meeting he was in ended late he ALMOST didn't make it to the shop in time to buy something to wear for the next day (they roll up the sidewalks in Germany at 19:00). It took three days for his luggage to arrive. The only thing he was thankful of was that he didn't have a meeting with the CIO that day. Still think this is all a load of crap?
Did you ever try buying anything in Germany on a Sunday (other than food in a restaurant)? Did you notice that the store was empty and the doors were locked? Maybe you thought you could get up early on Monday morning, buy some new clothing, and still make it to that critical meeting with the board of directors by 9:00. I guess you were utterly disappointed when you found out the stores wouldn't be open before 9:00. I don't know about you, but I don't find the thought of wearing the same clothes for nearly 72 hours straight to be very appealing.
Personally, if we are going to have to check pretty much all baggage we take with us on a trip into the cargo hold, I want different handling for personal items. I want higher insurance coverage and a promise of more careful handling (with severe penalties should that promise not be honored). I also want some sort of confirmation that my would-be-carry-on luggage has been safely loaded onto the plane before I board it. And if the airline somehow manages to "lose" my would-be-carry-on luggage, I sure as heck don't want to float the cost of emergency replacement out of my own pocket.
Anyway, while I feel that Hollywood has the law on their side (these are, after all, copyrighted works that are being modified and distributed without permission), they are absolute IDIOTS for taking it to court. What they SHOULD have done is talk with the companies doing this, let them know that it is illegal, and then grant them licensing to continue doing it with the stipulation that they clearly label the product so that consumers know it has been edited. Then they would be selling to the people who want to see the uncut version, and the people who want the cleaned up version.
You don't really believe that, do you? I mean, the fact that sex and violence SELLS MOVIES wouldn't have anything to do with it, now would it?
No, it's more like Microsoft HASN'T gathered its employees to clearly document interfaces in compliance with the EU ruling.
I believe the EU (and Microsoft competitors) already responded to that. The documentation isn't clear enough, and conveniently leaves out many hidden details that continue to provide Microsoft with a competitive advantage.
And if you read the pages behind the link you provided, you'll see very clearly that the program has ROYALTIES attached to it. It would be acceptable to charge a reasonable one-time fee for technical documentation, but ROYALTIES??
Not really true. The "judge and jury" has only become part of the dispute because Microsoft has failed to comply with their previous judgement.
Have you considered that Microsoft is, as usual, trying to get away with the appearance of compliance while at the same time continuing to milk their own cash cow?
Surely you are aware that the two are related...
No, I think the implication is that using a BlackBerry is hazardous to your health. Although, if it helps kill control-freak management, I'm all for it. Too bad about the collateral damage, though....
But that doesn't make it OK to impair the bad drivers and make them even MORE likely to rear-end the car in front of them. The study showed that the same sample group fared significantly better when not distracted.
The difference here being that race car drivers talk only in short phrases necessary to get and relay information, and the topic is always on their driving and the situation around them. They aren't having a conversation.
I'm sorry if you felt it was a personal attack. It was not intended as one. You just kept bringing up the double-standard issue, but because of the monopoly situation, this argument becomes irrelevant. Based on what you wrote, my interpretation was that you weren't fully aware of what can happen when a market loses its competition -- a misinterpretation on my part.
I think the problem here is that during the antitrust trial, Microsoft claimed that IE was an integral part of the OS that could not be removed. In reality, the DLLs that make up the components of IE are not much different from KHTML and other similar components, but it is made very clear, at least within Linux, that none of these components are part of the OS. Certainly, any KDE application will use KHTML if it needs to deliver rich content, but even the choice of KDE as a desktop environment does not prevent the user from running GNOME apps using the GNOME HTML controls. But the difference here is that Microsoft claimed that IE could not be (or only with extreme difficulty) separated from the OS -- an outright lie during the trial.
Actually, not all the people you are hearing from are MS-bashers or Linux zealots. The problem is that the double-standard argument has already been thrown around several times on Slashdot. Most people (at least those who know what they are talking about) are perfectly aware that each of the desktop environments for Linux and Unix include their own versions of the controls that Microsoft has taken so much heat for. But they are also fully aware of the path that Microsoft was trying to follow. It's very clear that the intent during the nineties was to extend their monopoly into the content arena. And it doesn't yet appear that they have abandoned that effort. From a business standpoint, this makes perfect sense -- good for them. But they will have to work under the burden of suspicious eyes as a result of their past decisions. You can fully expect people to be wary of Microsoft's strategies involving the web until IE marketshare drops below eighty percent, and I'm not sure this will happen in what's left of my lifetime.
Agreed. But even this wouldn't have been such a bad decision if Microsoft had controlled a less significant portion of the market.
I think maybe you need to improve your understanding of exactly what a monopoly is, and what anti-trust legislation is intended to do. There isn't a double-standard going on for two reasons:
- Almost _all_ *nix distributions provide a choice in both the desktop and the web browser. The only possible exception is Apple, but the second reason applies to them.
- None of the *nix distributors have a monopoly share of the market, and none of them are using a monopoly in one area to extend their control to another. Microsoft was charged with and convicted of exactly that. As a direct result, they are forced to, for a period of time, play by different rules.
Maybe you don't like anti-trust legislation, but bear in mind that the United States is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the only country that has monopoly-busting laws on the books.Dude, get over it already. Most Linux distributions come with a choice of desktop environments and web browsers at install-time. The distros go out of their way to give the user as many choices as possible. If you want to complain about something, it should be the fact that too many choices can be bad too.
And which of the *nix distros would be considered a monopoly?
Maybe it's just my age showing, but to me the word "portable" means any device that can more or less be moved easily from one building to another. All this means is that the unit must be self-contained and include some feature that makes it easier to carry (like a handle). What comes immediately to mind are the original Compaq computers that came in a case about three times the size of a lunch box. Because of this, anytime I see the word "portable" used in the description for a computing device, I immediately assume that it would require strength-training for several months just be be able to lug the thing around. It's a warning sign to me.
On the other hand, I believe the word "mobile" has the same meaning to me as your interpretation of "portable". I would expect mobile devices to either fit in my pocket, or clip to my belt in some way to make it easy to carry them without using my hands. I realize this all comes down to semantics, though.... Does anybody else feel the same?
Are there any real experts out there who can explain how they know this creature was amphibious? I looked at the image, and I see no indication that this creature spent most of its time in the water. It seems no different than a duck - adapted to the water, but certainly not spending most of its time there. How can you tell?
Well, the prerecorded messages are fairly easy to deal with... just hang up. You most likely won't get the same message again. And remember that they generally run for a couple months prior to an election. However, if they TRULY bother you, wait until you hear the name of the candidate or the political party, then either contact their campaign manager (email, letter, phone) and tell them if you receive one more phone call, your vote will be decided.
Here's another thought. I'm willing to bet that your political party is registered. By doing so, you'll automatically receive calls from that party. Perhaps you should try registering as "independent" or something. Maybe that will stop calls for the next election.
Why do you say this? I have personally been VERY happy with the DNC list. Yes, market surveys, charitable organizations and political campaign calls still get through, but they are a very small quantity as compared to the "WASTE YOUR MONEY NOW!!" calls we used to receive. And you can still ask all of the orgs who can legal call you to put you on their DNC list, which keeps them from calling again.