* Charge something reasonable, say $5/mo
* Make it all commercial free
* Put all episodes back up for the shows that are available. No more of this 'only 5 episodes of American Dad' crap.
* Allow products like Roku and PS3 to put it on their devices so we can watch it on a TV instead of a PC
Do the above and consider me a customer.
What Hulu is more likely to do is illustrated in this picture (note Hulu is on the left and you are on the right):
To call Stallman a kook and crackpot would be overly flattering. He isn't concerned with "freedom", he is only interested in pushing a personal agenda. That's what the GPL is really all about. If you truly believe in software freedom then you absolutely reject the entire notion of software licensing.
Have you ever bought a book? Furniture? Clothing? A toaster, microwave or television? Did you have to agree to a license before you could use any of these items? NO. If you want software freedom, then there is only one license -- no license at all. Here's the software, you are free do do what you want.
The makers of proprietary software force you to agree to a massive, complicated license before you can use their products because they want to control and restrict what you can do. Let's not pretend that GPL software is any different.
No, but Adobe is. They have a long history of doing stupid things, then waiting until the actual consumer release to "discover" that their product has a problem and not fixing it until the next major release thereby preventing their users from upgrading OS.
Since I have Windows apps from 1995 that run just fine on 64 bit Windows 7, I guess I just don't get the concept of a new OS version that breaks existing apps.
They are required to treat the DMCA takedown notice as valid to remain within the safe harbor provision of the DMCA; they are likewise required to forward the notice to the person who posted the allegedly-infringing material, who is entitled to file a counter-notice.
Technically this is correct. In real life, however, it tends to go like this:
- DMCA notice is sent to ISP or website
- ISP or website immediately takes down the material, no questions asked
- Any claims by the DMCA victim that the material is not infringing are completely ignored, unless the DMCA victim has enough money, power and/or time on his hands to pursue further.
- Since the material has already been taken down, most people decide it's not worth fighting over
- PROFIT!!!
I was wondering what Open Source apps folks would recommend to replace Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, and Dreamweaver?
If such applications existed, Adobe wouldn't still be in business.
With rumors of Adobe not supporting Creative Suite 3 applications on Mac OS X 10.6
Forgive my ignorance, but what does the operating system version have to do with anything? Why wouldn't Adobe CS3 (which isn't all that terribley old) not run on a new release of OSX? Is Apple really that retarded?
File this story under "Somebody has way too much free time on his hands".
Nearly 20 years ago I tried to particpate in various Star-Trek related Usenet newsgroups. But I just couldn't do it. Trying to seriously discuss fictional characters and events is just plain stupid.
Why did Capt. Picard say [whatever]? Because it was in the script. Why didn't they stop the ship from crashing? Because it was in the script.
When you start analyzing the flaws and mistakes in fictional material you really need to follow William Shatner's advice from the sketch on Staurday Night Live -- "Get a life."
Paypal wants to steal three percent of every transaction? Why is it a percentage? Does their automated system actually put in more effort the larger the amount of money involved? No. Paypal's middle-man "contribution" is fixed, regardless of the amount of a transaction, so why isn't its fee also fixed?
Fixed fees are a great idea and you are absolutely right -- PayPal's costs are exactly the same no matter what amount of money is involved. But there's a problem. What should the fee be? Let's say $5.00 per transaction. That's great if you sell an item costing $1000, but what if you sell an item for $5? Do you really think people will be OK with a 100% transaction fee?
I don't understand how someone could expect a financial transaction service to be free.
How about because PayPal said they would be free?
When PayPal first started there were no fees of any kind and they had a page on their site called "How PayPal works" (it's long gone). The idea was to charge your credit card and then hold the money for a couple of days before passing it along to the merchant, making money on the "float". It was a good idea that worked for a while.
Unfortunately, PayPal fell victim to the dotbomb mentality, hiring hundreds of employees they didn't need and moving into big expensive office buildings. This required the addition of more and more fees to make money. Then they were taken over by Ebay who needs more revenue to make their shreholders happy. Both Ebay and PayPal have gone to shit as a result.
Ads aren't the problem. There's nothing wrong with using the same business model as radio and TV -- give the product away for free and make money from advertising. The TV networks make billions this way. The problem is that every website has decided to fill every page with 20 bouncing flashing ads that are so annoying and distracting that you can't read the content.
My wife's Macbook (MB881LL/A, white, early 2009) updated earlier today (from software updates), and froze mid-installation of the update. When restarted, it would kernel panic saying the kernel signature didn't match the CPU.
I had to restart the mac with the shift key pressed (safe mode) and after aprox. 15 minutes of gray screen with the spinning circle, it restarted itself again and booted up correctly, saying that all is well and 10.5.8 is installed.
If Windows did this there would be several clas action lawsuits and a EU investigation. But, since it's Apple, it's OK.
What about works that are released after the author's death, for instance? I think the estate (in most cases, read: family) should be able to benefit from the proceeds of a work for at least 5 or 10 years after the creator's death
Why does an author need copyright protecttion after he's dead? For the benefit of his family? Sorry, I don't remember seeing anything that says copyright is supposed to be a welfare system for author's families.
The article keeps referring to what was stolen as "codes". Does that mean "source code" or are they talking about some kind of access codes
I noticed that too. Nowhere in the article does it actually say "source code". It just says things like:
"being held on federal charges of stealing top-secret computer trading codes"
"the codes Sergey Aleynikov tried to steal"
"Federal authorities allege the computer codes and related-trading files that Aleynikov uploaded"
Of course, the guy writing this article may not even know wat source code is.
If Sergei Brin is worried about Bing it's because he hasn't actually used it. Even on Channel 9, Microsoft's official fanboy site, people are trashing Bing.
Bing is to Google as Microsoft Paint is to Adobe Photoshop.
Because they're over-priced with nothing to really justify it other than the OS.
That's the problem with Psystar's business model. You're buying a generic run-of-the-mill PC with a hacked version of OSX installed. What exactly is the attraction here? Is OSX really that great compared to other operating systems? I don't think so, and obviously most other people agree. The fact that they are filing for bankruptcy with only $250,000 in debt tells me there isn't a very big market for their product. After all, any 3l33t Hax0r can download a hacked copy of OSX from usenet and get it running on their PC.
I like Firefox, I think IE sucks. But this whole "market share" thing is silly and fueled by nothing more than people obsessed with hating Microsoft. Guess what. If everyone dumps IE and switches to another browser, Microsoft's loss of revenue is exactly zero.
"an in-line dialog box noting the site publisher's desire to prevent ad blocking. The user would then have to choose to respect that wish or not."
All websites that have advertising want that advertising to be seen, otherwise it wouldn't be there. People don't want to see these adverts -- that's why they use Adblock. The proposed dialog box is stupid and pointless.
Premium content? Seriously -- what the hell is premium content? You might as well say "Premium Crap". I can't think of a single thing that is so wonderful that I would be willing to pay to see it on YouTube.
I find the continual debate over software licenses to be quite ridiculous. Particularly on the part of proponents of the GPL and "Free" software (free as in "freedom"). If you truly believe in Free software then there is only one license -- no license at all. I find it very Orwellian that the people screaming the loudest about Freedom have created a license which restricts and controls what you can and cannot do with software.
"I've been saying for years that any system wherein you can use as much as you want of a shared resource as you want for a single, fixed price inherently suffers from "The Tragedy of the Commons" problems, and that the internet must inevitably adopt some sort of "pay per byte" business model."
WRONG. WRONG. WRONG.
TW is doing this one one reason. Because they can. In most markets they have no competition. If you don't like what they do, tough shit, you have no where else to go. It's the same reason they charge ridiculous prices for their Internet service. Because they can.
Create real competition by forcing the cable and telephone monopolies to open up their networks. Over night, prices will go down, speeds will go up and download caps will never be heard of again.
Slashdot Mirror
What Hulu is more likely to do is illustrated in this picture (note Hulu is on the left and you are on the right):
http://anonib.com/tnr/src/125638704861.jpg
To call Stallman a kook and crackpot would be overly flattering. He isn't concerned with "freedom", he is only interested in pushing a personal agenda. That's what the GPL is really all about. If you truly believe in software freedom then you absolutely reject the entire notion of software licensing.
Have you ever bought a book? Furniture? Clothing? A toaster, microwave or television? Did you have to agree to a license before you could use any of these items? NO. If you want software freedom, then there is only one license -- no license at all. Here's the software, you are free do do what you want.
The makers of proprietary software force you to agree to a massive, complicated license before you can use their products because they want to control and restrict what you can do. Let's not pretend that GPL software is any different.
Since the earliest days of Ebay they have addressed every problem in exactly the same way --- deny deny deny.
Since I have Windows apps from 1995 that run just fine on 64 bit Windows 7, I guess I just don't get the concept of a new OS version that breaks existing apps.
Technically this is correct. In real life, however, it tends to go like this:
- DMCA notice is sent to ISP or website
- ISP or website immediately takes down the material, no questions asked
- Any claims by the DMCA victim that the material is not infringing are completely ignored, unless the DMCA victim has enough money, power and/or time on his hands to pursue further.
- Since the material has already been taken down, most people decide it's not worth fighting over
- PROFIT!!!
If such applications existed, Adobe wouldn't still be in business.
Forgive my ignorance, but what does the operating system version have to do with anything? Why wouldn't Adobe CS3 (which isn't all that terribley old) not run on a new release of OSX? Is Apple really that retarded?
Maybe because African-Pollocks would be more offensive?
How can a 16 bit OS address 1 Meg of RAM when 2^16 is only 64k? Read the article. It's interesting.
File this story under "Somebody has way too much free time on his hands".
Nearly 20 years ago I tried to particpate in various Star-Trek related Usenet newsgroups. But I just couldn't do it. Trying to seriously discuss fictional characters and events is just plain stupid.
Why did Capt. Picard say [whatever]? Because it was in the script.
Why didn't they stop the ship from crashing? Because it was in the script.
When you start analyzing the flaws and mistakes in fictional material you really need to follow William Shatner's advice from the sketch on Staurday Night Live -- "Get a life."
Fixed fees are a great idea and you are absolutely right -- PayPal's costs are exactly the same no matter what amount of money is involved. But there's a problem. What should the fee be? Let's say $5.00 per transaction. That's great if you sell an item costing $1000, but what if you sell an item for $5? Do you really think people will be OK with a 100% transaction fee?
How about because PayPal said they would be free?
When PayPal first started there were no fees of any kind and they had a page on their site called "How PayPal works" (it's long gone). The idea was to charge your credit card and then hold the money for a couple of days before passing it along to the merchant, making money on the "float". It was a good idea that worked for a while.
Unfortunately, PayPal fell victim to the dotbomb mentality, hiring hundreds of employees they didn't need and moving into big expensive office buildings. This required the addition of more and more fees to make money. Then they were taken over by Ebay who needs more revenue to make their shreholders happy. Both Ebay and PayPal have gone to shit as a result.
Ads aren't the problem. There's nothing wrong with using the same business model as radio and TV -- give the product away for free and make money from advertising. The TV networks make billions this way. The problem is that every website has decided to fill every page with 20 bouncing flashing ads that are so annoying and distracting that you can't read the content.
That's why Adblock has become a necessity.
If Windows did this there would be several clas action lawsuits and a EU investigation. But, since it's Apple, it's OK.
... is the following:
"deputy press secretary to Manhattan Borough President Scott M. Stringer".
WTF? deputy press secretary? The Borough President has a press secretary AND a deputy press secretary???
Most of your time IS worth nothing. But people are too arrogant to admit it.
Why does an author need copyright protecttion after he's dead? For the benefit of his family? Sorry, I don't remember seeing anything that says copyright is supposed to be a welfare system for author's families.
I noticed that too. Nowhere in the article does it actually say "source code". It just says things like:
"being held on federal charges of stealing top-secret computer trading codes"
"the codes Sergey Aleynikov tried to steal"
"Federal authorities allege the computer codes and related-trading files that Aleynikov uploaded"
Of course, the guy writing this article may not even know wat source code is.
Bing?
If Sergei Brin is worried about Bing it's because he hasn't actually used it. Even on Channel 9, Microsoft's official fanboy site, people are trashing Bing.
Bing is to Google as Microsoft Paint is to Adobe Photoshop.
That's the problem with Psystar's business model. You're buying a generic run-of-the-mill PC with a hacked version of OSX installed. What exactly is the attraction here? Is OSX really that great compared to other operating systems? I don't think so, and obviously most other people agree. The fact that they are filing for bankruptcy with only $250,000 in debt tells me there isn't a very big market for their product. After all, any 3l33t Hax0r can download a hacked copy of OSX from usenet and get it running on their PC.
I like Firefox, I think IE sucks. But this whole "market share" thing is silly and fueled by nothing more than people obsessed with hating Microsoft. Guess what. If everyone dumps IE and switches to another browser, Microsoft's loss of revenue is exactly zero.
"an in-line dialog box noting the site publisher's desire to prevent ad blocking. The user would then have to choose to respect that wish or not."
All websites that have advertising want that advertising to be seen, otherwise it wouldn't be there. People don't want to see these adverts -- that's why they use Adblock. The proposed dialog box is stupid and pointless.
Today Comcast and Time Warner announced 200mbps service. Now you can exceed your monthly bandwith cap in an hour.
Premium content? Seriously -- what the hell is premium content? You might as well say "Premium Crap". I can't think of a single thing that is so wonderful that I would be willing to pay to see it on YouTube.
I find the continual debate over software licenses to be quite ridiculous. Particularly on the part of proponents of the GPL and "Free" software (free as in "freedom"). If you truly believe in Free software then there is only one license -- no license at all. I find it very Orwellian that the people screaming the loudest about Freedom have created a license which restricts and controls what you can and cannot do with software.
"I've been saying for years that any system wherein you can use as much as you want of a shared resource as you want for a single, fixed price inherently suffers from "The Tragedy of the Commons" problems, and that the internet must inevitably adopt some sort of "pay per byte" business model."
WRONG. WRONG. WRONG.
TW is doing this one one reason. Because they can. In most markets they have no competition. If you don't like what they do, tough shit, you have no where else to go. It's the same reason they charge ridiculous prices for their Internet service. Because they can.
Create real competition by forcing the cable and telephone monopolies to open up their networks. Over night, prices will go down, speeds will go up and download caps will never be heard of again.