. . . with predictable results. Anyone remember Things and Thingmaker? I didn't think so. That's because people don't tend to "consume" much "content" that requires some "rights management-enabled" plug in that usurps fair use (not to mention being hard to install and use).
Also, even if this software is Windows only, a screen capture would work just fine under VMWare or similar program.
I wonder what the future of microbroadcasting would be like were this to happen. What would you do if you could buy a little slice of your local spectrum?
Don't worry, the media conglomerates likely won't leave any little slice for you and I to buy, and on the off chance they do, it'll come with a seven figure price tag.
The spectrum shouldn't be sold (to the highest bidder, or any private entity)--if this is allowed, then the U.S. government will have again abdicated its rightful role as steward of the airwaves for the less lofty role of plundering profiteer.
It would seem we need something akin to the Video Privacy Protection Act for internet traffic.
Unfortunately, such a law has no chance of even making it to the floor until someone rich and powerful like a Supreme Court nominee's surfing habits are made public.
If one is worried about having their Usenet posts archived and used against them some day, I don't imagine that person should be very reassured by Google's honoring of the X-No-Archive header.
If I were such a person, I'd worry more about governments, corporations, and other potentially nefarious entities that are trawling for and archiving only those posts with X-No-Archive headers, in which all the potentially incriminating stuff is conveniently marked.
Fact of the matter is, if you're using their service, you gotta play by their rules.
Fair enough--but then they should be required to disclose all those rules in plain language, prominently, and pre-purchase. Only then can the manufacture wax righteous that "it's what the customer agreed to." At the moment, the fact that a service is required at all is downplayed, and there's certainly nothing in their product literature stating prominently that they can force "upgrades."
What gets me are programs that have no server with which to communicate (in order to function, that is) but automatically check for an update and download/install it for you. This is not only an annoyance, but a security risk as well.
I agree. It's only a matter of time before there's some massive trojan deployment that takes advantage of one of these.
"We provide a limited amount of information about our passengers to the D.E.A. and other agencies as a part of their law enforcement activities," said Debbie Hare, an Amtrak spokeswoman.
"I can't tell you how long it has been going on, but this program exists all across the country."
I was joking with one of my Republican friends the other day. I mentioned that I had missed the speech that President Bush made on TV indicating that container ships full of tennis shoes and squeak toys from the PRC would be turned back until our people were returned. Sadly, there's no real chance of that happening, with the plutocrats in charge.
But you should have the right to refuse the "upgrade" so long as you don't ask them to support it. The Replay device is an appliance, not a license--if they want to rent the devices, they should do so. Otherwise, they shouldn't force "upgrades."
Concur. I generally regard TRUST-E as a warning label. Just like meatspace business that tout their association with the BBB, I find that generally those with the most to be ashamed about are the loudest in proclaiming their association with one of these organizations.
But this is part of why search engines are so cool--as long as you know the song title, or even a few fairly unique words from the song, you'll find a fan site with the lyrics. Evil Record Empire taken the site down? That's OK, the lyrics are in Google's cache. And they'll turn up again, because the evil copyright robber-barons aren't all that good at Whack-a-Mole. It's a good time to be alive.
Blink is an (apparently) ad supported repository for bookmarks. Privacy implications aside, I have found it useful for uploading and consolidating the bookmarks from disparate machines. I don't actually use the site to browse from, because I usually have JavaScript turned off, which it uses to track usage of each bookmark.
IIRC, you can also tell it to not accept duplicate bookmarks. (i.e. you'll only end up with one bookmark for Slashdot when you're through).
With the American Express product, the merchant can credit the one-time card number (from their FAQ:)
If I receive a credit for a transaction originally completed with Private Payments, does this appear in the Transaction History?
A credit for a transaction completed with a Private Payments number will appear in your Transaction History, provided that the transaction was credited back to the Private Payments number. All transactions credited to Private Payments numbers will also appear, as all other credits do, on your monthly statement.
Since common sense is authorized, I hope they accept negative charges against the one-time number even after its use period has expired.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder what kind of copy protection this format will have built in. No thank you.
You're right, of course, but I did say "again."
. . . with predictable results. Anyone remember Things and Thingmaker? I didn't think so. That's because people don't tend to "consume" much "content" that requires some "rights management-enabled" plug in that usurps fair use (not to mention being hard to install and use).
Also, even if this software is Windows only, a screen capture would work just fine under VMWare or similar program.
Don't worry, the media conglomerates likely won't leave any little slice for you and I to buy, and on the off chance they do, it'll come with a seven figure price tag.
The spectrum shouldn't be sold (to the highest bidder, or any private entity)--if this is allowed, then the U.S. government will have again abdicated its rightful role as steward of the airwaves for the less lofty role of plundering profiteer.
Unfortunately, such a law has no chance of even making it to the floor until someone rich and powerful like a Supreme Court nominee's surfing habits are made public.
And now that the RIAA's gone public stating they "never intended to sue," he can publish right after the trial.
If I were such a person, I'd worry more about governments, corporations, and other potentially nefarious entities that are trawling for and archiving only those posts with X-No-Archive headers, in which all the potentially incriminating stuff is conveniently marked.
Fact of the matter is, if you're using their service, you gotta play by their rules.
Fair enough--but then they should be required to disclose all those rules in plain language, prominently, and pre-purchase. Only then can the manufacture wax righteous that "it's what the customer agreed to." At the moment, the fact that a service is required at all is downplayed, and there's certainly nothing in their product literature stating prominently that they can force "upgrades."
What gets me are programs that have no server with which to communicate (in order to function, that is) but automatically check for an update and download/install it for you. This is not only an annoyance, but a security risk as well.
I agree. It's only a matter of time before there's some massive trojan deployment that takes advantage of one of these.
So being military personnel makes them incapable of being hostages? What would you call them? Prisoners of war?
Yes, that would have been correct.
Shall I take this to mean that you do not consider Army personnel in grades below Corporal, or who happen to be officers, to be soldiers?
I was joking with one of my Republican friends the other day. I mentioned that I had missed the speech that President Bush made on TV indicating that container ships full of tennis shoes and squeak toys from the PRC would be turned back until our people were returned. Sadly, there's no real chance of that happening, with the plutocrats in charge.
But you should have the right to refuse the "upgrade" so long as you don't ask them to support it. The Replay device is an appliance, not a license--if they want to rent the devices, they should do so. Otherwise, they shouldn't force "upgrades."
Concur. I generally regard TRUST-E as a warning label. Just like meatspace business that tout their association with the BBB, I find that generally those with the most to be ashamed about are the loudest in proclaiming their association with one of these organizations.
But this is part of why search engines are so cool--as long as you know the song title, or even a few fairly unique words from the song, you'll find a fan site with the lyrics. Evil Record Empire taken the site down? That's OK, the lyrics are in Google's cache. And they'll turn up again, because the evil copyright robber-barons aren't all that good at Whack-a-Mole. It's a good time to be alive.
Which has been dead as a door nail for over a year now. For crying out loud, if you're going to troll, at least make it factual.
Oh--I thought that the staff at the high school had modified and hard wired it, not that it came that way. Thanks!
Hope it never catches on fire. What on earth could be that important in a high school?!
Why not? I don't hear lots of multimedia being played in the server room.
it at the ISP, you have to get it before it
leaves the computer.
Which is exactly what they're working on.
Coming from someone in high office, that's a strong implied threat of regulation.
Then Jabber just needs to be made to hop firewalls, ultimately going over port 80 if necessary, like AIM does.
IIRC, you can also tell it to not accept duplicate bookmarks. (i.e. you'll only end up with one bookmark for Slashdot when you're through).
Since common sense is authorized, I hope they accept negative charges against the one-time number even after its use period has expired.