Gnucleus LAN was designed for just this contingency. You can set up a private Gnutella network on your campus and save the university the bandwidth costs of everyone using Kaaza individually. It's MUCH faster than the Java Gnutella clients *cough* Limewire *cough*. It's also the same underlying client used by Morpheus, only more up-to-date.
The music industry needs to come to the realization that they must beat P2P music swapping at it's own game. Until they open a site with *severely* degraded samples of their music for people to sample freely, with the option of buying a full copy at a *reasonable* price over the internet, their profits will continue to fall and no one will believe them when they plead ignorance and label P2P as the work of the devil.
Even before P2P, I often wondered why they wouldn't at least publish lyrics on the web so that I could know which song to buy in the record store. Going to the store and singing a few lines of your favorite song to a zit-faced clerk is not the preferable way to buy music.
Maybe whomever they hire for this position will tell them that they are waaaaay behind the times and that's why they're losing profits.
SHAMEFULLY STOLEN POST 1) Crazy software patents SPECIAL INTEREST: Companies that want to patent ones and zeros. GENERAL INTEREST: Patents should be reasonable. 2) Crazy business process patents SPECIAL INTEREST: Companies that want to patent air and water. GENERAL INTEREST: See #1 3) DMCA SPECIAL INTEREST: Companies that want to charge consumers *per viewing*, and have laws make up for an outdated business model and technical ineptitude. GENERAL INTEREST: Consumers who want to buy a copy of a DVD, not the priviledge of watching it. 4) DRM SPECIAL INTEREST: See #1 and #3. GENERAL INTEREST: Citizens who realize that computers are not merely tools for the distribution of copyrighted material, and wish to exercise their "right to compute". 5) Spam (mandatory "ADV:" for unsoliticted commercial email) SPECIAL INTEREST: Companies who want to SPAM. GENERAL INTEREST: No one wants to be SPAMmed. 6) Government developed software using open source licencing SPECIAL INTEREST: Companies who have been sucking at the teet that is the Federal Government for generations. GENERAL INTEREST: Taxpayers who don't want to pay for it anymore. 7) UCITA / non-enforcability of shrinkwraps SPECIAL INTEREST: Companies that want to *impose* contract terms, rather than negotiate them. GENERAL INTEREST: Contracts must be mutual. 8) Reverse engineering of software SPECIAL INTEREST: Companies that want to maintain monopoly dominance through closed protocols. GENERAL INTEREST: Citizens who want to maintain a capitalistic society and students who want to learn by disassembly. 9) Privacy: opt-in vs opt-out SPECIAL INTEREST: Companies who make money by selling personal information. GENERAL INTEREST: People who don't realize their personal information is being sold. 10) Governement use of open standards / file formats in software SPECIAL INTEREST: See #6 and #8 GENERAL INTEREST: See #6 and #8 11) Spyware SPECIAL INTEREST: See #9 GENERAL INTEREST: See #9 12) Government procurement policy encouraging/requiring open source SPECIAL INTEREST: See #6 and #8 GENERAL INTEREST: See #6 and #8 13) Legislation setting special penalties for violating open source licensing SPECIAL INTEREST: Companies that like to *borrow* open source software and pass it off as their own; or, optionally, open source companies that want special copyright protections. GENERAL INTEREST: None that I can tell. This is already well-covered by existing laws. 14) Tolerating innovation in peer-to-peer tech SPECIAL INTEREST: Industry trade associations whose oligopolistic practices and technical ineptitude are highlighted by emerging technologies. GENERAL INTEREST: Computing researchers who are seeking better communications networks and consumers who are sick of paying $15 for a CD full of crap. 15) Privacy: strong encryption for citizens SPECIAL INTEREST: Governments that would spy on their citizens. GENERAL INTEREST: Citizens who would exercise their right to freedom of speech and association. 16) Privacy: right to surf anonymously SPECIAL INTEREST: See #15 GENERAL INTEREST: See #15 17) Digital Television: fair use rights SPECIAL INTEREST: See #1, #3 and #4 GENERAL INTEREST: See #1, #3 and #4 18) Right to modify hardware you own SPECIAL INTEREST: Companies that want to sell a product, then control every aspect of their customer's use of that product. GENERAL INTEREST: Ownership is a basic principle of a capitalistic society./SHAMEFULLY STOLEN POST
One thought though, would you need permission from the various politicians before posting their views?
God, I should hope not. Unless you plan to slander them. Really, you're just giving legitimitacy to censorship by questioning whether it's necessary. More people should read the Constitution and make up their own minds as to what their rights should be.
I used to think that too. "No one will buy them" "They'll go out of business" "How can people be so stupid?" The fact is, people WILL buy enough of them for MS to make their money back. People are that stupid.
You have to remember that something like 50% of the US still doesn't own a computer. When MS comes out with an X-Box 1.2, everyone will assume it has some great new *features* and run out to upgrade. They will fall for the "security" FUD just like people have for years. Once MS starts tempting people with words like "online gaming" and buying up game companies, enough X-Boxes will get sold.
The only way to stop it is to buy one now and hack it to pieces. Shareware developers kept MS at bay for years by actually innovating new technologies and adding them to the Windows desktop. It's hard to beat MS by playing on their own turf, though. Linux has come along and changed the playing field, sidestepping the BIOS and everything. Now, with the X-Box as custom hardware, they're changing the playing field and we have to adapt. It's foolish not to.
Oh, and BTW: MS' customer service department-- that's funny.
I remember seeing a program about giant, genetically engineered salmon and how they would decimate the world salmon population if released into the wild. They are engineered to be larger than normal, so they have a competitive advantage for mating. But, they also eat twice as much as normal salmon, so they wouldn't be able to feed themselves. Could this technique be required of those who breed genetically modified fish?
I'm pretty sure that wasn't in the "deal". This whole argument isn't over what's spelled out in contracts, it's about what the "presumption" is when hiring a photographer or any other artist. If you pay someone to create something for you, do you presume that you own it?
What if I said this: I'm a programmer. I want to get paid all day to program; but at the end of the day, I want to retain all rights to my programs and sell them to other people. That's bullshit. In capitalism, there are basically two models: sell a product or sell a service.
What if I were a pool cleaner, and I came to your house and cleaned your pool, charged you $50, then tried to charge you $50 for every subsequent DAY your pool stayed clean, without doing any more work. No one expects that.
Scientists in research institutions don't try to pull this kind of crap. Unless it's explicitly stated in their contract, their employer retains the rights to the work they do while on the job.
The problem here is the notion that "liberal arts" workers should get paid twice for work that is done once. If there were really demand for the kind of crap that most artists produce, their salaries would reflect it without needing a skewed interpretation of copyright laws. They wouldn't need to get paid to do nothing after already having been paid a fair price for their work. And if the song turns out to be crap, don't think a judge will just order the artist to write a new one. The patron takes on the risk in commissioning a work of art, because he pays for it either way.
That's like saying "communism works socially". Seriously. Here's your post:
Everyone wants food and water, but not everyone want's to work for it. The people who want (and are able) to eat steak effectively subsidize the people who only know enough to grow rice. Maybe the people who eat nothing but rice for their entire lives will eventually stop having more children than they can feed and buy a fucking cow instead. Then again, maybe not.
Contract A: I will pay you to create a work of art. Contract B: I will pay you for a copy of a work of art.
In contract A, I COMMISSION you to create something that did not previously exist, thus I own the copyright.
In contract B, YOU created the work of art on your own dime/time, thus you retain the copyright and you can sell me a copy.
This isn't rocket science. And for anyone who wants to cry and argue about this interpretation, think about this: COURT REPORTERS, who (one would think) don't create anything, and are actually prohibited from taking artistic license in their work, think they own the copyright to the transcripts they are commissioned to make. This is ludicrous. If you pay someone a fair wage to create something for you, you own it, and all rights to it. If you pay someone a marginal price for a copy of something they made, they own it.
Sure, the 7th Amendment gives a right to trial by jury. But juries don't decide questions of law, only questions of fact.
I challenge you to back up that assertion with something that *doesn't* come from this century, preferrably from around the time the US was founded.
I, and many others, assert that juries are de facto arbiters of both law and fact, and that BOTH must pass a jury before conviction. By short-circuiting this protection and installing "Judges" in the place of juries, our massively over-centralized federal government has eroded yet another of our civil liberties in the name of "efficiency". Shooting suspects on sight is the most "efficient" means of dealing with crime, isn't it?
Oh, lighten up. Most slashbots can't make fun of bearded Linux hippies, because most slashbots can't even grow beards. Besides, if you can't laugh at yourself...
8 hours was defined as a work day for a reason- it's the point of diminishing returns.
It was the point of diminishing returns in the twenties, when workers were doing mundane, repetitive tasks in factories. I'd bet money that it's half that today, for anyone whose job requires more skill than that of a primate or a machine.
For employers who expect their information workers to perform like machines: don't bitch when your widget isn't (intelligently designed/operating properly/finished on time).
The OS doesn't "need IE", it IS IE. Outlook needs IE because it is the core of the OS, and because M$ decided not to duplicate their HTML rendering engine in their e-mail client. Since most open-source projects concentrate on code-reusability, it is not unreasonable for Mozilla to do the same.
Since the network protocols used would be open and (relatively) standard, it would be feasible (although somewhat masochistic) to use a separate client for each groupware function. There could even be server-side "plug-ins" to support proprietary clients that refuse to utilize standard protocols and to translate Mozilla-specific functions into their proprietary equivalents.
Slashdot Mirror
Gnucleus LAN was designed for just this contingency. You can set up a private Gnutella network on your campus and save the university the bandwidth costs of everyone using Kaaza individually. It's MUCH faster than the Java Gnutella clients *cough* Limewire *cough*. It's also the same underlying client used by Morpheus, only more up-to-date.
Just because the President makes up words, doesn't mean that you can. Although, judging by the job posting, it might help your chances.
It looks like they need someone to come up with a "strategy" for their "war".
They want to do all of these things. They just want to research their options first.
Even before P2P, I often wondered why they wouldn't at least publish lyrics on the web so that I could know which song to buy in the record store. Going to the store and singing a few lines of your favorite song to a zit-faced clerk is not the preferable way to buy music.
Maybe whomever they hire for this position will tell them that they are waaaaay behind the times and that's why they're losing profits.
Don't look too soon, since everyone up top at Time-Warner is now (or soon will be) up top at AOL. I'm shocked they haven't stopped this already.
I think it's acceptable for a generation that's grown up using MS' shitty products instead of writing them.
If you *have* to play MP3's on that old 486, though, mpg123 runs on the command line. A Windows port is avaliable here
Yes, umm, preferrably right here on Slashdot. In fact, why don't you just throw it on your Win32 server and submit a story with a link to it.
SHAMEFULLY STOLEN POST /SHAMEFULLY STOLEN POST
1) Crazy software patents
SPECIAL INTEREST: Companies that want to patent ones and zeros.
GENERAL INTEREST: Patents should be reasonable.
2) Crazy business process patents
SPECIAL INTEREST: Companies that want to patent air and water.
GENERAL INTEREST: See #1
3) DMCA
SPECIAL INTEREST: Companies that want to charge consumers *per viewing*, and have laws make up for an outdated business model and technical ineptitude.
GENERAL INTEREST: Consumers who want to buy a copy of a DVD, not the priviledge of watching it.
4) DRM
SPECIAL INTEREST: See #1 and #3.
GENERAL INTEREST: Citizens who realize that computers are not merely tools for the distribution of copyrighted material, and wish to exercise their "right to compute".
5) Spam (mandatory "ADV:" for unsoliticted
commercial email)
SPECIAL INTEREST: Companies who want to SPAM.
GENERAL INTEREST: No one wants to be SPAMmed.
6) Government developed software using open source
licencing
SPECIAL INTEREST: Companies who have been sucking at the teet that is the Federal Government for generations.
GENERAL INTEREST: Taxpayers who don't want to pay for it anymore.
7) UCITA / non-enforcability of shrinkwraps
SPECIAL INTEREST: Companies that want to *impose* contract terms, rather than negotiate them.
GENERAL INTEREST: Contracts must be mutual.
8) Reverse engineering of software
SPECIAL INTEREST: Companies that want to maintain monopoly dominance through closed protocols.
GENERAL INTEREST: Citizens who want to maintain a capitalistic society and students who want to learn by disassembly.
9) Privacy: opt-in vs opt-out
SPECIAL INTEREST: Companies who make money by selling personal information.
GENERAL INTEREST: People who don't realize their personal information is being sold.
10) Governement use of open standards / file
formats in software
SPECIAL INTEREST: See #6 and #8
GENERAL INTEREST: See #6 and #8
11) Spyware
SPECIAL INTEREST: See #9
GENERAL INTEREST: See #9
12) Government procurement policy
encouraging/requiring open source
SPECIAL INTEREST: See #6 and #8
GENERAL INTEREST: See #6 and #8
13) Legislation setting special penalties for
violating open source licensing
SPECIAL INTEREST: Companies that like to *borrow* open source software and pass it off as their own; or, optionally, open source companies that want special copyright protections.
GENERAL INTEREST: None that I can tell. This is already well-covered by existing laws.
14) Tolerating innovation in peer-to-peer tech
SPECIAL INTEREST: Industry trade associations whose oligopolistic practices and technical ineptitude are highlighted by emerging technologies.
GENERAL INTEREST: Computing researchers who are seeking better communications networks and consumers who are sick of paying $15 for a CD full of crap.
15) Privacy: strong encryption for citizens
SPECIAL INTEREST: Governments that would spy on their citizens.
GENERAL INTEREST: Citizens who would exercise their right to freedom of speech and association.
16) Privacy: right to surf anonymously
SPECIAL INTEREST: See #15
GENERAL INTEREST: See #15
17) Digital Television: fair use rights
SPECIAL INTEREST: See #1, #3 and #4
GENERAL INTEREST: See #1, #3 and #4
18) Right to modify hardware you own
SPECIAL INTEREST: Companies that want to sell a product, then control every aspect of their customer's use of that product.
GENERAL INTEREST: Ownership is a basic principle of a capitalistic society.
God, I should hope not. Unless you plan to slander them. Really, you're just giving legitimitacy to censorship by questioning whether it's necessary. More people should read the Constitution and make up their own minds as to what their rights should be.
What about Ex-Americans?
I used to think that too. "No one will buy them" "They'll go out of business" "How can people be so stupid?" The fact is, people WILL buy enough of them for MS to make their money back. People are that stupid.
You have to remember that something like 50% of the US still doesn't own a computer. When MS comes out with an X-Box 1.2, everyone will assume it has some great new *features* and run out to upgrade. They will fall for the "security" FUD just like people have for years. Once MS starts tempting people with words like "online gaming" and buying up game companies, enough X-Boxes will get sold.
The only way to stop it is to buy one now and hack it to pieces. Shareware developers kept MS at bay for years by actually innovating new technologies and adding them to the Windows desktop. It's hard to beat MS by playing on their own turf, though. Linux has come along and changed the playing field, sidestepping the BIOS and everything. Now, with the X-Box as custom hardware, they're changing the playing field and we have to adapt. It's foolish not to.
Oh, and BTW: MS' customer service department-- that's funny.
I thought I'd ask slashdot what wysiwyg meant, but I decided to ask Google instead and found this whatis? definition.
I remember seeing a program about giant, genetically engineered salmon and how they would decimate the world salmon population if released into the wild. They are engineered to be larger than normal, so they have a competitive advantage for mating. But, they also eat twice as much as normal salmon, so they wouldn't be able to feed themselves. Could this technique be required of those who breed genetically modified fish?
I'm pretty sure that wasn't in the "deal". This whole argument isn't over what's spelled out in contracts, it's about what the "presumption" is when hiring a photographer or any other artist. If you pay someone to create something for you, do you presume that you own it?
What if I were a pool cleaner, and I came to your house and cleaned your pool, charged you $50, then tried to charge you $50 for every subsequent DAY your pool stayed clean, without doing any more work. No one expects that.
Scientists in research institutions don't try to pull this kind of crap. Unless it's explicitly stated in their contract, their employer retains the rights to the work they do while on the job.
The problem here is the notion that "liberal arts" workers should get paid twice for work that is done once. If there were really demand for the kind of crap that most artists produce, their salaries would reflect it without needing a skewed interpretation of copyright laws. They wouldn't need to get paid to do nothing after already having been paid a fair price for their work. And if the song turns out to be crap, don't think a judge will just order the artist to write a new one. The patron takes on the risk in commissioning a work of art, because he pays for it either way.
Everyone wants food and water, but not everyone want's to work for it. The people who want (and are able) to eat steak effectively subsidize the people who only know enough to grow rice. Maybe the people who eat nothing but rice for their entire lives will eventually stop having more children than they can feed and buy a fucking cow instead. Then again, maybe not.
Contract B: I will pay you for a copy of a work of art.
In contract A, I COMMISSION you to create something that did not previously exist, thus I own the copyright.
In contract B, YOU created the work of art on your own dime/time, thus you retain the copyright and you can sell me a copy.
This isn't rocket science. And for anyone who wants to cry and argue about this interpretation, think about this: COURT REPORTERS, who (one would think) don't create anything, and are actually prohibited from taking artistic license in their work, think they own the copyright to the transcripts they are commissioned to make. This is ludicrous. If you pay someone a fair wage to create something for you, you own it, and all rights to it. If you pay someone a marginal price for a copy of something they made, they own it.
I challenge you to back up that assertion with something that *doesn't* come from this century, preferrably from around the time the US was founded.
I, and many others, assert that juries are de facto arbiters of both law and fact, and that BOTH must pass a jury before conviction. By short-circuiting this protection and installing "Judges" in the place of juries, our massively over-centralized federal government has eroded yet another of our civil liberties in the name of "efficiency". Shooting suspects on sight is the most "efficient" means of dealing with crime, isn't it?
Oh, lighten up. Most slashbots can't make fun of bearded Linux hippies, because most slashbots can't even grow beards. Besides, if you can't laugh at yourself...
It was the point of diminishing returns in the twenties, when workers were doing mundane, repetitive tasks in factories. I'd bet money that it's half that today, for anyone whose job requires more skill than that of a primate or a machine.
For employers who expect their information workers to perform like machines: don't bitch when your widget isn't (intelligently designed/operating properly/finished on time).
The OS doesn't "need IE", it IS IE. Outlook needs IE because it is the core of the OS, and because M$ decided not to duplicate their HTML rendering engine in their e-mail client. Since most open-source projects concentrate on code-reusability, it is not unreasonable for Mozilla to do the same.
Since the network protocols used would be open and (relatively) standard, it would be feasible (although somewhat masochistic) to use a separate client for each groupware function. There could even be server-side "plug-ins" to support proprietary clients that refuse to utilize standard protocols and to translate Mozilla-specific functions into their proprietary equivalents.
Neither did I, but I bought an Epson scanner just last week because of the general praise of their Linux support. Now I am even more glad that I did.
i'll just say that we'll keep our despot from trying your citizens in monkey-court if you promise to do the same.