Better than dumping it into a multitude of failed social programs. Personally I'm glad that at least some of our tax money is being spent on something the founding fathers actually considered a role of government: providing for the national defense.
As absurd as it sounds, I believe you are correct. But I bet Microsoft wouldn't be as likely to go after everyday-joe-user with 1 lisence as it would be to go after K-Mart which likely has thousands of lisences.
The reasoning, if I have to explain it, is that it has much more $$$ to gain from getting K-Mart (or whoever now owns the internet unit) to buy new lisences.
Of course that doesn't make the practice itself any less questionable... Perhaps this will discourage other companies from investing in Microsoft products. It's amazing how Microsoft repeatedly persues actions that will eventually come back biting them in the ass.
"there's things seriously wrong with the cable company installing stuff on peoples computers (without asking)"
IANAL but I believe that signing that paper that the technician brought is legally all the consent they need to do whatever they want regarding their service. But will say it was not right of the technician to click through those EULAs like that.
And the funniest part of it is that today's headline is almost exactly the same as the one from the first time it was posted.
Then: "Lik-Sang Back Online, Minus Modchips"
Today: "Lik-Sang Back Online"
Here's a real math mystery
on
ECCp-109 Solved
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Can anyone here prove the theory first suggested by Beavis that "the angle of the dangle is inversely proportional to the heat of the beat"?
Re:New? Not. even ,it's really old.
on
Airborne Mouse
·
· Score: 5, Funny
"I've had a "flying mouse for over 4 years now."
I've got ya beat. I've had flying mice since I started playing Doom....of course the flights weren't all that long and they usually shattered upon impact.
Now that I think about it, I'd have to admit I've had a few flying keyboards too...
This is a VERY interesting question, as it has implications well beyond gaming, and I think the answers will expose an interesting hypocricy.
Now we all know that that cheating in online games is for the most part a Bad Thing (tm). We all remember the original Quake bots (my personal favorite was the StoogeBot) that required a certain measure of circumventing of built-in precautions. Generally when people were caught, they heard about it. Flames, kicks, bans, you name it.
Now we have issues of people using similar circumventions to get around copy protection instead of anti-cheating measures. I realize that this isn't exactly the same thing, but the two scenarios have a common theme: people using third-party software to use a product in a manner in which it was never intended.
What I find amusing is that generally (at least on Slashdot) the circumvention of copy protection is usually regarded as a Good Thing (tm), but becomes less desirable when it comes to games.
Could it be that third-party circumvention is a good thing as long as it doesn't negatively affect you?
"From a strict profit motivation, Napster made the record companies money, according to several independent studies. It is transparently obvious that the record companies did not shut down Napster because of money."
Considering that money is generally accepted as the primary motivation of an industry, I am interested in hearing what, then, WAS the motivation for shutting down Napster. If I were a good businessman, I certainly wouldn't shut down a proven source of profit, especially in an era of (supposed) ever-dwindling profit margins.
So either Hilary Rosen is a piss-poor busuiness leader (as some of the RIAA's other decisions could certainly suggest) or the independent studies you referred to aren't as accurate as they would like us to believe.
"The way to make that problem go away for good is to replace the greedy sharks with indie artists and small business studios."
And while we're at it, let's solve world hunger, cure cancer, and make people of all cultures and religions get along.
As long as we continue to demand the RIAA's product, they will always be around to provide the supply. And yes, copying a song from a P2P network still counts as demand.
"There is little evidence to suggest that Napster et al. were costing the record companies a lot in sales."
That wasn't the point I was making. My point is that these technologies simply have made it easier to aquire their product without paying for it.
"Want to know what the largest network is that distributes copyrighted music?"
That's true, but neither Napster nor any of the P2P software makers are paying royalties for the distribution of their product.
And I may be too young to remember, but I don't recall any music company suing a radio station over listeners who were recording songs from the airwaves.
Would this nearly as much of an issue without the likes of Napster and P2P contributing to the proliferation of illegal music distribution (whatever you want to call it, I'm talking about the illegal stuff)?
Outdated business models, infringements on fair use, and past claims about bootlegging aside (we've heard all of that already) there's a definite cause-and-effect relationship between the ease of file sharing/distribution and the xxAA's actions.
Ignoring the fact that people who have illegally acquired/distributed software have largely contributed to the problem we are now facing from the music/movie industries won't make that fact go away.
Princeton student Alex Halderman takes apart (bit by bit, literally) the "tricks on tracks" employed by the music industry to frustrate fair use."
...as if the music industry's actions has nothing whatsoever to do with frustrating music pirates.
Let's be fair here. We all know that recent copy protection schemes do in fact (at the very least) interfere with fair use, but we can't forget/deliberately ignore the underlying goal of the music industry for the sake of sensationalism, however faulty their methods are.
"I wish they'd spend this much time coming up with a real solution to the problem rather than trying to throw money at it."
You mention "audio piracy" and I'm assuming that's the "problem" you say the industry is supposed to solve, but then spend the rest of the post trivializing it.
Do you really think that audio piracy is a problem that you believe the music industry should solve? Or are you just trolling for karma?
"Not really sensical arguments, but when they start giving answers like that it's hard to get through."
With the exception of #2, those reasons are all very valid ones.
1. Paying double for broadband simply isn't an option for some people on a budget.
2. Granted, a bit uninformed...
3. I have switched e-mail addresses several times in the last year and I couldn't possibly know how many e-mails I have missed due to people still sending to my old accounts.
4. Like it or not, there are people who aren't comfortable with changing things from "the way it is now".
You have no grounds accusing people of being nonsensical just because YOU think their concerns are trivial.
I think the submitter is a little mistaken; as far as I know, only government sites MUST be compliant with the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act: Section 508).
I agree with the parent post which asserts that it would be crazy to force accessibility upon private owners. And for the reasons he gives and more, I believe that's why Section 508 does not apply to private websites.
Slashdot Mirror
Better than dumping it into a multitude of failed social programs. Personally I'm glad that at least some of our tax money is being spent on something the founding fathers actually considered a role of government: providing for the national defense.
WHAT THE FUCK!! I wrote this BEFORE the first post was even up, and I'm modded redundant?? Give me a fucking break you assholes!
The reasoning, if I have to explain it, is that it has much more $$$ to gain from getting K-Mart (or whoever now owns the internet unit) to buy new lisences.
Of course that doesn't make the practice itself any less questionable... Perhaps this will discourage other companies from investing in Microsoft products. It's amazing how Microsoft repeatedly persues actions that will eventually come back biting them in the ass.
Dammit ya beat me to it. I guess great minds DO think alike.
Already Slashdotted...
...I'm still kinda fond of the rigid kind that can stand up on their own.
"there's things seriously wrong with the cable company installing stuff on peoples computers (without asking)"
IANAL but I believe that signing that paper that the technician brought is legally all the consent they need to do whatever they want regarding their service. But will say it was not right of the technician to click through those EULAs like that.
It shouldn't be that hard, really. If there are anything in those EULAs you object to or don't feel comfortable with, cancel the service.
In that case, I hope your father didn't agree to some sort of contract.
And the funniest part of it is that today's headline is almost exactly the same as the one from the first time it was posted.
Then: "Lik-Sang Back Online, Minus Modchips"
Today: "Lik-Sang Back Online"
Can anyone here prove the theory first suggested by Beavis that "the angle of the dangle is inversely proportional to the heat of the beat"?
I've got ya beat. I've had flying mice since I started playing Doom. ...of course the flights weren't all that long and they usually shattered upon impact.
Now that I think about it, I'd have to admit I've had a few flying keyboards too...
I can already see the mammoth legal battle between Microsoft and Andersen over who has more right to market these (W/w)indows.
Now we all know that that cheating in online games is for the most part a Bad Thing (tm). We all remember the original Quake bots (my personal favorite was the StoogeBot) that required a certain measure of circumventing of built-in precautions. Generally when people were caught, they heard about it. Flames, kicks, bans, you name it.
Now we have issues of people using similar circumventions to get around copy protection instead of anti-cheating measures. I realize that this isn't exactly the same thing, but the two scenarios have a common theme: people using third-party software to use a product in a manner in which it was never intended.
What I find amusing is that generally (at least on Slashdot) the circumvention of copy protection is usually regarded as a Good Thing (tm), but becomes less desirable when it comes to games.
Could it be that third-party circumvention is a good thing as long as it doesn't negatively affect you?
The heat output and the likelihood of catastrophic destruction demonstrates an inverse relationship.
It's a shame he has to bring Libertarians into this mess... gives the rest of a bad name if you ask me.
Considering that money is generally accepted as the primary motivation of an industry, I am interested in hearing what, then, WAS the motivation for shutting down Napster. If I were a good businessman, I certainly wouldn't shut down a proven source of profit, especially in an era of (supposed) ever-dwindling profit margins.
So either Hilary Rosen is a piss-poor busuiness leader (as some of the RIAA's other decisions could certainly suggest) or the independent studies you referred to aren't as accurate as they would like us to believe.
And while we're at it, let's solve world hunger, cure cancer, and make people of all cultures and religions get along.
As long as we continue to demand the RIAA's product, they will always be around to provide the supply. And yes, copying a song from a P2P network still counts as demand.
That wasn't the point I was making. My point is that these technologies simply have made it easier to aquire their product without paying for it.
"Want to know what the largest network is that distributes copyrighted music?"
That's true, but neither Napster nor any of the P2P software makers are paying royalties for the distribution of their product.
And I may be too young to remember, but I don't recall any music company suing a radio station over listeners who were recording songs from the airwaves.
Would this nearly as much of an issue without the likes of Napster and P2P contributing to the proliferation of illegal music distribution (whatever you want to call it, I'm talking about the illegal stuff)?
Outdated business models, infringements on fair use, and past claims about bootlegging aside (we've heard all of that already) there's a definite cause-and-effect relationship between the ease of file sharing/distribution and the xxAA's actions.
Ignoring the fact that people who have illegally acquired/distributed software have largely contributed to the problem we are now facing from the music/movie industries won't make that fact go away.
...as if the music industry's actions has nothing whatsoever to do with frustrating music pirates.
Let's be fair here. We all know that recent copy protection schemes do in fact (at the very least) interfere with fair use, but we can't forget/deliberately ignore the underlying goal of the music industry for the sake of sensationalism, however faulty their methods are.
As seen on The Simpsons , all Bill Gates has to do is "buy him out".
You mention "audio piracy" and I'm assuming that's the "problem" you say the industry is supposed to solve, but then spend the rest of the post trivializing it.
Do you really think that audio piracy is a problem that you believe the music industry should solve? Or are you just trolling for karma?
With the exception of #2, those reasons are all very valid ones.
1. Paying double for broadband simply isn't an option for some people on a budget.
2. Granted, a bit uninformed...
3. I have switched e-mail addresses several times in the last year and I couldn't possibly know how many e-mails I have missed due to people still sending to my old accounts.
4. Like it or not, there are people who aren't comfortable with changing things from "the way it is now".
You have no grounds accusing people of being nonsensical just because YOU think their concerns are trivial.
I agree with the parent post which asserts that it would be crazy to force accessibility upon private owners. And for the reasons he gives and more, I believe that's why Section 508 does not apply to private websites.
"They even throw an unrelated jab at Microsoft" ...as if that somehow adds substance or credibility to the article.