"Prior to ICANN's October 3 directive to shut down the service, Site Finder had been used more than 48 million times by Internet users to get where they want to go online."
...as if they all chose to go to Site Finder instead of directly where they intended to go. I'm generally pro-business and pro-creativity, but this is a despicable exploitation of people making honest mistakes. IMHO, this should warrant a DOJ investigation.
Posting a Microsoft vulnerability AFTER they have released a patch? Either this news is really old, or you people who say that Microsoft doesn't react quickly to vulnerabilities are full of shit.
...are for rank ameteurs, and there's no two ways about it! They are unelegant and clumsy languages that are only used by unsophisticated, lazy, self-titled "developers" who don't understand Unix as well as they would have us or their employers believe.
There is nothing, and i do mean NOTHING that a real Unix professional can do with Python or Perl that he or she can't do with awk, sed, and grep.
Any argument to the contrary would not only expose your own inadequacies as a Unix programmer, but would also perpetuate the myth that, as Microsoft also argues, bloated, "feature-rich" languages are ideal for business application. I submit that such an argument would be itself an attack on the very concept of open source software.
The only barrier to me running Linux on my home computer is that Linux has no native support for serial-ATA hard drives. As such, of course, I am unable to install Linux.
...that the submitter of this question isn't being entirely honest; or perhaps his wife wasn't.
I would be willing to bet that the little detail omitted is that she actually did sign the contract before noticing the fine print and tossing it in the trash. It's sad that the people would sink so low as to fish it out, but that would be entirely legal if it did in fact have her signature on it.
At least I'd believe that over a credit card marketing company risking MAJOR lawsuit (forgery, fraud).
"I was of the mind (even before today) that ever-increasing broadband speeds and takeup were going to kill emusic, not necessarily a P2P mindset."
Hadn't thought of that particular take, but it makes sense. As more people leave dialup for broadband, and subscribers are able to download more each month, the bandwidth required to maintain the same level of service is bound to increase and cost E-music more.
Not that that refutes my argument. I would say the combination of increased bandwidth requirements, extensive P2P networks, and people that don't want to pay for music doesn't bode well for ideas like E-music.
First you said that iTunes' $.99 per download was unreasonable, and now you're saying that $.25 per download is unreasonable. What is it you want? How cheap is cheap enough? Should these musicians (indie or otherwise) be allowed to make ANY money from their work at all??
Really folks, I can't figure some of you out. People who are cancelling their subscriptions over this are being unreasonable.
Of course, E-music has bills to pay, and it really sucks when your target market prefers to use free, unlimited P2P networks. I'd say this is another great idea that was destroyed by P2P filesharing.
We all know that it's popular to welcome any misfortune that befalls Microsoft, but would you still be behind Eolas if they'd gone after Netscape (or any other browser maker) instead?
I'd be willing to make a considerable wager that Slashdotters would be singing a very different tune.
Eolas went exclusively after Microsoft because they have the deepest pockets, and believe you me, if the other browser makers had dough, they'd have been strung up right next to Microsoft. Eolas is the enemy here, not Microsoft.
WTF does this have to do with "security through obscurity" (a bullshit cliche')?? How do you propose that opening the source will make the game more secure and less able to be illegally copied?
Or were you just itching to say "security through obscurity"?
That's not the point. The point is that these software patents are now being enforced in court. And next time a company want's to make a grab for money with a similar patent, it might not be such an insignificant feature that is affected.
I for one am glad that Microsoft didn't give them what they were looking for (purchase or lease of the patent), and I am also glad that all Eolas got out of this was a huge bill from their lawyers. Maybe this will discourage others from trying similar money-grabbing legal ventures.
You're ignoring (probably intentionally) the awful precident this sets in regards to the enforcement of (ridiculous) software patents. Let's recognize what is truly the greater evil here.
"The servers are updated with fairly current Windows patches, so this is not necessarily an easy task."
How dare he suggest that hax0ring and crax0ring a Windows box is a challenging feat! This guy aughtta be strung up by his nuts and beat with the Windows-Sux-Stick for uttering such blasphemy!
If the music industry wanted their music to be available to the public at a library, they would sell CD's to the Library (and I think this is actually quite common; afterall I see movies there all the time).
Just because they aren't taking advantage of the Internet as a delivery mechanism for their product doesn't give you the right to simply take it.
It's their stupidity for NOT persuing that kind of distribution system, but intil they do, you have to abide by the terms they set on their product.
Here's an alternative; DON'T LISTEN TO/WATCH THEIR SHIT! You don't NEED to hear that song or watch that movie! "But I want it!" isn't a grown-up response to something that's out of your reach.
If it was that bad, why did you want to watch it at all? Is that some sort of moral reasoning that somehow justifies your not paying to view it? Do you sleep better thinking "Well, I didn't pay to watch that movie, but it's OK because it sucked!"?
If you think the movie is going to be bad, DON'T WATCH IT! If the movie, no matter how bad you heard it was, piques your interest, shell out a few $$ and rent it.
No matter how much you try to rationalize it, the bottom line is that if you download a movie instead of paying for it, you are just cheap.
That's very different from someone physically trying to hack your box to get an e-mail through. The example you provided is easy to filter out as well.
And people can deal with 1 or 2 spams getting through every day; hell we tolerate fliers in our mailboxes. But the majority of spam is easy avoid/filter with a little effort; enough that we don't need to call our government masters in to protect us.
"Would you make it a criminal offense to pick the lock?"
Yes, and I would also make it an offense for a spammer to actively try to break/circumvent a filter and forcably cram their junk into people's mailbox, but that isn't happening; that's not how spam works.
"BUt as long as they try and gouge us for their crap, we'll gouge right back and take what's ours.
I cordially invite you to shut your pie-hole. It's crap like that that makes the rest of us look like irrational frothing anti-capitalist lunatics, and invites the likes of the RIAA/MPAA to treat us as such.
"By this logic, there should be no laws against people literally dropping trou, backing up into position, and dumping crap into other people's mailboxes. The owner can just hose it out, after all."
Not an accurate comparison. My suggestion, in the context of your analogy, would be to allow people to put a combination lock on their mailboxes if mailbox-shitting became a problem (and it's not).
Re:Don't flame the devs
on
Mplayer Revisited
·
· Score: 2, Informative
"Its not the devs' job to make shiny installation druids that you can click through."
If they want their software to gain popularity and more widespread usage, they will.
Slashdot Mirror
been used more than 48 million times by Internet users to get where they want to go online."
...as if they all chose to go to Site Finder instead of directly where they intended to go. I'm generally pro-business and pro-creativity, but this is a despicable exploitation of people making honest mistakes. IMHO, this should warrant a DOJ investigation.
Posting a Microsoft vulnerability AFTER they have released a patch? Either this news is really old, or you people who say that Microsoft doesn't react quickly to vulnerabilities are full of shit.
...are for rank ameteurs, and there's no two ways about it! They are unelegant and clumsy languages that are only used by unsophisticated, lazy, self-titled "developers" who don't understand Unix as well as they would have us or their employers believe.
There is nothing, and i do mean NOTHING that a real Unix professional can do with Python or Perl that he or she can't do with awk, sed, and grep.
Any argument to the contrary would not only expose your own inadequacies as a Unix programmer, but would also perpetuate the myth that, as Microsoft also argues, bloated, "feature-rich" languages are ideal for business application. I submit that such an argument would be itself an attack on the very concept of open source software.
Zealots always prefer to ignore/silence an opposing opinion over understanding/refuting it. And there's no shortage of that here on Slashdot!
PLEASE include native support for SATA!!
I would be willing to bet that the little detail omitted is that she actually did sign the contract before noticing the fine print and tossing it in the trash. It's sad that the people would sink so low as to fish it out, but that would be entirely legal if it did in fact have her signature on it.
At least I'd believe that over a credit card marketing company risking MAJOR lawsuit (forgery, fraud).
Hadn't thought of that particular take, but it makes sense. As more people leave dialup for broadband, and subscribers are able to download more each month, the bandwidth required to maintain the same level of service is bound to increase and cost E-music more.
Not that that refutes my argument. I would say the combination of increased bandwidth requirements, extensive P2P networks, and people that don't want to pay for music doesn't bode well for ideas like E-music.
Really folks, I can't figure some of you out. People who are cancelling their subscriptions over this are being unreasonable.
Of course, E-music has bills to pay, and it really sucks when your target market prefers to use free, unlimited P2P networks. I'd say this is another great idea that was destroyed by P2P filesharing.
I'd be willing to make a considerable wager that Slashdotters would be singing a very different tune.
Eolas went exclusively after Microsoft because they have the deepest pockets, and believe you me, if the other browser makers had dough, they'd have been strung up right next to Microsoft. Eolas is the enemy here, not Microsoft.
Or were you just itching to say "security through obscurity"?
I for one am glad that Microsoft didn't give them what they were looking for (purchase or lease of the patent), and I am also glad that all Eolas got out of this was a huge bill from their lawyers. Maybe this will discourage others from trying similar money-grabbing legal ventures.
You're ignoring (probably intentionally) the awful precident this sets in regards to the enforcement of (ridiculous) software patents. Let's recognize what is truly the greater evil here.
How dare he suggest that hax0ring and crax0ring a Windows box is a challenging feat! This guy aughtta be strung up by his nuts and beat with the Windows-Sux-Stick for uttering such blasphemy!
Just because they aren't taking advantage of the Internet as a delivery mechanism for their product doesn't give you the right to simply take it.
It's their stupidity for NOT persuing that kind of distribution system, but intil they do, you have to abide by the terms they set on their product.
Here's an alternative; DON'T LISTEN TO/WATCH THEIR SHIT! You don't NEED to hear that song or watch that movie! "But I want it!" isn't a grown-up response to something that's out of your reach.
If you think the movie is going to be bad, DON'T WATCH IT! If the movie, no matter how bad you heard it was, piques your interest, shell out a few $$ and rent it.
No matter how much you try to rationalize it, the bottom line is that if you download a movie instead of paying for it, you are just cheap.
Looks more like an advertisement to me.
That depends on what your definition of "Is" is.
For the less mathmatically-inclined, how long is that in football fields?
...not that there's anything wrong with that!
And people can deal with 1 or 2 spams getting through every day; hell we tolerate fliers in our mailboxes. But the majority of spam is easy avoid/filter with a little effort; enough that we don't need to call our government masters in to protect us.
Yes, and I would also make it an offense for a spammer to actively try to break/circumvent a filter and forcably cram their junk into people's mailbox, but that isn't happening; that's not how spam works.
I cordially invite you to shut your pie-hole. It's crap like that that makes the rest of us look like irrational frothing anti-capitalist lunatics, and invites the likes of the RIAA/MPAA to treat us as such.
Not an accurate comparison. My suggestion, in the context of your analogy, would be to allow people to put a combination lock on their mailboxes if mailbox-shitting became a problem (and it's not).
If they want their software to gain popularity and more widespread usage, they will.